S57 
appropriations for programs that would subsequently be reallocated 
to the operating agencies and devoted to priorities developed by the 
President and the Council. 
A second possibility would be to continue the Council as a planning 
and innovative body, utilize the device of “lead agency assignments.” 
Here programs involving several agencies would be coordinated by 
a designated lead agency who would provide the leadership and statf 
necessary to assure that the individual agency resources are mobilized 
to meet Government-wide goals. This imposes an obligation on the 
lead agency to strengthen its own program management accordingly 
and be prepared to devise the Government-wide program both within 
the Government and to the Congress. In my view, such an arrange- 
ment would not provide for the high-level of attention to the oceans 
that would be afforded by an independent agency such as NOAA that 
would offer visibility to a whole spectrum of marine activities, that 
is the marine component in a lead agency would necessarily still be 
subordinate to that agency’s total mission of which the marine 
component is but a small part. 
The establishment of a Department of Resources and Environment 
with a strong marine component could be a viable alternative to 
NOAA, but such a development would necessarily require far more 
extensive reorganization than proposed by the Commission and would 
encounter more severe opposition and delay. The Commission noted 
that a NOAA could be brought into such a, broader structure at a later 
date without prejudice either to the effectiveness of NOAA or to a 
new parent Department. In fact, this might be one way of assuring 
that the marine component derive the strength the Commission sought. 
I think the Commission itself must have considered these alterna- 
tives and rejected them. 
Mr. Lennon. You say they did? 
Dr. Wenx. I feel they must have. 
Mr. Lennon. That is my understanding. 
Dr. Wrenx. But the deliberations are not reflected in their report 
and this therefore leaves those who have decisions to make—and I am 
now speaking for the executive branch—with the need themselves for 
reciting these alternatives and evaluating the pros and cons of each. 
The ones that I recite here are all well known alternatives and I 
don’t mean to suggest a single one as original. 
Mr. Lennon, While you establish independent committees on this 
Council—and_ rightly so—did there constantly go on a dialog be- 
tween members of the Council, particularly you and Sam Lawrence, 
the Executive Secretary of the Commission and Dr. Stratton and 
other members of the Commission in which you raised these questions, 
and do other members of your staff raise these questions about what 
are the other alternatives and why did you reject these alternatives ? 
Certainly you all were not too far apart physically located, were 
you? 
Dr. Wenx. You are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, and this did 
happen. As a matter of fact, last September almost exactly 1 year ago,. 
I convened a group of senior officials of the executive branch for 
1 week away from Washington so as to be free of distraction, and 
asked them to provide at Chairman Stratton’s request an interim com- 
mentary to the Commission on their preliminary recommendations, 
