NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 483- 



my own view and personal opinion would be that it could probably 

 not be done in less than 2 years. 



Mr. Rogers. And how many days in the 2 years do you suppose it 

 would have to be ? 



Mr. Seidman. The amount of time required for memljers of the 

 commission and staff of the commission would differ. The staff 

 would have to devote almost full time to the effort. 



Mr. Rogers. You would have to have a good staff. 



Mr. Seidman. I do not know how many days members of the com- 

 mission would have to meet. Normally a commission is concerned at 

 the outset, one, with the selection of staff, providing guidance to the 

 staff' as to the areas which should be studied and setting out the tasks 

 which are to be performed ; and then usually there is a period of, say, 

 6 months while the staff is at work, and then there is another meeting, 

 in which they review progress reports of staff seeing that they are 

 moAnng along the lines desired, to see whether modifications are 

 required in the work that is being done; then a subsequent meeting 

 may be held in 3 months or 6 months, to review progress reports. 

 Normally there will be very intensive work by the commission at the 

 end in developing recommendations, writing a report and so on. 



Mr. Rogers. Well, I would agree with you that it is going to take 

 some time, maybe at least a year and a half, to do an adequate study 

 to know. 



We all admit there are problems in the field, something should be 

 done. Russia is doing a great deal ; we are going to have to match 

 this, if we keep up with what the President wants us to do, to stay 

 ahead of the field. 



Dr. Hornig has set up a panel which you referred to but do you know 

 that panel which is supposed to come up with a study is going to 

 meet for 9 months, but only 2 days a month, which means a total of 

 about 18 days; there is no one staff man assigned for responsibility, 

 they do not really have any staff, and out of this we are supposed to 

 get the study to tell us what to do. 



Mr. Seidman. Mr. Rogers, I think the purpose of the PSAC panel 

 is certainly not the same as that of the proposed conunission. I do 

 not think it is expected to produce an indepth study. However, 

 certainly that panel operating as you described could illuminate some 

 of the problems and perhaps clarify some of the priority areas to 

 which such a commission should address itself. 



Mr. Rogers. But it is not even looking at legal problems, for in- 

 stance; it is not in the charter. And certainly everyone agrees this 

 is something that should be considered, aJt least according to the 

 testimony of Dr. Hornig. Furthermore, it is completely outside of 

 the Government, the Government itself does not even have a represent- 

 ative on the panel for the consideration of what the Government itself 

 is going to do. 



Mr. Seidman. As I understand it, the purpose is to look at the 

 program and identify problems and the areas warranting priority 

 attention. 



Mr. Rogers. This is what concerns me, and yet everybody comes up, 

 because the Bureau told them to say, well, now, you are not for this 

 study because we are going to set up an in-house study over liere in 

 the Office of Science and Technology which was set up just a few 



