426 



Mr. Lennon. Any other questions ? 



Mr. Clark. Thank you very much, sir. 



Could I just make one further comment about a point that you 

 raised regarding the NACO and NOAA being independent of each 

 other and on the same level ? 



The point that I perhaps was taking exception to in the Commis- 

 sion's report was the proposed dependence of the committee on NOAA, 

 the staff and certain administrative functions. It might be better to 

 have the committee stand on its own and not be dependent. 



Mr. Lennox. You are saying that the committee ought to be inde- 

 pendent in the sense that it have its own staff' funded by the Federal 

 Government ? 



Mr. Claek. Right. 



Mr. Lennon. Just as the National Commission which brought this 

 report had a budget under which it had its own staff. 



Mr. Clark. Yes. 



Mr. Lennon. Although they occasionally borrowed from the staff 

 of the National Science Council. 



I certainly agree with you. 



Mr. Clark. And I think that this is, perhaps, an important point of 

 deviation from the Commission's report insofar as I would like to 

 testify here before you. 



Mr, Lennon. That is a point we can clear up. 



I agree with you, it should not be dependent on the staff of NOAA. 

 It should have an independent staff so that they can make independent 

 determination and judgment and recommend without influence from 

 any Government agency. 



Mr. Clark. Yes. 



Mr. Lennon. Mr. Counsel. 



Mr. Drewry. Mr. Chairman, tliere was mention of the amounts of 

 money involved in, I believe you mentioned the figure, in the oil indus- 

 try last year 



Mr. Lennon. You can correct that figure because I have taken it 

 off the top of my head. 



Mr. Drewry. The table appears on page 123 of the Commission's 

 report and shows that for 1968 the estimate of domestic offshore ex- 

 penditures for private industry was $2,350 million, and the cumula- 

 tive amount through 1968, which I suppose goes back to the time when 

 the leasing first began, was $1'2,Y50 million. 



Mr. Chairman, I think it might be appropriate to insert this table 

 in the record at this point. 



Mr. Lennon. I think it is appropriate in light of the very inquisitive 

 question made by tlie gentleman from New York related to the rejec- 

 tion of such a program in light of our problems in our cities. 



I think the basic difference between the space program is that so far 

 we have not perceived, have not yet realized, any financial reward to 

 the Federal Government as we have with funds spent in the other 

 areas. Every nickel which has been spent has been spent by the Federal 

 Government for which we have had no return except for employment 

 in these various companies which are building hardware for the pro- 

 grams, which means a great deal to our country. 



Here we have the potential of actually bringing wealth to the Fed- 

 eral Government from the oceans and seas of the world. I do think 



