302 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 



I understand the Federal Government spent by fiscal 1966 three- 

 quarters of a billion dollars in the last 5 years in oceanography ; those 

 are your figures I recall from your testimony in the Senate. 



They say, yet, what is being done up there ? ^Vhose fault is it that 

 we have the situation described by this so-called editorial — right or 

 wrong, I do not know, 



I think this legislation that has been introduced both on the Senate 

 side and on the House side is motivated by a public interest suddenly 

 awakened by various and sundry things. 



You are colorful in describing the objectives you have obtained 

 and the success we have had and the significant acceleration of the 

 program in the last 5 years and I do agree with you, but apparently that 

 is not enough. 



There is some gentleman down on Pennsylvania Avenue who said^ 

 "Come, let us reason together. Let's see if we cannot reach a con- 

 sensus on some of these bills because my guess is Congress is going to 

 pass some bill." I do not know whether it will be on a voice vote 

 as it did in the Senate just a day or two ago. 



You may have a bill whether you like it or not, it may not be signed, 

 but my guess is it will be under all the circumstances. 



I am asking you now, sir, to confer with Dr. Hollomon, because 

 he did make suggestions that to me made sense. 



I do not agree that we could centralize in a single agency the whole 

 realm of science, meteorology, fisheries, and these other things, be- 

 cause it simply cannot be done, in my judgment, but I do believe you 

 are going to have to do as Dr. Hollomon suggested that we, by statute, 

 centralize in at least two of these agencies the focus in those two areas 

 that he defined and described in oceanogi'aphy. 



That is the reason I want you to not only read his statement, and 

 particularly the answers to the questions that were propounded to him 

 by the members on the subcommittee, including myself and counsel, 

 and our expert staff member, but I want you to talk to him, too. 



I am a great believer in that. 



You recall when our bill had a pocket veto, you were not here, but 

 we sat down together, the Bureau of the Budget and all the others, 

 and they gave, and we gave, and we finally reached a judgment that we 

 had a bill that I wish could have been passed 2 years ago, and then we 

 could have now reviewed the actiA'ity and accomplishments under that 

 bill, and if we determined that it had not been sufficient then we could 

 move to perhaps further than we did, and I think we would. 



But that has not been done, and you cannot be held responsible for 

 it, because the Senate decided it would rather not have anything than 

 to have what they considered a meaningless piece of legislation. 



But I did not agree with that. I thought it was a good step in the 

 right direction, and you have endorsed it because that was the same 

 bill introduced this time. 



But I do not believe the Senate is going to buy that bill, and we may 

 have to buy a piece of legislation comparable to what was sent over 

 here in the form of S. 944, but I still feel there is merit in what Dr. 

 Hollomon said the other day about perhaps putting into the Depart- 

 ment of Commerce, through a statute a little wider and broader, and 

 into Ihe Department of the Interior legislative enactment that would 

 wide] 1 their scope. 



