the sea bottom is of such concern to a number of industrial concerns that the private effort is now also expanding. The Federal agencies will continue their developmental activities, and will cooperate with private firms through such means as making technical information available and establishment of joint studies.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to summarize what I have said in the following terms. First, we have had over the past 5 years an intensified program in oceanography which has been scientifically productive.. Second, the Federal investment in surveys and research in oceanography is continuing to increase.

Third, the Federal mechanism for coordinating oceanographic activities among the Federal agencies has performed well and is improving.

Fourth, it is sound to continue to have oceanographic activities operated by Federal agencies in conjunction with the attainment of their missions.

Fifth, any coordinating mechanism will have to take into account the fact that funds and missions in oceanography are distributed among the Federal agencies.

Sixth, the most significant decisions related to Federal activities. in oceanography relate not to coordination and similar administrative matters, but rather to the fundamental judgment as to the directions in which oceanography should go and the areas in which the major opportunities lie.

I have deliberately made my presentation brief so that you could not only spend adequate time hearing the other witnesses, but also allow us adequate time for discussion of these important matters. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. I have some questions which I would like to ask you, and then the committee has a number of questions, broad questions, things that you may have to look up for the record, which I will submit to you. Then you can answer them for the record at a proper time.

Dr. HORNIG. Fine.

The CHAIRMAN. The first question I have to ask is: In the absence of explicit legislation has the executive branch a stated policy or purpose regarding oceanography?

Dr. HORNIG. As I stated, Mr. Chairman, oceanography is not a single homogeneous field; so that it has many purposes and so that I think we have a general commitment to its healthy development, but there is not a detailed statement of policy.

The CHAIRMAN. And if there is one, or whatever the purposes that might have been involved in this field, it has only been recent? I say recent to the extent of 5, 6 years.

Dr. HORNIG. That is quite correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And that has been an effort I think prodded a bit by the Members of Congress back beyond that time, and by the National Acadmey. I think that is a fair statement. There was a lack of interest in this whole field and a very uncoordinated effort prior to what you speak of in your testimony.

Dr. HORNIG. I think that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Now without a legislative base, would you have. an opinion as to the permanence or durability of an oceanographic policy?

Dr. HORNIG. I think that the permanence

The CHAIRMAN. What I mean is that men like you may not be here forever, you know.

Dr. HORNIG. But the oceans will remain.

The CHAIRMAN. The oceans will be there waiting to be explored; yes. Dr. HORNIG. I think that the questions are so compelling that once attracted to public attention one way or another we cannot avoid devoting attention to them.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, I could interpolate a bit there by suggesting this is somewhat similar to the situation when we began the space program. There the permanence was more assured by a legislative base. We probably might have gone on anyway in this field, but there was, and is, a legislative base.

Now, do national scientific or technological programs receive special emphasis in the agency budget action; and if so, with relation to oceanography, what emphasis?

Dr. HORNIG. Mr. Chairman, I should like to emphasize that there are many reasons for supporting oceanography. For instance, that the large expenditures in the Department of the Navy are in many cases turned to the necessities of defense, and should be, rather than to any considerations of a general program in oceanography. Similarly, the magnitude and scale of the work on tracing the environments in which fish life prospers, and the migration of fishes, and so on, is properly tied to our interest in fisheries; and although it is an important part of oceanography, I find it hard to believe that one would develop this within the science of oceanography.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you actually have now any long-range plans for oceanography other than the reports, the recent report of 1963 from the Federal Council?

Dr. HORNIG. They have been constantly updated.

The CHAIRMAN. For the record, that was entitled "Oceanography 10 Years Ahead.”

Dr. HORNIG. That is right. That 10-year plan has been the foundation of this planning. The Academy has a continuing committee, and I understand that they are this spring going to produce an updated version of their report, and our own Interagency Committee is essentially now trying to move the plan forward year by year.

The CHAIRMAN. So, that as far as the Federal Council is concerned, there has not been any material change in plans, but there may be some change when they update this new report? Would that be a fair statement?

Dr. HORNIG. I think so.

Dr. MORSE. It is annually.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know of any change in plans—let's put it that way. You can speak on that.

Dr. MORSE. May I speak on that, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Dr. MORSE. I might say the Interagency Committee developed a 10-year plan that I think was the one you are referring to in 1963. The CHAIRMAN. July 1963 report.

Dr. MORSE. Yes. Now certainly this is an issue that we have discussed a great deal in the committee. I think we will undoubtedly move toward a short range plan which updates this essentially annu

ally, and within the Navy there is such a 10-year plan that was taken essentially from the interagency plan, was updated, and it is a complete analysis of the Navy's program.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the defense planning in this field would have to be constantly reviewed because the emphasis on defense changes constantly.

Dr. MORSE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe with reference to under the oceans and over them, to the type of vessels, the types of warfare, and to the missions.

Dr. MORSE. Yes, sir; the point is that this 10-year plan of the Navy not only reflects the Navy's changing plans in the 10 years, but also reflects its responsibilities from within the ICO.

Dr. HORNIG. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to give the impression that we feel we are doing everything just right.

The CHAIRMAN. You are what?

Dr. HORNIG. I do not want to give the impression that we feel we are doing everything just right.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Dr. HORNIG. I think there is a very real need for a more comprehensive, more long-range plan which will take into account the experience we have gotten in these last 5 years and the new developments and thinking in the field which has been much stirred up all over the country in these 5 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Particularly in the sonar field in the Defense Department; this is a very important, flexible, changing subject.

Now, in the 1963 report you noted, and I quote from it, "that unless the program for training new manpower for oceanography is more successful one or more of the Federal goals will suffer." Has that

occurred since 1963 ?

