34 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 



Mr. Ellsworth. All right, I would appreciate it if you could. I 

 think it might be enlightening as to the fate, perhaps, of some of the 

 recommendations — once they got back into the hands of the various 

 departments and out of control of the ICO again — what the fate of 

 it was. 



Mr. Secretary, I would like to second a great many of the sentiments 

 that have been expressed here this morning. I notice that from time 

 to time in your statement, for example, on page 7, you say that "We 

 in the ICO have never considered ourselves to be a controlling, operat- 

 ing, or directing authority." You say that you neither have the 

 control or funds for the program authority to do this. At the top 

 of the page, you say that, "Agency efforts are adjusted to form a 

 more nearly coordinated program than would be the case without 

 the ICO," and you say subsequently, that you have hoped to influence 

 the various departments in their oceanographic budget. 



At the top of page 9, you say that the implementation and fiscal 

 development of the program remains the responsibility of the various 

 agencies involved, and from time to time, in your extemporaneous 

 testimony, you used words like "we hope," "we want to," and "we 

 would suggest," to the various agencies the development of programs. 



I would like to say that I feel very strongly, as evidently a good 

 many other members of the committee do, that this is not enough, 

 that this is not sufficient for the development of a truly national and 

 truly long-range oceanographic program, and development that 

 would conform with the President's continued emphasis on it. 



I would like to refer to your testimony on page 5, where you say 

 that he — referring to Dr. Wiesner — 



He also stated that the committee should consider, in addition, any other mat- 

 ters it deems relevant and important in advancing oceanography in the national 

 interest — 



and I would like to ask if you don't feel that within the framework 

 of that authority, you could very well develop and set forth in writing 

 a long-range national set of national goals, right within the authority 

 you already have? 



Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir; but we interpret this statement to mean 

 just that in terms of our long-range plans and our long-range goals, 

 which we are now working on. 



Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you. 



Mr. Secretary, how do you insure against two things that I am 

 sure you are confronted with and every operation of this kind is 

 confronted with, and that is duplication and also the problems that 

 arise out of self-evaluation programs, as far as the individual depart- 

 ments and agencies are concerned in their oceanographic work? 



Mr. Wakelin. In the first place, we have a very close association 

 with the National Academy of Sciences, and Mr. Vetter and Dr. 

 Spilhaus meet with us as observers, and quite often, within the panel 

 structures, we view from the scientific community's point of view 

 our programs in the whole field of oceanography, either in research, 

 or instrumentation, or surveys, or ship construction, or in manpower 

 and training. 



We also have had, during the last three budget hearings, prior to 

 the submission to the President of our plan, a committee convened 

 by the Federal Council and chaired by Dr. Maurice Ewing of Co- 



