EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 59 



has decided to do, and then approve it, or do you conic up with sug- 

 gestive ideas as to the necessity, and so on? 



Mr. McKernan. The way this lias worked so far is that our pane] 

 has received suggestions in the very early stages of budget formation 

 from the various groups. We have reviewed the need for them in 

 terms of the general national program and the direction that the 

 Interagency Commit tee on Oceanography has indicated we should go. 

 We have attempted to critically examine them in terms of whether or 

 not they are needed and when they are needed. When we have finally 

 made our recommendations to the ICO, that is, when the Panel has 

 made its recommendation to ICO, we have incorporated the prelim- 

 inary thinking within the departments, and we have incorporated a 

 critical review of the need and the timing for these particular facilities. 



Now what happens is that there is a matter of our initial examina- 

 tion, our initial recommendations. These then go gack to the de- 

 partments, such as in my own small bureau, and we then put this 

 through our own budget process. We make these recommendations 

 to our own Assistant Secretary, and they go on up to the Department. 



In the meantime, they have had further review within the ICO, 

 perhaps at another stage, or with further deliberation, it is decided to 

 set some other priorities. Then I have come back within my own 

 Department and said, "Now we have given a little different emphasis 

 to this, and the recommendation now is to wait until next year," or 

 perhaps, "We want to speed this up, and so we would like to add 

 another facility for this year." 



Then our Department, of course, goes through its regular review. 

 At the present time in our own Department, we have had excellent 

 cooperation from everyone in realizing that we are giving much more 

 than the usual critical review within our oceanogrpahic program. 

 I think the system is a good one although it is far from perfect. 



Then the ICO takes this program, which by this time has had 

 rather thorough critical review, has in a sense been firmed up both 

 within the Department and within the ICO. After the ICO has 

 approved this program, it has undergone review by, for example, 

 the Ewing Committee and the National Academy of Science's Com- 

 mittee on Oceanography. Then, Federal Council examines it. 



Now, on the Federal Council are secretarial officials. From our 

 Department, at the present time, it is the Secretary's science adviser, 

 a very famous oceanographer, by the way, Dr. Roger Revelle. He, 

 in a sense, is speaking for the Secretary in giving general approval or 

 disapproval, or critical approval, to the Interagency Committee on 

 Oceanography's budget in oceanography. 



In this way, it seems to me, we have a horizontal review as well as 

 vertical review within the departments, and I think pretty success- 

 full, although not perfect. 



Mr. Bauer. Mr. McKernan, you mentioned another committee. 

 We are somewhat confused, I believe, at least the staff is. What is 

 the Ewing Committee? What do they do? I thought we had heard 

 of all the committees. 



Mr. McKernan. Well, I believe that Secretary Wakelin mentioned 

 yesterday that the programs in oceanography have not only been 

 reviewed by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography but the 

 President's Science Adviser has asked Dr. Ewing, as Secretary 

 Wakelin mentioned yesterda} 7 , to set up a group of non-Government 



