NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 297 



Dr. HoRNiG. It was not a freudian slip; I meant to emphasize the 

 point in my text. 



Mr. Reinecke. Yon feel there is adequate intercommunication? 



Dr. HoKNiG. Yes, I think there is excellent intercomnmnication. I 

 think our problems exist not so much now in the areas of communica- 

 tion and formal coordination as in the definition and setting of goals. 



Mr. Reinecke. You mentioned also in the text that you felt the 

 advisoiy panel could be improved. 



Just what did you mean by that ? 



Dr. HoRNiG. That was in reference to the ICO. The ICO has itself 

 done a great deal of soul searching, but it experiences the difficulties 

 of any interagency coordinating group. 



Mr. Reinecke. What I meant was, do you have any specific pro- 

 posals or recommendations on how it could be improved. Obviously 

 you recognize there is a need there, but how would you suggest that it 

 be done ? 



Dr. HoRNiG. I do not at the moment. The ICO itself has performed 

 an evaluation and I have been waiting for their report before going 

 over it with them. 



Mr. Reinecke. My overall impression of all of this, and as I say 

 it has certainly clarified a great cleal, it is that everybody is studying 

 everybody else ; we have a lot of advice but very little authority. 



Do you not feel this is what is really needed in the program — some 

 sort of either single or combined authority which will put a single 

 emphasis, so we do not find ourselves with a program headed by eight 

 or nine different Secretaries? 



Dr. HoRNiG. This is an issue which has been discussed in connection 

 with many different programs. When you consider the activities of 

 the program there is considerable validity in it. 



The difficulty arises from the fact that the program has no single 

 set of goals. It must serve many national purposes. For example, 

 whether or not we had a single agency, the Navy would retain its 

 responsibility to insure that it had the data it needed; for instance, 

 for its submarine operations. 



In other words, there is a considerable area in which the scope and 

 size of the program ought to be determined not by its relation to the 

 oceanographic program, but in this case to the needs of national 

 defense. 



In connection with fisheries, for example, the effort that ought to be 

 devoted to research might not seem terribly important from the view- 

 point of the oceanographic program as a whole. 



I would suggest that it should be determined in relation to the needs 

 of our fisheries industry and our need for protein, rather than to ocean- 

 ography conceived as a unified field. 



Mr. Reinecke. Do you not feel, though, I am sure you do, that no 

 Federal program moves that is not properly funded and in this case 

 the oceanography seems to be on the tag end of all of the funds and 

 budgets throughout some eight or nine different agencies ? 



Would it make sense to you to have a single office that would repre- 

 sent the $142 million that we speak of, and that then those moneys 

 could in turn be transferred, if necessary, to the other agencies as it 

 is needed. 



It seems to me we are not getting anywhere until we get somebody 

 who is trying to get some money for this program. 



53-367—65 20 



