this morning to discuss the central problems and issues relating to the organization of the Federal Government for oceanography, an area, I believe, to be of high importance to this Nation's scientific and technological effort.

I was privileged to appear before this subcommittee roughly 1 year ago, at which time I discussed the nature of the oceanographic program, its contribution to national and agency goals, and budget proposals for Government-wide programs in oceanography. As a result of those hearings, the subcommittee is generally familiar with the broad aspects of the program itself, and, therefore, today I will focus my discussion on the administrative and organizational questions relating to oceanography raised in the several congressional bills you have before you.

Nevertheless, any discussion of new administrative approaches to oceanography should recognize what this country has already achieved in this field. In the first place, the United States has maintained world leadership. No other country can match either the scope or quality of our oceanographic program and our capabilities have been improving. For example, since 1960:

The oceanographic budget has increased by nearly a factor of three;

Thirty-four new or converted ships have been added and 22 additional ships are currently under construction or conversion; Seven new marine laboratories have been constructed;

The number of graduate students in oceanography has increased by a factor of 3, from 110 in 1960 to 315 in 1964;

Three thousand people are now engaged professionally in oceanography, more than double the number in 1960.

In addition to these increased resources, new dimensions have been added to the program:

A national center provides services related to the quality control, stowage, and retrieval of oceanographic data;

New towers and platforms such as FLIP, special-purpose ships for sediment coring; oceanographic buoys, and communication relay satellites are now employed in the program;

New deep submergence vehicles such as Triesta II and Alvin are being used for research and exploration of the seas;

Laboratories have been built for underwater living, for divers to perform useful work on the sea floor for prolonged periods of time at great depths.

Ocean engineering programs, in general, are accelerating. In terms of accomplishments, also, I believe the program has progressed rapidly:

Entirely new ocean current systems have been identified;
Improved ocean wave theories have been advanced;

A vast sedimentary basin that may be oil bearing has been discovered under the Continental Shelf of the Northeastern United States:

New sources of fish and shellfish have been discovered for the fishing industry;

Reliable forecasts can be made of the distribution and abundance of certain species of fish for the fishing industry:

A tsunami warning service for Hawaii and States bordering the Pacific Ocean has been established;

With the advice and assistance of oceanographers, an extensive network of submarine cables has been laid across the Atlantic and Pacific by industry in a way which avoids natural hazards:

Extensive mineral deposits have been discovered on the sea floor:

The nature of the sea in terms of the shape and structure of the sea floor, the effect of radioactive materials on marine life, the interaction between the sea and the atmosphere, and the dispersion of pollutants is certainly better understood than it was 5 years ago.

In short, in considering what new steps to take, it is important to recognize that we have built up a very good program in oceanography. The question now is how to make it better, how to reconcile the need to satisfy a variety of purposes and still to have a coordinated, coherent program.

The existence of scientific and technological programs having common characteristics divided among a number of agencies is not unique to oceanography. There are a number of such programs and each requires coordination to achieve the greatest economy and efficiency in Government operations as a whole.

This situation is often encountered because science and technology is simply not organized to fit the structure of the Federal Government, with agencies established for various purposes and assigned to accomplish diverse missions. When we identify programs in science and technology that several agencies depend upon to fulfill their missions, then some means of coordination must be developed.

At this point I would like to review for the committee how the Executive Office of the President is organized to handle the problem of Government-wide program coordination. In the Executive Office there is the Office of Science and Technology, a small executive agency established with the approval of the Congress by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962, to insure the President has adequate staff support in developing policies and evaluating programs, to insure that science and technology are used most effectively in the interests of national security and general welfare.

Although the OST, as it is called, reports directly to the President, it is ultimately responsible to the Congress, as are other executive agencies. I am the Director of OST, and I also serve in a different but related capacity as Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology.

The essential task of OST, insofar as oceanography is concerned, is to advise and assist the President with problems of science policy and with the coordination of Federal activities in science and technology in concert with the Bureau of the Budget.

An additional function of OST, which I consider to be of great importance, is to serve as a point of contact and communication with Congress on scientific and technical issues, especially those of a Government-wide character, such as oceanography. Recognizing the importance of oceanography in the activities of OST, I have recently recruited an outstanding oceanographer from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Dr. Menard, to serve on my staff.

In addition to OST, two important committees exist to provide advice to the President on diverse activities in science and technology: the Federal Council for Science and Technology and the President's Science Advisory Committee. I serve as Chairman of both groups and the OST provides their staff.

The Federal Council for Science and Technology is composed of senior policy officials in the executive agencies who are responsible for research and development activities. The Executive order establishing the Council in 1959 directs it to provide more effective planning and administration of Federal science and technology, to identify research needs, to achieve better use of facilities, and to further international cooperation. Though it is an advisory body, the Council provides the central forum for discussion of common problems, technical problems in general, by Federal officials. It is the channel through which views and information are exchanged and through which a coordinating structure for Federal programs is established.

One of the most significant areas of activity of the Council has been to identify emerging areas of science and technology relevant to a large number of Federal agencies and to establish interagency committees to deal effectively with issues and opportunities presented by common experience and concern for a single area of science and technology. Thus far, the Council has established 11 committees for this purpose, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography being one of them. To a greater degree than was originally expected, these committees have increased the efficiency of Federal science and technology programs by improving communications among the agencies, by identifying issues for resolution, avoiding undesirable duplication, promoting complementary efforts, and facilitating more efficient and effective use of resources.

Some of the other interagency committees of the Federal Council which function similarly to the ICO are committees on atmospheric sciences, water resources, high energy physics, behavioral sciences, natural resources, scientific and technical information, and materials.

