8 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 



Mr. Watcelin. The first is a chart of the Federal Council for 

 Science and Technology, indicating its many committees and interests, 

 as well as the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. The 

 second chart represents the current structure of the ICO and indicates 

 as well those agencies participating in the national oceanographic 

 program at present. The third chart is a representation of the 

 organization of the ICO itself. Our own organization and panel 

 structure, in spite of the manner shown, should not be considered 

 structurally rigid. We have adopted an approach which enables the 

 ICO to operate freety in any manner and to associate itself with any 

 Federal group in order that the most meaningful results can be 

 achieved. Titles and blocks should be considered merely representa- 

 tions of the kinds of things we do. Membership is not fixed in the 

 ordinary sense but is open to any interested agency desiring to par- 

 ticipate. The panels provide us with a forum for agencies who meet 

 to consider a particular aspect of oceanographic planning. A chair- 

 man is selected to inject the necessary initiative and sense of responsi- 

 bility into our efforts. 



Within the ICO we do review and endorse agency programs, indi- 

 vidually and within the context of the total national effort, as gen- 

 erated by the member agencies. I feel that this is a necessary proce- 

 dure. Each agency has a statutory responsibility provided by law. 

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

 an operating, or a directing authority. As you know, we have neither 

 the control of funds nor the program authority to do this; and we 

 cannot assume the prerogatives and responsibility of departmental 

 officials in deciding their overall program emphasis. Yet, I believe 

 we have been effective. The national program which we put together 

 in the ICO must, first of all, meet these statutory commitments of the 

 various member agencies. Additionally, sometimes through specific 

 ICO action, but perhaps more often through exchange of information 

 and discussion of programs at committee and panel meetings, agency 

 efforts are adjusted to form a more nearly coordinated program than 

 would be the case without the ICO. 



For the past few years what we have done in program coordination 

 and budget recommendation is to provide initial guidelines to the 

 Federal departments and to the Bureau of the Budget for a sound 

 national program. Additionally, through the medium of a written 

 statement of this program, we have hoped to influence the various 

 departments in their oceanographic budgets by relating the work of 

 their agencies to the total national program. 



The manner in which we work is evident from our organization 

 chart. The annual agency programs are first submitted to the 

 Interagency Committee on Oceanography and then delegated to the 

 panels for consideration of specific functional areas. The panels 

 develop these areas, insofar as is practicable, into a consolidated 

 national program. The segments are placed into the context of an 

 overall national program by the working group who then present it 

 to the parent committee for review, resolution of problems, endorse- 

 ment, and transmittal to the Federal Council. I wish to emphasize, 

 Mr. Chairman, that our Committee develops a plan. The plan which 

 we develop is not a ceiling nor a goal which we must achieve at any 

 cost. It is our best estimate based on existing requirements, previous 

 achievements and budgets, and guidelines received from the adminis- 

 tration. 



