« PreviousContinue »
In order for the Survey to become a full partner in the program, it needs to exercise a certain level of financial control. Such control is important, if we are to guide those aspects of the program that would be designated for resource assessment. By being full partners, we could be certain that we obtain quality data, and in turn, we could provide the Federal Government with quality resource estimates. Incremental funding of our existing programs can ensure our participation in, and partial funding of the OMD program.
The Geological Survey would anticipate representation by the Director or his designee on the Executive Committee of JOIDES. The representative to the Planning Committee would be the Chief Geologist of the Geologic Division (or his designee) who would be responsive to the interests of all the Divisions of the Survey. The Geological Survey would be represented on all other appropriate committees, panels, or working groups.
We recommend that at the initial stages of the OMD program JOIDES invite the Survey to participate in a separate structure established for the single purpose of OMD planning. A Planning Committee and Site Selection and Site Surveying Panels dedicated to OMD planning might represent reasonable start. An active Site Selection/Survey Panel would provide the catalyst for estab11shing engineering criteria for subsea systems, site-survey requirements, and implementation of site investigations. We believe these coordinating activities should begin soon.
4. What do you consider to be most important reasons for going ahead with the
OMD Project? What are the most important reasons for not going ahead with it?
We believe the most important reason for going ahead with the OMD program is, that from the viewpoint of the National interest, we must understand, as soon as possible, the petroleum potential of the offshore regions.
oil and gas reserves are declining, while consumption is not, owing to new discoveries not keeping pace with production. This task will be long and arduous, because the size of the offshore areas is large, our knowledge of them is incomplete, and the technological improvements that will have to be lavoked to extract the resources require long leadtimes for development. Same as industry, we recognize that the OMD program is a very viable means to obtain oil and gas resource data on the Continental Margia in a scientifically conceived frame of reference. Joint industry-government activities can, at this time, offer an economical avenue to solve this problem of common concern. With leadership of the National Science Foundation, a multi-institutional, multinational operation can provide data at reduced costs to each participating entity. This program can also hold together an ocean drilling team (JOIDES), including its academic experts, that has kept, and could continue to keep, the v.s. in the forefront of marine geologic studies and engineering technology
We recognize the merits of both the domestic and international aspects of the program and are willing to support it. Other than budgetary considerations, we see no reasons for not going ahead with ocean margin drilling; even there we think an argument based on resource potential and national security can override short-term budgetary considerations.
The subcommittee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]
1981 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1980
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Brown. The subcommittee will come to order.
This is the third in a series of short hearings to review the program and budget of the National Science Foundation.
We have heard overviews from Dr. Murray and Dr. Atkinson, and we have examined in some detail the programs in four of the research directorates. Today, we will be talking about the programs in engineering and applied science.
This new directorate provides what appears to be a logical "home" for engineering and brings together under one head many complementary programs concerned with applying research results to practical problem areas.
One program, concerned with stimulating science-based business opportunities in the small business community, has been selected by the administration for a fourfold increase in funding. We will want to talk about that, in all probability.
The administration has also requested increased funding to foster university/industry cooperation. I realize that is a cross-directorate program, not confined to Dr. Sanderson's directorate, but today would be a good opportunity to talk about that, also.
I know that Congressman Ritter, if he were here, would be interested in both these topics and has indicated that he would want to be involved with them. Unfortunately, he is ill this morning.
When we finish with engineering and applied science, we will move on to some subjects that affect the Foundation as a whole. I understand there are some proposed minor amendments to remove obsolete provisions in the Organic Act.
We are also concerned about how to manage a 2-year budget authorization. As time permits, we will take up these and other subjects listed in the hearing schedule. Tomorrow's hearing will give us another opportunity to complete that list.
Before I call on Dr. Sanderson, I would like to ask our distinguished ranking minority member, Mr. Wydler, if he'd like to make any comments at this point.
Mr. WYDLER. No, Mr. Chairman.
I want to personally welcome Dr. Atkinson and the other witnesses. I think the type of hearings you are holding are going to be productive in trying to give us a good handle on the budget. I look forward to hearing at least part of the testimony that's given here today.
Welcome to you.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Watkins, who will be here shortly, had a statement that he wanted to make. If he doesn't get here in time to make it, without objection, it will be included in the record at this point.
[The material referred to follows:]
HON. WES WATKINS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to make some opening
remarks on NSF's proposed budget for the Engineering and Applied Science
Most of the Subcommittee's attention today will probably be directed to
the increases in Dr. Sanderson's budget to implement two of the President's
Industrial Innovation Initiatives
and that's probably as it should be.
These initiatives were overdue, they are justified and I've already indicated
my support of these activities to the President.
and his colleagues are to be commended, because their existing programs formed
the "jumping-off point" for the President's initiatives, and NSF has been
designated the lead agency in putting together a Small Business Innovation
program for other Federal agencies.
But despite our enthusiasm for these new thrusts, we can't afford to
ignore the other, equally important programs to support innovation that are
included in Dr. Sanderson's Directorate, particularly those in the
Intergovernmental Programs Subactivity.
The initiation of the State Science, Engineering and Technology program
mandated by Congress in the FY 1980 budget forced reductions of $1 million
among other program activities of the Intergovernmental Subactivity last year. Yet none of this money is restored in the proposed FY 1981 budget. All of the
proposed $1.5 million increase is budgeted for the SSET program, while the
other three subactivities are expected to make do with less funds than they