NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 443 



with this on a worldwide basis. The institution, however, cannot 

 handle this problem of correlation of activity. I have listed in my 

 testimony 10 diti'erent reasons why they cannot, and another person 

 could list another 10. I will hio-hlijrht one or two of them. 



I think there is very good reason to argue that the Federal Council 

 on Science and Technology does not have a wide enough purview to 

 handle the ocean use topic we are now considering. Their title is 

 Science and Technology, but as a matter of fact their function is 

 science. Being by profession a scientist, I am not going to knock 

 science, but science in this context is not an end but is a means to an 

 end. The Federal Conncil on Science and Technology is not equipped 

 by statutory authorization at all, or by organizational background, to 

 tackle the problems of occupation and use of the oceans. They provide 

 extremely important services within the Government, but this one they 

 are not broadly enough oriented to do. 



ICO as a portion of FCST, therefore, cannot do what its parent 

 body cannot do. There is no guidance in ocean strategy, ocean pro- 

 gram, given to the ICO by its parent body, FCST, because it has no 

 people on it capable of giving such guidance. 



So far as I can determine b}^ a close examination of the activities 

 of the U.S. Government in ocean work, we have no national ocean 

 strategy. I think the Russians do have, but I find no sign of any 

 in the U.S. Govenmient. We do not have a body to devise national 

 ocean strategy. We do not have, therefore, any agency able to con- 

 struct a program to implement a national ocean strategy. 



The Bureau of the Budget is the primary controllmg element now 

 in the organization and application of fmids for this purpose. ICO 

 has substantially no control over the ocean use budget. In the first 

 place, the ICO National Oceanographic budget is not a synthesized 

 budget for tackling the U.S. problems with respect to the ocean. 

 They provide a budget which is substantially an addition of 22 sep- 

 arate budget items coming to them. It is not a synthesis. It is an 

 addition. 



ICO does not have a separate line item for a staff for itself. Their 

 staff is primarily provided for them by the Navy. 



ICO does not have operational responsibilities. Somebody referred 

 to Operation Mohole a while ago. Operation Mohole originally be- 

 gan operating under the National Academy of Sciences and got into 

 so much political problems, not technical but political problems, 

 that there was a considerable pause in the operation, and its opera- 

 tion was transferred under a ncAv management, the National Science 

 Foundation. 



I point out to you that the National Academy of Sciences is the 

 very epitome of a nonoperational organization. They never should 

 have been operating anything to begin with. The National Science 

 Foundation is also not intended to be an operational agency and 

 does not want to be. The reason the National Science Foundation is 

 handling Operation Mohole is that there isn't any other place in the 

 Government for it to go. That is the only reason. 



I want to point out the effect of cost-effective budgeting p'-nctices 

 upon our ocean activities presently. This is, I think, a basic considera- 

 tion which will move us inevitably in the direction that I shall point 

 out. Cost-efRciency budgeting practices have worked so successfully 



