254 



Dr. Wakelin. YeSj sir. 



]Mr. Hanna. I think we have an entirely different problem, Mr. 

 Chairman, in terms of the legislative change, because I think the legis- 

 lative change comes from the result of pressure, and that is predicated 

 ■on education, as Dr. Fye and I discussed as we exchanged ideas here, 

 and I think that is general where persons like yourself and the orga- 

 nization within industry and the Academies and other areas must all 

 join us in this educational process, because out of that will come the 

 public pressure really required to make the legislative change. 



Dr. Wakelin". Yes, sir. 



Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Hanna. 



Immediately preceding Dr. Wakelin's statement, I ask unanimous 

 consent that there be inserted in the record the biography of Dr. 

 Wakelin. 



Dr. Wakelin, I am particularly delighted that you were able and 

 interested and concerned enough to make yourself available, because 

 our association has been long over the years in relationship to the 

 bringing into being of Public Law 89^54, from which we move today 

 to consider the Commission's report. 



I note that you state on page 6, about line 8, that, "In June 1966, the 

 Panel on Oceanography of the President's Science Advisory Com- 

 mittee * * * recommended a major reorganization of non-Navy gov- 

 ernmental activities in oceanography. * * *" 



Is it your judgment that the Stratton report, or the Commission re- 

 port suggests an implementation of its recommendations comparable 

 to what was recommended in that particular panel report, that was 

 headed up by Dr. Gordon J. F. McDonald, in general terms ? 



Dr. Wakelin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 



I am just now looking at the report to which you referred, which is 

 entitled "Effective Use of the Sea.'" It is not very different by way of 

 organizational structure than that recommended by the Stratton 

 Commission. 



The reasons given in the report for the proposed reorganization are 

 three : Unity of environmental sciences and observational technology ; 

 two, dependence of oceanic development for Navy and commerce on 

 our ability to predict the environment ; and three, clearly establishing 

 responsibility for executing national objectives and nondefense mis- 

 sions for the oceans. 



Mr. Lennon. In that same year, 1966, and you refer to it, also, on 

 page 6, the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of 

 Sciences-National Research Council, under the chairmanship of Dr. 

 Milner B. Schaefer, made its report, and they specifically referred, 

 according to your statement here, if I understand it, to Public Law 

 89^54. 



I take it that in that particular report they made specific reference 

 to the national ocean policy that was suggested or proclaimed by the 

 enactment of Public Law 89^54. Is that your appraisal of Dr. 

 Schaefer's report? 



Dr. Wakelin. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Lennon. I think you must keep in mind that while this particu- 

 lar act did attempt to establish by Congress a national oceanography 

 or oceanographic program or policy, yet, at the same time, the act also 

 provided for the creation of the national council that you and I have 



