NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHTC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 287 



open minded and starting- out on a new approacli that we liave used in 

 other fields. I do not know that it is the one, but I think probably we 

 do not know and we need a good study made now. 



Now, I notice some of your testimony before the Senate. One of 

 your statements in your testimony there was about these Federal agen- 

 cies and these are your words : "Each of these Federal agencies is not 

 interested in oceanography as such, or for the sake of oceanography 

 itself, but rather for little specific missions they may have." 



This causes me concern. That we have so splintered, in your own 

 words, this effort, that we really have not centered the emphasis on 

 oceanography itself in advancing this pronram. And you point out 

 in your testimony there, as I think you have here, that one of the 

 problems is that we have all these Federal agencies, that each has 

 a specific mission that they want to accomplish, and they are the ones 

 that put in the bu^dgetary requests, just as you brought out in the 

 discussion with Mr. Casey. Tliajt the Secretary of Commerce puts 

 in his budget, and if it has to be cut, why he has to decide whether he 

 is going to cut oceanography, because he does not have a primary in- 

 terest in oceanography, just as you have said. And this is under- 

 standable. 



So we shift it over to the ICO. Well, what is the ICO but the 

 representative of the man that appointee! him and so, to a certain 

 extent, is it not true tht he has to reflect the views of his department ? 



Dr. HoRNiG. I think this is one of the major problems in the ICO — 

 that individuals plainly must represent the views of their department. 

 This is why we tnm to the outside for some dispassionate criticism 

 of our programs. 



Mr. Rogers. Yes. From the ICO it then goes to your two commit- 

 tees, I presume, and there you have an in-house group look at it and 

 an outside group look at it, as I understand it. 



ISTow then, who actually makes the decision? Is it going to be you 

 or the department head or who will it be, or the Budget ? 



Dr. HoRNiG. I would like to, if I may, say a few w^ords of general 

 philosophy, because these problems are not peculiar to oceanography. 

 There is no unitary area of effort we can call oceanography, so what 

 we talk about as splintering occurs in every one of the major scientific 

 areas because the Government is organized to serve major public 

 purposes. 



For example, the Department of the Interior has a general respon- 

 sibility for the development of our resources. 



Mr. Rogers. That is right, and they undoubtedly may say, "I would 

 rather built roads." Then what do you say ? The ICO said, "We want 

 some research done on fisheries. We are getting behind in our fish- 

 eries problem." 



Dr. HoRNiG. In that case, we discuss the problem with the agency 

 involved and the Bureau of the Budget. 



Mr. Rogers. Does the Secretary still have the right not to include 

 it in his request ? 



Dr. HoRNiG. Yes. The initiative in the end comes from the Sec- 

 retary. 



Mr. Rogers. Why, of course, so this makes a problem for you and 

 I can understand your problem, and I think you have done a magnifii- 

 cent job so far, but these are some of the problems we are trying to get 



