524 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 



Advisory Committee for Oceanography and finally and importantly 

 provide for an annual report to Congress of progress in the program. 

 As stated in my letter of July 28 to Chairman Bonner, I believe that 

 such legislation would be useful in establishing the guidelines for 

 carrying out our oceanographic program. 



Second, certain bills propose establishment of a National Commis- 

 sion on Oceanography to review all aspects of the field — research, 

 surveying, exploitation, and the development of personnel — and to 

 recommend an overall plan for a national program, including its 

 organizational and budgetary aspects. H.E. 9064 by Mrs. Rogers, 

 H.R. 9483 by Mr. Reinecke, H.R. 9617 by Mr. Hanna, and H.R. 9667 

 by Mr. Downing propose variants of this method. Studies of this 

 sort are, of course, desirable; in fact, they are necessary. However, 

 mechanisms for their accomplishment already exist. 



Indeed, as has been testified on previous occasions, such a study is 

 already underway by a Panel of the President's Science Advisory 

 Committee. This is a Panel of distinguished and able men, most of 

 whom are personally known to me, many of them well. They repre- 

 sent not only scientific but also engineering and economic competence. 

 They will carefully consider all aspects of the problem. 



In view of the existence of this Panel, to establish a National Com- 

 mission such as that proposed would, I believe, at this time at least, be 

 unnecessary and indeed unwise. This is not to say that at some time 

 in the future, after the report of the PSAC Panel has been received 

 and studied, that there might not well be reason to establish another, 

 perhaps larger and more comprehensive body, to extend further the 

 results of the present effort. 



Third, are proposals to establish, at Cabinet level, a National Geo- 

 graphic Council to take overall cognizance of the field. H.R. 5654 by 

 Mr. Fascell and identical bills by Mr. Fulton, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. 

 Huot provide for such a Council, chaired by the Vice President. 

 Although such a Council would undoubtedly give greater prominence 

 to oceanography and would provide some high-level focus on its 

 programs, it would have the very major difficulty that the heavy 

 responsibilities of its members would prevent them from devoting 

 much of their time to oceanography and they probably would not be 

 experts in the field. Inevitably this would lead to the delegation of 

 authority to those who are more familiar with the subject, such as the 

 members of the present Interagency Committee on Oceanography. 



Thus, its constitution would be similar to that of ICO and there 

 would be the disadvantage that it would not be in the mainstream of 

 science and technology within the Government as is ICO, being, as it 

 is, an arm of the Federal Council of Science and Technology and the 

 Director of the Office of Science and Teclmology. Furthermore, the 

 President would lose the present advantage of having such matters 

 come to him through a single channel, his Special Assistant for 

 Science and Technology. 



I should like at this point to add a bit to what has been said about 

 the ICO. From reading transcripts of these hearings, I have the 

 impression that there is some belief that the impact of the committee 

 is largely confined to its formal channels ; that is, through the Federal 

 Council for Science and Technology chaired by Dr. Hornig and from 

 Dr. Hornig back to the agencies. 



