235 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Downing. Mr. Grover. 



Mr. Grover. I have no questions. 



Mr. Downing. Mr. Jones ? 



Mr. Jones. I have no questions. 



Mr. Downing. Counsel would like to ask you some questions, Doctor. 



Mr. Drewry. Dr. Fye, I think I understand your modesty in dis- 

 cussing the Government organization. I don't think you should really 

 feel so humble about it because you have probably been associated 

 with the development of this program as long as almost anybody else, 

 you and the distinguished gentleman behind you, Dr. Wakelin. 



In your statement you made no comment on the National Advisory 

 Committee for the Oceans, NACO. Would you care to comment on 

 your views in relation to that ? 



Dr. Fye. The statement, Mr. Drewry, about that was rather short. 

 It is on page 9. May I expand on that? I did say that I endorsed the 

 concept of NACO and I do so very strongly. I think this is one of the 

 examples of the great wisdom of the Commission in that they have 

 proposed to establish a major advisory board which may well turn 

 out to be as important as NACA was years ago in aviation. Thereby 

 the Government can secure the advice of outstanding people who will 

 continuously monitor this program. 



Their advice then could be available to the Congress, to the execu- 

 tive branch, as well as to NOAA, itself. 



I read the report to indicate that the Advisory Committee for the 

 Oceans would go beyond just the program of N"OAA, but would look 

 at the total national effort. I think this would be an important adjunct 

 to the establishment of an independent agency. 



I would, as I say, not feel that this was a sufficient step forward 

 in lieu of NOAA, but I think it is one that should be a companion step 

 to the establishment of NOAA, and I would be very unhappy if the 

 agency were established without such an advisory board. 



Mr. Drewry. And I take it from what you are saying that you feel 

 that they should be established simultaneously rather than to create 

 NACO maybe first and then later get around to NOAA ? 



Dr. Fye. I would prefer, Mr. Drewry, if this could be done either 

 essentially simultaneously as a part of the same legislative act or to 

 have NACO follow NOAA shortly thereafter. 



As to whether it could be a first step, with some modification : If we 

 find that the difficult step which Mr. Hanna discussed of getting every- 

 body educated enough to follow along seems to be impossible, I think 

 that this could be a first step. 



However, if it were, I would then hope that the Congress would go 

 beyond what is in the Commission report relative to the advisory 

 committee. I would hope then to follow somewhat more closely what 

 was done in the early days of NACA and permit the committee not to 

 be solely advisory but to have it become a funding body to a certain 

 extent as a part of this first step. 



I don't believe, very frankly, that that would be nearly as good as 

 following what the Commission has outlined, I would not exclude it, 

 however. That would be better than nothing, and it could be, I think, 

 quite an effective step if a modification of NACO were put in at the 

 time it was established. 



Have I made myself clear ? 



