EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 41 



Mr. Wakelin. Indeed, but they are long-established functions as 

 a role of their performing for their department the necessary back- 

 ground and research and development to fulfill their roles and missions. 



Air. Lennon. Could not such a separate agency relate both the 

 national defense effort and peaceful purposes to oceanography, and 

 bring them together, and yet let them continue their missions under 

 the jurisdiction of this central agency? 



Mr. Wakelin. Then I think if you did that, you would have to re- 

 vise the roles and missions of each of the executive departments which 

 have been conducting their work in oceanography over a long period 

 of time. 



Mr. Lennon. How are you going to relate a national total effort? 

 Because we know every agency is interested in a little bit different 

 facet, at least, so far as its immediate objectives are concerned, in 

 the field of oceanography. Isn't that true? 



Mr. Wakelin. Yes. 



Mr. Lennon. They have a different puprose, a different motiva- 

 tion. What is going to bring them together with a long-range ob- 

 jective? 



Mr. Wakelin. But many interests of these several departments 

 concerned with this are not in conflict with the national program, and 

 they are not separate from it. 



Mr. Lennon. Well, maybe when you bring to us a long-range 

 national objective for oceanography, maybe I might change my views, 

 and let me see what is the national objective of oceanography. I 

 haven't gotten that yet. 



Mr. Wakelin. There are two such plans we can show you immedi- 

 ately. The National Academy's plan in 1959, and our own plan for 

 the Navy that would be a prototype for the whole national program 

 in oceanography and as a part of the whole national effort. These are 

 very interesting plans to look at. 



Mr. Dingell. Will you yield? 



Mr. Lennon. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Dingell. I am concerned now with regard to this. I happen 

 to know, Mr. Secretary, that you had had a great deal to do with the 

 TENOC plan, that you were probably the leading light behind it, 

 and it is an excellent plan, but would you say in fairness that this is 

 or should be or will be the national program on oceanography, if it 

 ever is evolved? 



Mr. Wakelin. It is certainly as good a guide to the Navy's work in 

 oceanography over the next 10 years as any long-range plan would be. 



Mr. Dingell. I agree. It is an excellent plan for the Navy, but 

 is it a plan for the whole endeavor of the United States with regard 

 to say, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Coast and Geodetic Sur- 

 vey 



Mr. Wakelin. Oh, indeed not. 



Mr. Dingell. And this other plan, you say National Science 

 Foundation? 



Mr. Wakelin. National Academy's. 



Mr. Dingell. Would we be fair in inferring that perhaps the 

 National Academy plan might be an excellent plan for the National 

 Academy, but it might not comport with the needs of all of the other 

 agencies of the Federal Government? This would be fair to say, 

 would it not? 



