399 



election, but not in this country. In other words, you could not have a 

 Commission with executive authority that was composed of people at 

 the private level. 



Do you see what I am talking about ? 



Mr. Clark. Yos, sir. I welcome your questions in this area. 



Mr. Lennon. Under the recommendation of the Commission's re- 

 port, the members of NACO would l^e appointed by the President and 

 confirmed by the Senate, but they would be a presidentially appointed 

 Commission, but they would be authorized to advise and counsel with 

 NOAA and to represent all of the spectrums of private industry that 

 you have enumerated in lines 15 and 16 on page 2. 



Now, I can see that if this committee ever comes to the conclusion 

 that it cannot move in the direction all the way with the establishment 

 of a governmental agency such as NOAA that it certainly would be 

 practical, in my judgment, for us to go ahead and insist upon enact- 

 ment into law of the recommendations related to the establishment of 

 the National Advisory Committee on the Oceans and let the President 

 appoint that committee. Hopefully to go back and pick up at least 

 several of those people who served so splendidly on the Commission 

 that was appointed by the previous President because it was a non- 

 partisan group, as could possibly have been appointed. 



What is your objection or do you see any objection why we can't do 

 both simultaneously even in the same draft legislation ? Provide just 

 as we did under the other bill, we established a National Council and 

 we also established the authority of the President and mandated liim to 

 appoint the Commission. 



IVliy can't we, in the same piece of legislation, establish the Advisory 

 Committee on the Oceans that you have recommended, and in the same 

 legislation establish NOAA and bring in the basic groups from the 

 several agencies that are related to oceanography ? Then when we move 

 on the National Advisory Committee on the Oceans they will be re- 

 quired to make their recommendations to the Congress and to the Presi- 

 dent on an annual basis under the recommendations of the Commission, 

 as to whether or not we should keep in NOAA those agencies that we 

 put in there originally. Wliether we should take some out or whether 

 we should bring some others in could be decided then. 



What is your basic feeling about that recommendation, that 

 thinking ? 



Mr. Clark. Well, sir, perhaps someone coming from industry should 

 not consider the political problems that may be faced and should 

 present his views on an ideally efficient and effective systematic ap- 

 proach. Perhaps I was addressing myself to some of the political prob- 

 lems that obviously arise when recommendations are being made to 

 transfer agencies from one department to a new agency, let us say. 



I have no objections, I would like to emphasize, to the establishment 

 of NOAA with the transfer of the various functions basically as pro- 

 posed by the Commission at the same time as NACO, the advisory com- 

 mittee, is appointed. 



I would have objections if there were going to be an unusual delay 

 in doing anyihing because we were getting politically bogged down 

 due to this interdepartmental question as to what was going into NOAA 

 and what was not, so that nothing happened. 



