316 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 



First of all, the matter of increasing the stature of membership is 

 one which perplexes us considerably. On the one hand, we can readily 

 perceive the advantage of membership by secretarial officers whose 

 recommendations are synonymous with policy. On the other hand, 

 additional demands would be placed directly upon Cabinet officers 

 and agency heads who already have heavy burdens of responsibility. 



If a council supplants the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, 

 the limited amount of personal time which the council members could 

 devote to council activities might result in less consideration of ocean- 

 ography within the executive branch than presently exists. If the 

 Council and the Interagency Committee on Oceanography both exist, 

 there will be, or could be, at least, substantial duplication of efforts 

 and possible conflict of proposed programs. 



We think it is better to leave oceanographic planning and coordina- 

 tion in the hands of the policy and operation officials who work with 

 the oceanographic program, serve on the Interagency Committee on 

 Oceanography, and who are thus most qualified to advise the President 

 on its needs. In any case, no matter what is done, a lower level of 

 coordination is required. 



It is for these reasons that I cannot support the concept of the 

 National Oceanographic Council as exemplified by Congressman 

 Fascell's bill, H.R. 5654, or Congressman Ashley's bill, H.R. 6457. 



Secondly, a characteristic common to almost all the existing bills is 

 their provision for an analytical staff competent to examine oceano- 

 graphic issues within economic, political, administrative, and techno- 

 logical frameworks. These bills also provide for funds to administer 

 the staff and the organizational needs of the ICO generally. 



Thus far the problem of interagency funding has been vexing. 

 Navy underwrites most of the ICO staff needs, via the Office of Naval 

 Research. At the present time, four agencies contribute to staff 

 salaries and eight print our publications. The funds proposed by 

 these bills, although modest, would be most welcome since they would 

 fill an obvious void. Accordingly, I have no quarrel with this aspect 

 of the bills. 



A third proposition whas has appeared in recent legislation concerns 

 the establishment of a high level commission to examine our national 

 needs in oceanography and to provide counsel to the Government in 

 planning an adequate oceanographic program. I am in accord with 

 the objectives of such a commission and have so stated in the past. In 

 recognizing the desirability of such examination. Dr. Hornig last June 

 convened a special panel of the President's Science Advisory 

 Committee. 



Several ICO members and panel chairmen have met with this panel. 

 I am personally satisfied that their proceedings and findings will prove 

 fruitful and capable of being used profitably in the national interest. 

 For this reason, it is my belief that the intent, at least, of Congress- 

 man Roger's bill, H.R. 9064, can be met without legislation. 



Fourth, the concept of a Marine Exploration and Development 

 Commission and its assignment to conduct a program of exploration 

 and development of our Continental Shelf treats a substantive issue 

 and merits serious consideration. The world family of nations has 

 now ratified a measure spelling out the rights and privileges of each 

 nation regarding exploitation of marine resources. 



