220 OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 



Their time necessarily must be allocated to their major responsibilities. 



Under the circumstances it may be well to consider permitting the 

 Cabinet officers and agency heads to designate a representative to serve 

 on the Council, if not as principal at least as an alternate. 



Precedent for providing authority to designate an alternate already 

 exists in the legislation establishing the National Aeronautics and 

 Space Council, on which alternates may serve by and with the advice 

 and consent of the Senate unless already in an office in which the 

 designee has been confirmed by the Senate. A provision limiting 

 delegation to an official confirmed by the Senate would seem adequate 

 to protect the authoritative status envisioned for the Council and yet 

 would permit Council membership to be held by indviduals who could 

 participate knowledgeably in Council deliberations. 



A closely related area of consideration is that of Council staffing, 

 ■of which no mention is made in the bill before you for consideration. 

 The absence of any provision in the bill for a Council staff would not 

 preclude the Council from establishing an appropriate staff by its own 

 action. The Air Coordinating Committee, for example, operates with 

 a staff financed from funds contributed by member agencies out of 

 their individual agency appropriations. 



Nonetheless, the absence in the bill before you of any provision 

 ■authorizing and requiring a proposed staff constitutes, in my opinion, 

 a major deficiency in the bill as it now stands. No Council composed 

 of officials whose primary responsibilities, and doubtless personal in- 

 terests, lie in other fields can give more than occasional attention to 

 matters within the purview of the Council. This very real limitation 

 on membership participation in Council activities might perhaps be 

 acceptable if Council responsibilities were restricted to occasional con- 

 sideration of matters of basic policy, but the program role envisioned 

 for the National Oceanographic Council is inherently far more com- 

 prehensive and requires continuing attention at Council level. 



Programing is probably the most important function to be per- 

 formed by the Council, particularly in view of the extent to which 

 oceanography is fragmented both among and within agencies. There 

 is ample evidence supporting the urgency of planning a comprehensive 

 and thoroughly integrated program for the numerous agencies par- 

 ticipating in oceanographic endeavors. 



The scientists who have testified before your conunittee have been 

 unanimous in their view that oceanography must be regarded as a 

 long-range program which must be guided by a long-range plan. In 

 the absence of a Council staff, the development and monitoring of 

 the necessary long-range plan passes by default to the hands of part- 

 time volunteers who cannot be relied upon to formulate without bias 

 a fully balanced program and who in any event are not accountable 

 either to the Council or to the Congress. Program monitoring like- 

 wise is a continuing responsibility and in this field is exceptionally 

 difficult because of the more than 18 individual agencies participating 

 in the program. I can only conclude, therefore, that the bill before 

 you urgently requires amending in this respect if its objectives are to 

 be reasonably assured. 



It may be pertinent here to observe that the original legislation 

 establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Council appropri- 

 ately provided for a staff to that Council. Although this provision 



