1024 
I said earlier that I thought Interior, Commerce, and the Founda- 
tion could logically serve as Federal areas of strength in their respon- 
sible categories of marine science. 
I seem to remember that in 1965 ESSA was just getting underway, 
and since then I think ESSA has demonstrated a capability which at 
this time I would say I would not disturb by removing it from 
Commerce. 
Mr. Lennon. You say, “The Panel does not make any recommenda- 
tion as to whether the new agency should be independent or part of 
an existing agency,” then in the very next line, “With the creation 
of a new agency . . .” And then you go on and talk about the advan- 
tages of a new agency. 
You say you make no recommendation, but you point out the advan- 
tages of a new agency. 
Dr. McEiroy. I think the new agency in our mind was a renaming 
and redefining of the responsibilities of Interior at that time. 
Also, you must admit that in the Commission’s report the National 
Science Foundation’s role in this program is greatly affected, and the 
PSAC Panel did not recommend that it be disturbed. The Commis- 
sion report removes from the Foundation the Antarctic program ; 
NCAR; institutional support for our big oceanographic institutions, 
that is well established and ongoing; and the national sea ‘grant pro- 
gram, that is flourishing and that is moving ahead. 
Mr. Lennon. I gather from your statement that what you are 
recommending is that the agencies that are recommended to go into 
the new NOAA Government structure now be put into the Depart- 
ment of the Interior, with a separate agency or bureau within the 
Department of the Interior. 
Dr. McExroy. I say in the Department of the Interior, except now 
I will back off and not say what we said earlier with regard to ESSA. 
J think ESSA has a unique responsibility of its own. 
Mr. Lennon. Did it have the unique responsibility when you signed 
this report? 
Dr. McEtroy. ESSA was only about a year and a half or 2 years 
old at that time, sir. 
Mr. Mosner. May I interrupt? 
Mr. Lennon. Yes, sir. We will get a dialogue here which will get 
what we all are trying to seek to do. 
Dr. McEnroy. I understand. 
Mr. Mosner. I am interested in the 1966 recommendation. I read it 
at that time, but I had forgotten it in this detail. 
Do I sense that even then you figured, and this report figured, a 
separation of the research and development function 
Dr. McE troy. Yes, sir. : 
Mr. Mosuer (continuing). From the other operational functions? Is 
that your memory of the 1966 recommendations? 
Dr. McEtroy. Yes, sir. That is correct. 
Mr. Mosner. And that is the emphasis, the basic emphasis so far as 
organization is concerned in your testimony today ? 
Dr. McEtroy. That is correct. 
Mr. Mosrmr. That there should be a separation of the science and 
research functions and that they should remain in the National Science 
Foundation ? 
