NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 289 



Mr. KoGERS. Do you not think it would actually be advisable to put 

 this on a level where we have a national commission, appointed by the 

 President, to give it great stature and great acceptance by the public, 

 b}'^ the Congress and the executive branch rather than doing, in effect, 

 an in-house study ? 



Do you noAv think it would be helpful to you in setting some national 

 goals to give a greater impact on the Congress and people to move into 

 this now, not that you should not go ahead with the study you are 

 doing, but to actually set up a commission to have the wide range to set 

 nat i onal goals a nd to go into all of the problems ? 



Why vv'ould this not be a good thing to do now ? Why wait until 

 spring of 1966 ? We know it has to be done. Do you have any real 

 objections to it? 



Dr. HoRNiG. No, I did not offer any real objections to the commis- 

 sion. I think this is a matter of judgment. I think my own position 

 IS that at this time I can get more concentrated effort out of this Panel 

 than from a commission, but this is a matter of judgment. 



Mr. Rogers. Now, let me ask you about this Panel just a little. 



What is its charter ? 



Dr. HoRNiG. Its terms of reference are not substantially different 

 from those of the proposed commission. 



Mr.! Rogers. Have you written it down? Is it written down? 

 Could you quote it for us, give us its charter ? 



Dr. Hornig. I can give you the initial terms of reference. We nor- 

 mally give any such Panel a free hand to develop its investigation as 

 it sees the problems more clearly. 



Mr. Rogers. Yes. 



Dr. HoRNiG. But I would be glad to read it to you. 



Mr. Rogers. If it is not too long, then you could put it in the record. 

 Just summarize the major points that you put in that charter. 



Dr. HoRNiG. As I said, it is a rather informal charter, but the Panel 

 will address itself to the following general issues: 



1. What are reasonable goals of an oceanography program ? 



2. Are the current and planned programs in oceanography scien- 

 tifically and technically sound, adequate in scope, sound in concept, 

 and adequitely funded and organized to achieve these goals ? 



3. Between these programs and the goals what are the outstanding 

 opportunities for research, exploration, and practical accomplishment 

 of oceanography during the next 5 years ? 



4. How can the scientific and engineering leadership in oceanogra- 

 phy be improved ? 



Within the context of these general questions, particular attention 

 should be devoted to the following : 



1. The internal consistency of the fiscal 1967 oceanographic pro- 

 gram in terms of objectives, programs, priorities, available resources, 

 quality, and future plans. 



2. The need for substantive, new scientific and technological pro- 

 grams and priorities to progress toward established goals. 



3. The optimum balance between capital investment and research 

 and exploration programs during the next 5 years. 



4. The need and priority for new facilities, including ships, sub- 

 mersibles, platforms, buoys, systems, shore facilities and data-han- 

 dling facilities during the next 5 years. 