To give you some idea of the magnitude of several of these programs, the President's fiscal 1966 budget for water resources research was $100 million; for high energy physics, $137 million; for atmospheric sciences, $200 million; and, as you know, for oceanography, was $142 million.

When Dr. Morse testifies, he will explain the operation of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography in some detail, but I should like to remark briefly on the accomplishments of this organization. It has in my judgment performed well. The committee has provided the means whereby we have accumulated data relating to the total Federal activities in oceanography.

The Committee provides a mechanism through which each agency can know and does know what other agencies are doing and planning to do in oceanography. It has organized and presented data in a way which provides the Executive Office of the President, and in my judgment the Congress also, with a comprehensive view of the Federal activities in this field. And importantly, the Committee has set forth national goals for oceanography which have been endorsed

by the executive branch and transmitted to the Congress in the longrange plan for oceanography. The general goal stated in the plan is:

To comprehend the world ocean, its boundaries, its properties, and its processes, and to exploit this comprehension in the national interest, in enhancement of our security, our culture, our international posture, and our economic growth.

We proceed toward this goal by strengthening basic science, improving national defense, managing ocean resources, protecting life and property, and insuring the safety of operations at sea-through a concerted national effort in oceanography. The long-range plan can be viewed as an outline of requirements over a decade, in which context annual plans can be prepared according to needs, opportunities, and a desirable balance between capital investments and operating

programs.

Programs and issues developed by the ICO are reviewed by the Federal Council and appropriate recommendations are made. Thus, the advice of the ICO is available directly to me as Chairman of the Federal Council and as Director of the Office of Science and Technology. This means that oceanography can be and is presented and discussed as a single Federal program in the Executive Office of the President.

To the extent that a consensus can be reached among the participating agencies involving new budgetary or policy matters, the Federal Council's recommendations are implemented directly by agency action. Otherwise, its recommendations are implemented within the agencies by persuasion from the Office of Science and Technology, in concert with the Bureau of the Budget.

The other important Committee, besides the Federal Council, that exists to give advice to the President on activities in science and technology, is the President's Science Advisory Committee. The PSAC. as it is called, is composed of distinguished scientists and engineers selected from outside of Government on the basis of personal scientific and technical achievements of the highest order. The Committee's purpose is to make available to the President the very best scientific and technical advice in this country on such policies and programs as he might select. In addition, it is the Committee's function to recommend broad programs and policies and to anticipate problems which may face the President and the country in the future.

In this regard there are now important scientific and technical questions relating to the oceanographic program, and a panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee, the Panel on Oceanography, has been formed to study such questions. Over the course of the next 9 months the Panel will study the needs and opportunities and current activities in oceanography in order to recommend an improved program in terms of scientific merit, technological application, scientific and engineering leadership, and means whereby industrial, academic, and Federal resources can be jointly and effectively employed in this

program.

The Panel's Chairman is Dr. Gordon MacDonald, a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee, a distinguished scientist who is currently the Deputy Director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics of the University of California. The Panel is composed of 10 other prominent scientists and engineers from universities, private institutions, and industry, who have taken an active part in

public affairs and have a working knowledge and understanding of the Federal Government and its operations.

I have dwelled at some length on the organization of the Executive Office for Scientific and Technical Affairs because, in my judgment, the organization is sound and has resulted in substantial progress in the last 5 years. I should interpolate that I also think it could be improved.

Now I should like to turn to the various bills before this subcommittee.

First, H.R. 2218, by the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lennon, and identical bills by Mr. Pelly, a member of the subcommittee, and Mr. Bonner, chairman of the committee, to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography. This bill is identical to H.R. 6994, introduced by Mr. Lennon in the 1st session of the 88th Congress, which was strongly supported in a letter from my predecessor, Dr. Wiesner, to Chairman Bonner in June 1963, and which subsequently passed the House in 1963.

In my judgment this bill continues to represent the best approach to Federal management of oceanographic affairs. It clearly establishes a national policy for oceanography, effectively fixes responsibility for achieving national goals, and provides for substantial controls in the program through annual reports to the Congress. I spoke favorably of the bill before this subcommittee a little over a year ago. I commented favorably on H.R. 2218 in a letter to Chairman Bonner in February of this year. And I continue to support this bill which establishes prudent policies and procedures for achieving a comprehensive, yet coordinated, long-range program in oceanography. I can suggest no essential improvements to this excellent bill,

Second, H.R. 921, by Mr. Wilson, to establish a National Oceanographic Agency. This bill would create an independent agency, to which functions relating to oceanography would be transferred from a large number of existing agencies. I do not believe this bill provides a satisfactory solution, because it would centralize in a single agency many aspects of oceanography which must and should be carried on by many agencies of the Federal Government if they are to discharge their statutory responsibilities.

An arbitrary divorce of oceanography from the agencies would break an essential intellectual link the program now has with other Federal programs, which, in the long run, would tend to cause oceanography to be less responsive and less efficient in supporting the programs and purposes of the Federal Government. I believe that retention of the major base for oceanography in the programs of the various agencies is sound and should continue. It would be a mistake in principle to attempt to centralize in a single agency the great bulk of the work which is carried on most effectively and most properly in alliance with the missions of the several agencies involved.

Third, H.R. 5654, by Mr. Fascell, and identical bills by Mr. Fulton, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Huot, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes and to establish a National Oceanographic Council. As I noted earlier, the President has had available since 1959, through the Federal Council for Science and Technology, a means of coordinating and planning Government-wide activities relating to oceanography. The functions of the proposed National Ocean