364 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 



I do not believe that a group of men sitting around the table repre- 

 senting the interests of many agencies of the Government, as highly 

 motivated as they may be to achieve certain national goals, can suffi- 

 ciently disassociate themselves from the problems of their parent 

 agency to act in the executive manner necessary to accomplish the task. 



Moreover, they do not generally have the power, because the ap- 

 propriations that support each of the agencies are an independent 

 matter. They come before Congress through a number of committees 

 and generally the oceanographic part of the work of each of these 

 agencies is never looked at in terms of the potential accomplishment 

 on the whole for the country. 



Undoubtedly, the support of the present agencies is needed, and I 

 am not advocating that we scrap the mechanism for working through 

 the present agencies. "\'^niat I am advocating, though, is a stronger 

 role and a boss. 



Mr. Casey. Well, it sounds to me like you are talking for sometlnng 

 like NASA, because you have voiced what a lot of us voice here, that 

 you have this interagency operation and you have much more major 

 problems in their agency other than oceanography, and if they get 

 in a budget behind oceanography, for it naturally is one of those that 

 suffers, and if the primary objective is defense, they will build a few 

 planes before they will expand their oceanography. Or, if it is In- 

 terior, why, I think one of my colleagues here stated they would be 

 liable to build a few roads in the park before they go more into oceans. 



It seems to me you are talking more about something like NASA, 

 where that is its charter, and its primary function is a separate and 

 distinct agency with that objective^ Now, am I wrong, and if I am 

 wrong, what is in between sometliing like NASA or the interagency 

 setup ? 



Mr. Clotworttiy. Take first things first. I am not advocating, as 

 I said in the prepared remarks, a NASA-type organization. I will 

 try to draw the distinction between a NASA-type organization and 

 the type of organization I am advocating. 



I think there is a marked difference if you stand well back from 

 the problem and analyze the need for a sudden thrust into space and 

 the current need for an acceleration of our national oceanographic 

 program. 



The thrust into space had to be built up to a high level in a very 

 short time. In addition to this, there were very few facilities avail- 

 able. There was no bodies of scientific people available, or a true 

 comprehension in any breadth of organization in the Government of 

 how to get from here to here — whether it be the moon or just to get 

 a bigger booster. 



This dictated, I think, much of the framework in which NASA had 

 to be established if it was to succeed. It said that the agency must 

 go out and establish facilities of its own, it must have the power to 

 operate, react very rapidly, to implement goals that it had established. 



We are not in that condition where the oceans are concerned. We 

 have many fine scientific institutions in the United States that have 

 been working very successfully, though inadequtely funded, for many 

 years. There is a basic cadre of competent scientific people at work. 

 There is a basic organizational structure within universities that 

 treats the discipline of the sea. 



