NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 563 



ordinatin^ efforts of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography 

 of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. 



Each department and agency of the Government has its oceano- 

 graphic program designed to meet its needs, to answer its questions, 

 and to research for advantages to its future. These are good, I should 

 say excellent, programs designed by dedicated, intelligent men to 

 meet their department's specific needs. 



The ICO has done, and is doing, a magnificent job defining and co- 

 relating the individual programs into a national program which shows 

 where we are going in oceanographic science and technology. 

 Through its panels it analj^zes the various programs, recommends and 

 suggests means to strengthen the overall program through normal 

 agency channels. 



These agencies — 



retain responsibility for accepting or rejecting specific projects and for finally 

 developing and conducting their own annual programs. 



These words are taken from the "National Oceanographic Program 

 1966," ICO Pamphlet No. 17. 



In other words, the agencies must be willing and able to absorb 

 recommendations made by the ICO within their own budgets and re- 

 sources if they involve projects that are not included in their original 

 annual programs. No one can expect a department or agency to put 

 much of its limited resources mto projects that will not bring a direct 

 return to their program; and they do not. This, then, is a basic prob- 

 lem that must be solved in our national oceanographic program. 



To solve this problem, certain bills now before you recommend the 

 •establishment of a National Oceanographic Council patterned after 

 the National Aeronautics and Space Council which would, in effect, 

 take all of the oceanographic programs and their support out of the 

 various departments and agencies and place them m^ider one new 

 ■Government agency. Such a drastic step would, I personally believe, 

 cripple the many outstanding programs now existent that meet the 

 needs of their sponsors, drain the country's inadequate supply of 

 oceanographers and ocean engineers and add another level of planners, 

 managers, and operators between the producer and consumer. This, 

 I feel, would be bad. 



However, the current feeling that the national oceanographic pro- 

 gram is too s]olintered, that it lacks central direction and that it is 

 inadequate, is real and must be faced and the problems corrected. In- 

 dustry also continually asks, as I have found in numerous consulting 

 sessions: "Just what does the exploration and development of ocean 

 resources mean to us in terms of future revenue to my company?" 

 These are questions that must be faced and solved for our national wel- 

 fare, defense, and industrial progress. Generalized statements on the 

 "great resources available from the sea," the "needs to meet the in- 

 creased demands of the expanding populations for food and ma- 

 terials," are not specific enough to spur great industrial participation. 

 Wliat I feel are needed include : 



(1) Specific and detailed surveys of our Continental Shelf to de- 

 termine what is available, where, and what are the means to gather 

 and process the resources. 



(2) A similar survey of the Great Lakes. 



