294 



1 have had an opportunity to look at your statements and have 

 been impressed with your feelings and think your viewpoint has been 

 most helpful to the committee. 



Dr. Calhoun, I notice that while you give some viewpoints, you 

 make the statement, "In no way should our remarks be attributed to 

 the l\"ational Academy of Sciences," but you are on a committee of 

 the National Academy of Sciences, are you not? 



Dr. Calhoun. Yes. 



Mr. KoGEKS. But you don't want your viewpoint to be associated in 

 any way with the Academy ? 



Dr. Calhoun. We don't speak, in this sense, for the Academy and 

 there is a limited area in which we can speak for the Committee on 

 Oceanography — that where we have a consensus of opinion. The things 

 that we did agree on we have tried to state in the letter to Mr, Lennon. 



Mr. Rogers. In the three points. 



Di . Calhoun. That is right. My prepared statement is my best in- 

 terpretation of how I think the committee might feel. And, as you have 

 heard from these gentlemen, we do have a general agreement about 

 the matter, but we speak really as individual scientists who have come 

 together with common purpose. Our majority opinions and considered 

 viewpoints generally show up in our reports and these are on record. 



Mr. EoGERS. I see. Thank you so much. It has been very helpful. 



Mr. Lennon. Doctor, I believe you sum up the position of NASCO 

 relating to the governmental structure in these words which are found 

 beginning on line 8 on page 12 : "However, we should be more con- 

 cerned with what needs to be done than with whether an existing 

 agency should be maintained intact." 



Is that the philosophy of the NASCO ? 



Dr. Calhoun. That is certainly one way to summarize it. 



Mr. Lennon. Did you summarize it that way ? 



Dr. Calhoun. It takes my whole statement really to summarize and 

 taking one sentence out of context sometimes can get you in trouble, 

 but I would say that is one way of summarizing it. We might offer 

 a few guidelines. When it comes to an existing agency, one has to ask 

 whether the mission of that agency can be carried out if you don't give 

 it access to the ocean. And, just because it is doing some ocean-related 

 work doesn't necessarily mean that you ought to take the agency and 

 plunk it into a new organization. You have to ask yourself why is it 

 doing ocean work. 



Mr. Lennon. Take the agency Coast Guard with its mission of 

 search and rescue. 



Dr. Calhoun. The Coast Guard happens to be an agency which is 

 oriented almost completely to the ocean. Let's take the Geological 

 Survey, for instance. 



Mr. Lennon. Let's hold right where we were. You concede then 

 that the Coast Guard in its missions and roles is oriented almost en- 

 tirely to the oceanic environment ? 



Dr. Calhoun. Yes, sir. I think that is a fair statement. 



Mr. Lennon. Should that agency be placed in the new proposed 

 Federal agency as recommended by the Commission report? 



Dr. Calhoun. Well, Mr. Chairman, the decision as to what agencies 

 ought to be in the new structure 



Mr. Lennon. I am not asking for a decision. I am asking your judg- 

 ment and opinion. 



