100 OCEAN SCIENCES AND NATIONAL SECURITY 



It will engage in coordinated budget ])lanning for fiscal year 1962. Of primary 

 concern to the Committee is the development of a program which provides for 

 reasonable increase in our national capability when faced with the critical limita- 

 tions on scientific manpower, fundn, and leadtime for the construction of ships 

 and shore facilities. 



(1)) The Interagency Committee does not directly control funds nor exercise 

 direct line responsiV)ility over individual oceanographic projects. Each member 

 of the Interagency Committee holds a position of policy and budget responsibility 

 within his parent agency. The agency representatives were selected at this level 

 to permit them to be able to commit their agencies in the coordination of the 

 national program. 



(c) The Interagency Committee has not to date planned a Government-wide project 

 or program. [Emphasis added.] However, the Committee has established two 

 working panels for specific purnoses. The function of one panel is to plan and 

 (•ot)rdinate our ocean survej' program. A second panel has the responsibility for 

 working out details for planning and the policies for joint operation of a national 

 data center. Additional panels are being considered — one for training and edu- 

 cation, one for basic research, and possibly one for special devices and instru- 

 mentation. 



(d) The development of the fiscal year 1961 budget required that the Inter- 

 agency Committee review the individual programs and needs for funds of the 

 principal Government agencies concerned with oceanograph3^ The total funding 

 requirements were presented to and endorsed by the Federal Council for Science 

 and Technology concurrently with their submission in the President's budget. 

 In the short time it has been established, the Committee hr s not had to consider 

 coordination among the agencies of the use of facilities. In the development of 

 the budget for fiscal year 1962, each agency's program and the national program 

 as a whole will be reviewed critically by the Committee for balance and technical 

 validity. The Committee expects to seek endorsement of this consolidated piogram 

 and budget f I om the Federal Council for Science and Technology and approval from 

 the President before piesenting it to Congress in the form nf a pacha'je containing the 

 complete national program in oceanography.'''^ [Emphasis adided.] 



It is perhaps significant that the field of oceanography is one of the 

 very few singled out by the FCST for special emphasis and coordina- 

 tion. This response certainly reflects the importance that the execu- 

 tive branch attributes to the urgency. In part, it reflects a reaction 

 to the special attention directed toward the matter of coordination by 

 the Senate in its resolution 136, and the various pendmg bills. 



The index of effectiveness of the ICO in coordinating interagency 

 affairs must be actual accomplishment, but since this committee has 

 been in existence only one year, it is certainly too soon for evaluation. 

 That this committee has vitality appears widely recognized and 

 applauded; and to a great extent, credit for its activities has been 

 focused on the present chairman, James T. Wakelin. The fact that 

 the present incambent wears another hat as Assistant Secretary of 

 the Navy for Research and Development puts him personally in a 

 direct position to implement decisions as they may affect Navy budget 

 requests. 



A number of significant questions have been raised in Congressional 

 hearings as to the ultimate statm-e and effectiveness of the ICO and its 

 permanence as a medium of coordination. The ICO exists as an 

 adjunct to the FCST, itself established as an advisory body to the 

 President and without statutory basis. Its continuity may thus be 

 jeopardized by the political winds which influence such bodies and 

 their appointed members. 



Alternate proposals by the Congress, by NASCO and by others for 

 coordination are discussed subsequently. Suffice it to say, however, 

 that agreement on the need for coordination is universal; differences 

 of opinion develop only on methodology. 



" "Frontiers In Oceanic Research," op. clt., pp. 65-66. 



