218 OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 



effort could probably be carried out by a single agency at less cost 

 and with more prospects of success than under any other arrangement, 

 but at the expense of considerable disruption to related programs being 

 conducted by existing agencies. 



It is difficult to balance the relative values of autonomy, with its 

 attendant vigor, against integration, with its attendant opportunity 

 to achieve the reinforcing effects of coordinated operation. It is dif- 

 ficult also to weigh the desirability of preserving a going concern 

 against the utility of establishing a fully rationalized structure or- 

 ganized with primary regard to oceanographic needs. In dealing with 

 these questions, many factors besides theoretical managerial virtues 

 must be taken into account, and the final decision undoubtedly will be 

 less than fully satisfactory to all concerned. No matter what the de- 

 cision may be, the process of change does not have a clear-cut be- 

 ginning and end. Adjustment always is gradual and the accommoda- 

 tion to changing conditions necessarily evolves over time. 



As between the desirability of preserving a going concern and the- 

 manifest utility of establishing a fully integrated structure, the pro- 

 posed act would take a middle course. It seeks to preserve the going 

 concern, but to improve coordination through the establishment, of an 

 interdepartmental committee having a statutory basis. 



The interdepartmental committee is one of the chief coordinating 

 devices available to Government when related functions cannot con- 

 veniently be brought together within a single agency. The strengths 

 and weaknesses of the committee approach are those of any system 

 which seeks to secure cooperation and compliance through voluntary 

 means. Its strength is that officials, departments, and agencies are 

 generally inclined to cooperate fully in carrying out decisions in the 

 making of which they have participated. The principal weakness is; 

 that the process generally involves endless discussion, which is time 

 consuming and not infrequently irrelevant, with the result that needed 

 decisions often go unmade. 



On the balance, the use of some form of interdepartmental commit- 

 tee to obtain greater coordination of oceanographic effort would ap- 

 pear to offer considerable promise, provided the committee charged 

 with this responsibility is given the requisite authority to carry out 

 the functions expected of it. The committee approach, best protects 

 the sizable existing investment in going facilities and projects, and 

 this is a most important consideration ; but a committee without staff 

 or authority is only too prone to degenerate into a mere debating 

 society, accomplishing little that is constructive. 



The problem, then, may be resolved into one of preserving the ad- 

 vantages of the committee approach while avoiding its pitfalls. Per- 

 haps what is needed most of all is purposeful leadership and in- 

 tegrated planning of an overall program. My recommendations ac- 

 cordingly are directed toward strengthening the committee structure 

 contemplated in the proposed act with respect to membership, staff- 

 ing, and financing, each of which will be considered in turn. 



Before proceeding to the specific recoirimendsitions, however, I 

 should like to comment on a particularly important characteristic of 

 the proposed National Oceanographic Council from the standpoint of 

 congressional oversight. 



When your Subcommittee on Oceanography was established, it was 

 done in recognition of the vital significance of oceanography to our 



