12 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1965 
the Senate so it can be signed into law by the President and I think 
that will be helpful. It will not solve the problem but it will be 
helpful in preserving the integrity of the oceanographic program when 
it is presented to the Appropriations Committee for funding. 
Dr. Hornic. I think that is correct. One of the reasons that the 
Federal Council has produced these reports is so that each of the con- 
eressional committees in considering its part can have the opportunity 
to see what the total program looks like. 
Mr. Exusworrn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rogers? 
Mr. Rocers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
I, too, want to join in saying that your statement has been very 
helpful to the committee. 
Tam concerned about the statement you made on page 16, too. Do 
you foresee that probably as we develop in this field that is going to be 
necessary, probably to have one overall agency to develop this field 
or do you foresee just a continuation of the Interagency Committee? 
Dr. Hornig. I am not sure that I can give you a final answer to that 
question. This is a problem which comes up in many areas of Govern- 
ment. I mean that a number of different scientific programs cut 
through many agencies, and also are considered by many committees 
of the Congress. It certainly is not true that in each case the answer is 
to create another agency. I think this is why it is a problem. 
We approach oceanography from many points of view and, for 
instance, the Navy has a different attitude toward it than the Bureau 
of Commercial Fisheries. This is, I think, a healthy state of affairs as 
well as being a source of this problem we are discussing. I think it 
would be wrong to generate a mechanism which did not allow the free 
play of these multiple points of view and multiple reasons for interest. 
T think that feature ought to be preserved because it is a source of 
strength. 
Mr. Rocers. You do not think that could be preserved if you had 
one agency to administer this program ? 
Dr. Hornte. 1 think that would depend on how it was set up and 
administered. I donot have a firm opinion on this. 
Mr. Rogers. J was thinking, we have the space agency now that 
handles the majority of the problems there, and I certainly feel that 
oceanography has the potential of our space program as we develop 
it and it was my thinking that some of the problems that you have dis- 
cussed on page 16 probably could be met if we had an overall program 
more closely coordinated and administered by an agency under the 
jurisdiction, say, of your Oceanography Committee. 
Dr. Hornic. I think there is no question that a single agency, 
either an existing one or a new one reporting to the President, could 
meet this problem better. The question is whether one would not end 
up overdoing it and weaken some of the ties of scientific research to 
the practical problems which would stay outside of it. That is, there 
would be a new and difficult problem to relate the research effort to 
the practical problems associated with missions necessarily retained 
by the agencies? 
Mr. Rocers. Let me ask you now, your Interagency Committee, they 
make a recommendation as to what should be done in this field to your 
Federal Council? How is this determined? Are there so many 
