252 



in your field coming before us and pointing up the importance of what 

 we are now trying to accomplisli. I tliink tliat tliis fact has to be im- 

 pressed upon all Members of Congress, and I am sure it can be with 

 people like yourself. 



Tliank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Pelly. 



Mr. Jones. 



Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I have no questions, except to compliment the gentleman on his 

 appearance liere, and perhaps make a personal observation. 



We are all aware of the dramatic success of tlie Apollo 10, and I 

 think that vividly points out the need for a centralized, coordinated 

 program in this field, I think with anything as fragmentized as the 

 oceanography program, with 30 committees as well as departments 'and 

 commissions, there would be no Apollo 10. 



Dr. Wakelin, I think that is right, Mr, Jones. 



Mr. Lennon. Mr. Keith. 



Mr, Keith, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



A comparison was made of the recommended National Advisory 

 Committee on Oceanography with the National Advisory Committee 

 for Aeronautics in 1915. 



I recognize the problems of the executive branch in coming up with 

 a reorganization that would implement the recommendations of the 

 Commission, and of getting the public in the mood to respond favor- 

 ably, either to that kind of Executive action or to congressional action 

 along those lines. I wonder if you have any observation to make con- 

 cerning the possible timing of the creation of NACO. 



Dr. Fye commented briefly on this. Would you care to ? 



Dr. Wakelin. Well, if I might, Mr. Keith, go back just a bit with 

 respect to NACA, first the establishment of NACA was made possible 

 through the Naval Appropriations Act, as you recall, in 1915, princi- 

 pally to establish an advisory committee to develop aviation both 

 civilly and militarily in this country, to support the Navy and the 

 Army, and to support the development of an industry that would con- 

 tribute to our progress in aviation. 



The National Advisory Committee on the Oceans, it seems to me, 

 timewise, is somewhat beyond that stage in which we started in 1915 

 with the NACA. 



I think we cannot have an NACO alone, unless we pattern it after 

 the NACA with separate funding, the development of laboratories and 

 test facilities and design studies, and engineering capabilities that 

 would advance ocean science and engineering. 



I think the problem is much bigger in this area than it was in the 

 aviation industry for the purview that NACA had over it from 1915 

 into the 1920's. t think the timing of NACO ought to be simultaneous 

 with NOAA, 



I think if you set up an NACO as an advisory committee, the ques- 

 tion I would ask myself is : Whom do they advise? Would they advise 

 the Council ? Would they advise the President? And if they have only 

 an advisory capacity, it seems to me the power and effectiveness of an 

 operating organization that could advise would be lost. There would 

 be no implementation, except through the various departments, agen- 

 cies, and offices that now conduct work in the oceans. 



