733 
The report then presented two basic principles key to oceanic progress : 
First,, a mechanism must be established to provide national perspective and. 
guidance to the Nation’s engineering and technology efforts. Second, recognition 
must be made of the necessity of continual additions to fundamental technology. 
This latter principle leads to the importance of assuring that funds to support 
fundamental technology development are adequately distinguished from agency 
general operating funds so that a steady and continuing fundamental technology 
program can be assured without interruption. 
The response to the first principle, and one element of safeguard, 
should be the formation of the national advisory committee for the 
oceans (NACO). I emphasized a second safeguard in my statement, 
and it is also the panel’s second principle. Because mission manage- 
ment will inevitably sacrifice long-range engineering research and ad- 
vanced technology development to short-term needs, the fundamental 
technology program should be budgetarily independent. Also, the 
major portion of the werk should be done on a contract basis outside 
of Federal laboratories. The fundamental technology program then 
will provide assistance to the private sphere while enhancing the 
effectiveness of Federal operational capabilities within its functional 
missions such as exploration and survey. 
A third safeguard is for the Congress to assure that the oceanic 
missions to be performed by the U.S. Government and the principles 
presented in the testimony of myself and others are clearly spelled 
out in the legislative charter given the executive branch as a result of 
these hearings. A final safeguard is to assure that there remains an 
open door for independent advisory groups not attached to the U.S. 
Gevernment nor appointed by Government officials. 
Mr. Lennon. Should NACO be created along with and tied to 
NOAA, or can it exist with a life of its own? If NACO can be inde- 
pendently established, whom should it advise? What powers should it 
be given, assuming that it is independently established, to assure that 
it can carry out coordination of Federal efforts effectively ¢ 
Mr. Wueaton. I believe NACO definitely could be created inde- 
pendently of NOAA. It should advise the President, through his 
science adviser, the Congress, and each of the executive agencies with 
ocean missions. NACO’s powers should include (1) the publication, 
review, and updating of 10-year objectives for the national ocean 
program, (2) the publication of an annual review and assessment of 
the progress of the United States toward meeting the national goals, 
(3) assignment of lead agencies for programs of multiagency interest, 
(4) review of plans and budget requests of U.S. Government agencies, 
taking into account efforts outside the U.S. Government, to avoid 
unintentional duplication of engineering development, and (5) per- 
haps most important, NACO could be given the responsibility to carry 
out the technology development and data dissemination functions. A 
technology development group could be attached to NACO and be 
assigned the task of providing new technology to meet the U.S. Gov- 
ernment’s missions in the oceans in accordance with national prior1- 
ties. Since each of these five powers would benefit all the Government 
agencies with ocean roles, very close coordination and cooperation 
among them would be assured. 
Mr. Lennon. At the close of your statement, you reflect that gov- 
ernment ought to organize along functional lines. As far as engineer- 
