NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 335 



the total scientific and technological picture. This would create 

 confusion. 



You are asking me to comment from ICO's j)oint of view. 



Mr. Drewry. My point was that as I understand it ICO does not 

 get into the picture until aft-er the agency programs have been devel- 

 oped somewhat, as a general proposition. 



Dr. Morse. Yes. 



Mr. Drewry. And my point is that since we are going to need an 

 ICO anyway — it is supposed to be a coordinating outfit, and it is low 

 level — why would it not strengthen the entire picture as it presently 

 stands if the working level group in the Government, the ICO, should 

 have functions in which it could recommend changes after the pro- 

 grams have more or less become hard. 



Am I making myself clear? 



Dr. Morse. Yes. We do have a body to which we could recommend. 

 I think as a body we certainly would feel free and have felt free in 

 the past to comment to the Federal Council and to make recommenda- 

 tions to the Federal Council of what we have felt were deficiencies in 

 the programs that have been formulated. 



The mechanism for acting on such recommendations exists through 

 the mechanism of the Federal Council and Dr. Homig bringing in- 

 fluence back on the Department and particularly also, of course, the 

 case that he can make to the Bureau of the Budget. 



Now, I think purely from an ICO point of view as to what it does, 

 a very high-level committee, and if you take as the objective of the 

 game to get more money for oceanography — I mean if this is what we 

 want to say is the objective of the game — certainly no high-level ocean- 

 ographic council can do you much harm. 



The worst they can do is not to do anything and, in fact, that might 

 be precisely what they would do because they would be very busy 

 people. 



They also would be people that have to make balances and I think 

 from a pragmatic point of view the oceanographic program has al- 

 ways got to be balanced with something else, and I think tliis is 

 inescapable. 



I have not given you a very clear answer. But I just do not think 

 a national council of oceanography would do much good frankly, 

 personally. 



Mr. Drewry. Well, my question was directed to the strengthening 

 of ICO irrespective of what high level group you may have. I had 

 the same thought the chairman had that within H.R. 2218 is the pro- 

 vision for permissive authorization of an advisory committee. 



The Advisory Committee, the origin of which was very much along 

 the lines of the Commission that has been discussed — and I think in 

 the earlier form of the legislation it was a directive as well as an 

 authorization — I have a feeling that maybe from your testimony we 

 are coming close to some compromise areas — the one of the funding 

 question if that can be worked out, if the Advisory Committee can 

 be made a mandatory body and perhaps even enlarged, then also some- 

 one raised the point that it would be liable to turn rusty if there was 

 no provision for a turnover. 



It would be simple enough to provide for alternating terms — have 

 staggered terms — so you could bring new views and direction into it. 



