1,66 



I notice in your statement on the last two lines of page 1 and the 

 first three lines of page 2 that you say "Many people now holding high 

 office in Government or industry cannot remember when the economics 

 of a depression, not defense or space, was the primary object of our 

 concern and of our scientific, technological and administrative efforts." 



That is certainly true as I look about me and see that new generation 

 in the executive branch of the Grovernment and in the legislative, and 

 I won't say as to the judicial yet but maybe that time will come. There 

 are so few people here in Government who felt the brunt of the depres- 

 sion and the economics of it and at that time we were more concerned 

 with that than with either defense or space. 



That was the primary object o'f our concern and our administrative 

 efforts. All that has changed. 



One of our witnesses a few days ago emphasized the creation of 

 NACO and to a degree withheld his total support of the Government 

 Federal structure indicated by ISFOAA. 



I think counsel at that time, as I recall it, raised the question with 

 that witness, if by any chance the committee should become stymied 

 in its efforts to bring out a governmental structure comparable to that 

 recommended by the Commission, was it the judgment of the witness 

 that we ought to move in the direction of the advisory committee on 

 the oceans known as NAOO or are they so interlocked or interdepend- 

 ent that you couldn't have one without the other. 



I would appreciate your comment on that. Admiral Stephan. 



Admiral Stephan. Well, the optimum I think, is to get both ISTOAA 

 and NACO at the same time. I think you can argue that you would 

 have a stronger NACO if you had NOAA at the same time. But, 

 realizing the problems of an NOAA, I would certainly like to see 

 ISTACO started as soon as possible. I don't think it will be perfect when 

 it is started as I think we have an awful lot to learn in the area of State 

 coordination. In order to keep the momentum that this Commission's 

 report has started, I think any one of the three organizational steps 

 that can be taken should be taken rather than to wait until you had 

 perfection. I think such a wait would put off any action too long and 

 we lose the momentum furnished by the Commission report. 



I think congressional reorganization, establishment of the advisory 

 committee or NOAA, any one that you can proceed with, should go 

 ahead and it would be better to fit them together later than to just do 

 nothing until you get ever3i;hing. 



Mr. Lennon. I take it, sir, from what I have heard you say, that you 

 are implying at least that if there was established a National Oceanog- 

 raphy Atmospheric Agency or a ISTOAA as it has been described, that 

 it could not reach its ultimate without the advisory commission. 



Admiral Stephan. That is right. 



Mr. Lennoist. On the other side, I think you are saying too, as I in- 

 terpret your statement, that if NOAA was brought into being, that it 

 would be like the night following the day to bring forward and to 

 establish your Commission. Now, without NOAA, would you articu- 

 late with respect to what could be accomplished with simply the crea- 

 tion of the Commission? 



Admiral Stephan. I think if you established a commission you 

 w^ould first of all start bringing a number of the State representatives 

 in. I work a good part of the time up on Long Island in connection 

 with their problems of pollution control. I find it very difficult in the 



