888 
We would rather be in agreement. I have a lot of faith in this Com- 
mission. I am sure that the Commission considered these alternatives 
even though they didn’t go into this Commission report. If they did, © 
we couldn’t have got it into this room, if it contained the exploration 
of the alternatives printed in the report. 
T have absolute faith that they did explore the suggested alternatives 
in every one of these areas that have been enumerated in your statement 
and in Dr. Wenk’s statement. Unless you folks can come up with some- 
thing a little more than wait-see. We just can’t wait-see. We have 
been waiting for 10 years in this field, and we did what we did 21% years 
ago, almost three now, in creating a commission and council and we 
didn’t get the administration support for that, but we just hammered 
it out and got it in there and it has been a great thing, particularly the 
Council, and I think the Commission too. 
If we wait until next year, as suggested by the Ash Committee or 
Commission, we are just going through this thing again. I am not 
lecturing. I am just talking to you because we are all interested in this 
thing. You take the change in the attitude over in the Department of 
the Interior since this Commission report came out. They are moving. 
I know why they are moving. Because they have sent a number of 
their distinguished folks to see me. They want not only to keep what 
they have, but they want some of these other things like maybe even 
the Coast Guard. So I understand that. 
Wouldn't it be helpful if the agencies that are involved in this thing 
would sit down at a high level and hammer out something and come up 
here and say, “That is what we want to do.” I have a lot of questions 
here that I wanted to ask you and counsel has some questions at this 
time. I may come back to mine if we have time. Counsel. 
Mr. Crrnean. I have one or two questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you. 
Mr. Secretary, if I understand the general thrust of your testimony 
today, it is that science and technology should be separated from opera- 
tions. In Mr. Volpe’s letter of March 10 to the Vice President he 
also expressed the fear that science and technology would be merged 
into the operating functions. 
I would like to ask you to comment if you would upon what has 
happened within the Department of Transportation, to the national 
data buoy project? Has that been somehow submerged by operating 
demands over the last couple of years? 
Mr. Brces. That is not my understanding. This was first proposed 
as a program about 2 years ago. In the assignment of priorities there 
were no appropriations made to that program. It has been proposed 
again, at a low,level to be sure, in the 1970 budget. IT have devoted a 
great deal of attention to the national buoy data program myself 
and we are seeking ways to get a little more money into the program, 
because that is what it needs. 
It needs some financial resources in order to get it to ‘a point where 
we can actively talk about an operating system. 
Mr. Crrncan. That is exactly the point that I wanted you to make, 
Mr. Secretary. Here we had a project in which the Coast Guard is not 
only designated as lead agency by the National Council, which suggests 
its importance, but it has been named as a national project, one of very 
few. After considerable study it was named, designated a national 
