EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 27 



Secondly, we have made direct representations to Mr. James Reed 

 and to Mr. Dillon expressing onr interest and our concern about en- 

 larging the Coast Guard's functions in their ocean station vessels by 

 adding adequate instrumentation lor performing oceanographic data 

 acquisition when it is possible for them to do so; and they have been 

 quite enthusiastic in their answers to us. They are anxious to get 

 going in this program, and I think that is quite encouraging. 



Mr. Drewry. Well, that is my basic point, Mr. Wakelin, you feel 

 that the ICO, or the Federal Council, acting on the recommendation 

 of ICO, is in a position to take an aggressive part not only in going 

 along within the commitments of the agencies themselves, but aggres- 

 sively urging the agencies to expand where expansion may be 

 necessary? 



The Coast Survey would broaden their jurisdiction, and one of the 

 emphatic things brought out in our hearings in the past 3 years has 

 been that before you can get down to some of the more detailed and 

 refined and sophisticated needs that there is just the plain, old drudgery 

 of getting surveys done. 



Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Drewry. And the broadening of jurisdiction of the Coast 

 Survey would allow it to work with the Hydrographic Office. 



Mr. Wakelin. Yes. 



Mr. Drewry. Now the Coast Survey in the past has been sort of 

 an orphan in the Department of Commerce, and would your agencies 

 or would the Federal Council go right to the cabinet head and say, 

 "Look, you are involved in this oceanographic program through the 

 Coast Survey. Now they need to be souped up in order to carry the 

 program forward"? 



Mr. Wakelin. Yes; this communication works both through 

 the ICO and through the Federal Council, to the secretarial levels of 

 the various departments. This is actually what has happened in the 

 review of the Coast Guard's proposed budget for 1963. 



Mr. Drewry. I think this involves the thing that was behind our 

 proposed bill, where we develop it, that by having a statutory basis 

 for an oceanographic program, that you would be able to have, as 

 has been expressed, more horsepower in dealing with the department 

 heads in making up the component elements, but as I understand 

 what you are saying is that you feel that you can and are taking that 

 approach. 



Mr. Wakelin. We have, Mr. Drewry, yes, sir. I would just like 

 to answer that, if I may, in another way. 



Each one of the members of the Interagency Committee on Oceanog- 

 raphy has been very enthusiastic not only as a team member of the 

 committee but also in trying to impart within his own department the 

 relationship of his work and his bureau and his office to the whole 

 national structure. 



This has been most effective in a great many departments who 

 have previously had lower budgets and lower support of oceanography. 

 I might just say, in summary, that if one looks at the actual budgets 

 in the various departments and the total program in oceanography 

 over the last 3 years, and the proposed budget for 1963, you find a 

 group of figures such as this: $55 million for the national effort in 1960, 

 which was the first budget that we had anything to do with organizing 

 on a national basis; $60 million hi 1961; $101 million in 1962; and 



