388 OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES 



Mr. McKernan. Within these particular limitations we devise the 

 very best program possible. 



Mr. Drewrt. Your program is controlled by your departmental 

 budget rather than by your scientific understanding of what should be 

 done in order to gain the maximum amount of knowledge with the 

 greatest efficiency? 



Mr. McKernax. I have misled you a little bit, because we certainly 

 have am])le opportunity to attempt to alter any departmental ceilings 

 that are imposed in any kind of matter and we have a chance to argue 

 for higher budgets and for new programs during these various years 

 that I have had this responsibility. So that we have opportunity to 

 argue our point before departmental officials who make these deci- 

 sions. 



Mr. Olr^er. Will counsel yield ? 



Mr. Drewry. Yes. 



Mr. Oliver. Did you argue for more funds for oceanographic re- 

 search for 1960? 



Mr. McKernan. Yes; I have generally argued for increases of 

 various things and oceanography has been one of the programs I have 

 pushed fairly heavily. By the way, I have obtained a great deal of 

 sympathy and interest within departmental officials from the Secre- 

 tary right on down in the Department of the Interior. 



Mr. Oliver. But did you get more dollars ? 



Mr. McKernan. We obtained some more dollars, not a great deal 

 more, not perhaps as much as some of us bureaucrats would like to 

 have, you know. 



Mr. Miller. If counsel will yield, it is similar to the case of the 

 enthusiastic salesman wlio reported to his sales manager that he had 

 had a great solicitation but not sales. I have been in your position 

 witli a smaller agency. I know you speak a lot of words but, frankly, 

 as Omar Khayyam said, "I came out of the same door wherein I 

 went" — unfortunately. 



Mr. Drewry. My point is just this: I do not see any conflict be- 

 tween stating the goal even though, to boiTow a phrase, it far exceeds 

 your grasp — the grasp being the amount of money you can get — but 

 too often we hear testimony of what the forward program is and the 

 program seems to be limited by the budget rather than the broader 

 goals of the agency. In this case the overall 10-year program recom- 

 mended by the Academy. 



As an example, I think we can bring up something we talked about 

 before, which is that we do not need fishery research vessels because 

 we have to get caught up in our paperwork, speaking of the case of 

 the Albatross. It is disturbing to think of the budget controlling the 

 program. 



Mr. McKernan. We never said we did not need research vessels in 

 New England and we never said that we would not like to have right 

 at the moment a good research vessel in New England. I think we 

 have been over that several times before. Our position Avith respect 

 to the Albatross is that it is an inefficient research vessel and that 

 we were better advised to spend our money in analyzing the rese<arch 

 that had been collected ratlier than spending an increasingly greater 

 amount to keep this vessel at sea. 



Mr. Drewry. I will stand corrected and not go into the Albatross 

 any more. 



