NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 525 



Although this chcinnel is important and concerted formal policies 

 take this route, there is a constant interchange between ICO and the 

 agencies, including upper echelons of those agencies. For example, in 

 the case of the Foundation, most of our thinking and our planning for 

 oceanography is heavily influenced by the reports and more informal 

 information we receive directly from our representative on ICO. For 

 example, although the first formal information to ICO concerning our 

 budgetary plans is nominally at our own initiative, in the making of 

 those plans we take into serious account the discussions held in ICO 

 and the needs as they have been revealed in those discussions. 



Although, until our budget has been submitted to the Congress and 

 appropriations have been made, we cannot guarantee complete effectua- 

 tion of those plans, we make every effort, even in the face of budgetary 

 cuts, to fulfill them as completely as we can. 



Thus, the interaction of an agency with ICO involves not only the 

 circle from the agency's management through its staff to ICO, in turn 

 to the Federal Council and to the OST and back to the agency, there 

 is a constant interchange on a more informal, but nevertheless intensive 

 and effective basis, between ICO and the agencies to the great benefit 

 of the program. 



H.E. 6457 by Mr. Ashley proposes a Council within the Office of 

 Science and Technology, also composed of Cabinet-level officers. 

 Again, the actual work would inevitably be by delegation so that, in 

 effect, the Council would be a replica of ICO. In addition, this would 

 be an unorthodox organizational arrangement in which officials report- 

 ing directly to the President would in this task be working within a 

 single office. 



I do not believe that in either form a statutory council composed of 

 Cabinet officials would improve upon this process. Rather, it would 

 complicate the existing situation. Therefore, I recommend that these 

 bills not be enacted. 



Fourth, are proposals to establish a Marine Exploration and De- 

 velopment Commission to carry out a program of exploration and de- 

 velopment of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf and in some 

 cases the Great Lakes and waters above the Continental Shelf. H.R. 

 5884 by Mr. Eivers and H.R. 6009 provide for such a Commission. 

 The Commission would take unto itself activities that are, in my 

 opinion, much better carried out within established agencies. 



Three of these agencies would be represented on the Commission. 

 This seems to me a needless complication of an already complex situa- 

 tion. Through their regular programs the agencies are already inten- 

 sively engaged in studies of the Continental Shelf. Indeed, something 

 like one-quarter of the total oceanographic effort is devoted to this 

 problem. The funds proposed in support of such a Commission would 

 to my mind be used much better to supplement those being devoted to 

 the existing programs. 



H.R. 7849 by Mr. Teague combines a similar program with the 

 Council proposed by H.R. 5654, and others, and, in my opinion, should 

 not be enacted for the reasons I have given in those two cases. 



Five, a full-fledged oceanographic agency is proposed in H.R. 921 

 by Mr. Wilson. This would, of course, have the appeal of concentrat- 

 ing oceanography within one focal spot within the executive branch 

 and in presentation of the needs for oceanography before the Con- 