Dr. HORNIG. No, I am not aware of its having happened. As I mentioned, it is very difficult to say exactly how well the manpower expansion is going on because in terms of training students who take, after all, 4 years to go through college and another 4 or 5 years to go through graduate school, there are just now beginning to come out the results of the initial actions. So that the time has not yet come to say whether we have been successful. But there are many more students. The enrollments, as I mentioned, have tripled. So I think this is proceeding.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you say that-supposing we would double the program-I just use that in a broad term-would you say that there would be manpower available now?

Dr. HORNIG. I think in scientific terms we might encounter difficulties. I am simply not sure.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, is it not true, Doctor, that many of these appropriations in this field in the various agencies have often been geared up or down according to the availability of the manpower to do it?

Dr. HORNIG. I am not aware of the programs having been explicitly tied to manpower, but perhaps Dr. Morse would like to comment.

Dr. MORSE. I think one has to distinguish the scientific activity from other activity such as surveys, or more what one could do with less-trained people once it has been set up by scientific people.

My own view, particularly having come recently from a university, is that in terms of the scientific backlog of available talent there is an enormous backlog not only of interest, but of young people in biology and in geology, and so on, who show a great interest in oceanography and would quickly move into the field as opportunities were available. So I think there is a backlog of younger scientific people. If you wanted to double the scientific efforts next year I think you would run into a shortage of the well, I do not like to use the word "middle aged"-but experienced oceanographers, the leaders that would have to plan programs and train other people. I think at the present moment in the scientific area it is this middle generation whose training preceded the present experience.

The CHAIRMAN. And would you say that much of the availability of manpower in this field in the younger groups, the younger scientists, is almost in direct relation to the national interest in oceanography?

Dr. MORSE. Yes, I think that as long as scientific problems are interesting they will be for a long time to come--you will find interested people.

The CHAIRMAN. Because of these activities in the past 7 or 8 years and the ones you have testified to and the development of the program, I think we find more young people who heretofore had no interest at all in oceanography now becoming somewhat interested in it.

Dr. MORSE. I think they had never heard of the field before.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now you did, Dr. Hornig, testify, I think, to this next question: Does the Office of Science and Technology participate in program planning by the Interagency Committee on Oceanoraphy?

Dr. HORNIG. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. You do, yes. How does the Council dispose of recommendations presented by the Interagency Committee?

Dr. HORNIG. They are passed in two directions: To me in the Executive Office of the President, and they are passed to the agencies concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Supposing there are some differences among the members. How is that resolved if there are?

Dr. HORNIG. The council is an advisory body and not an action body, so that in a sense it has no formal vote. But what it does is clarify the views for action by the Executive.

The CHAIRMAN. How much time does the Office of Science and Technology devote in connection with its oceanographic responsibilities in relation to the broad range of your other responsibility? I know that is a difficult question to answer directly, but in a general way you can. I do not mean directly; I mean specifically. I am not talking about man hours or things of that kind.

Dr. HORNIG. I guess one way of putting it is that although we do not have him at the moment, we plan to have one man full time out of a staff of approximately 20.

The CHAIRMAN. One man?

Dr. HORNIG. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you put his name in the record?

Dr. HORNIG. We are looking for him, sir. At the moment Dr. Kidd is responsible for it.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now are there any long-range plans in this field for the construction of additional research and survey ships? Have you looked ahead and have you planned on it, or do you pretty much follow the National Academy's reports on that?

Dr. HORNIG. I think that we are now only assessing this. We have not built as many as the 10-year Interagency Committee plan projected. On the other hand, I think we have as many now as match the rest of the program, and they are still coming in. So that certainly more ships will be needed in the future, but I would hesitate to lay down any precise description at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you resolve the difficulties money wise when you feel a ship is needed between the departments? I see some of my friends here from Coast and Geodetic and Coast Guard and the Science Foundation. How do you resolve that? Do you resolve that or does the budget resolve that? I guess in the last analysis the budget might resolve it.

Dr. HORNIG. We participate in the formulation of the budget.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what I am pointing out, there is—and this is only natural-there is rivalry between the agencies on who develops ships in this field, knowing that there is only so much money available. Is that not true?

Dr. HORNIG. That is correct, although

The CHAIRMAN. I do not say that rivalry is unhealthy. I say there is rivalry, there should be.

Dr. HORNIG. I think we have been able in the last few years to include in the program an adequate ship construction program for each of the agencies involved.

Dr. Morse would like to speak to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Morse, do you want to give us a little on that? Dr. MORSE. Well, with respect to ships I would say first that if you ask have we built enough ships, I think the answer in the research area is that the ship construction has kept pace with need. I think the area that one would question whether the ships have kept up with the programs that could have been done has been in the area of surveys, and that has fallen short, I think, for several reasons. One is the Navy has built many survey ships and kept pace with that part of the program, but in the meantime demand of classified and military surveys grew much faster than we had anticipated, and this has absorbed the Navy's contribution to the unclassified survey pro

gram.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, supposing the Coast and Geodetic Survey wants a ship and the Navy wants a ship. Who resolves that? Dr. MORSE. I would think perhaps

The CHAIRMAN. The Navy never gives up a ship unless they have to. Dr. MORSE. I hope one of our later witnesses will be, say, Captain Treadwell, who is chairman of the ships panel of the ICO." The ICO certainly does discuss this in their meetings. One of the virtues of the defect that Dr. Hornig mentioned is that the ICO in dealing with their programs at that time are not competing for the same money; that is that the Navy and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries are not really competing for the same money because they are representing agency. No longer do they compete for the same money.