The CHAIRMAN. In an indirect way they are competing for the same money because the Budget and Executive Department are going to look at how much money overall you are spending for this purpose. Dr. MORSE. Yes; I am saying that competition comes at a later stage, but within the ICO we have developed a very objective forum, I think, for assessing needs because of our preceding this part of the competition, so to speak. There are examples where agencies have actually acknowledged higher priority needs of other agencies, and the ICO's recommendation has come forth to the Federal Council recognizing that. The CHAIRMAN. What I am trying to get at is where there is this difference you do make recommendations. Dr. MORSE. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Somebody has to make them. Dr. HORNIG. Yes; we do, indeed. The CHAIRMAN. Now, of course, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries this year had all their ships cut out, did they not, all of them that they recommended? Somebody had to make that decision or recommend it. Now what steps have been taken to reduce cost? In effectiveness of new ships, is performance data centrally tabulated and analyzed? Dr. HORNIG. There is a ships panel of the Interagency Committee. Of course, many of the new ships have not operated long enough to be analyzed in great detail. But again perhaps Dr. Morse would like to speak to that. The CHAIRMAN. Do you intend to do that? Dr. MORSE. I might say there has been great progress in this, sir, because of the fact that the agencies are brought together; and as I am sure Captain Treadwell could testify, there has been great experience. For example, the new AGOR's that are in the Navy's budget this year are second-generation ships and are going to private institutions. The CHAIRMAN. That was the second part of this question. Are the operating costs of the ships tabulated so as to permit analysis of the cost of the ship operated by private and by Federal institutions and as a basis for improving the effective utilization of ships? Is that done or is it going to be done? Dr. HORNIG. Yes, indeed, ship operating costs are tabulated now. In fact, our biggest discussion this last year concerned ship operating costs because we found ship operating costs were eating deeply into the research budget. The CHAIRMAN. Now I will submit to you, Doctor, these other questions. They are more lengthy and more detailed, and they can be answered for the record. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Submitted herewith in response to your request at the hearings on oceanography on February 19 are answers to questions which you suggested be forwarded by correspondence (attachment A). During the hearing, you suggested that we provide you with a comparison of the oceanographic fleets of the United States and the U.S.S.R. A statement on this subject is attached for the record (attachment B). You also requested that we provide for the record the names of the 16 universities which grant degrees in oceanography or closely allied sciences (attachment C). I hope that this information meets the needs of the committee. If further details are needed, please do not hesitate to call upon us. Sincerely yours, DONALD F. HORNIG, Director. ATTACHMENT A ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO DR. DONALD F. HORNIG BY THE SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE AT HEARINGS ON OCEANOGRAPHY, FEBRUARY 19, 1965 1. How does the executive branch implement administrative policies adopted by the Federal Council for Science and Technology with relation to oceanography and marine science? The Federal Council for Science and Technology performs several functions with respect to oceanography. It is the parent body of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. As such, it reviews the proposals of ICO relating both to the substance of oceanographic programs and to administrative matters. Conversely, the FCST provides general strategic advice to ICO. In addition, FCST provides a channel through which questions relating to oceanography can be considered within the Executive Office of the President and within the top echelons of the Departments and Agencies. These actions do not constitute the adoption of policies by FCST. Rather, the Council's views and recommendations, which have a significant influence on actions relating to oceanography taken by the executive branch, are transmitted to the agencies and to the Executive Office of the President for consideration in formulating programs and budgets. The Federal Council for Science and Technology, together with its committees such as ICO, is an advisory body. To the extent that a consensus can be reached among the participating agencies and does not involve new budgetary or general policy matters, its recommendations are implemented directly by agency action. Otherwise, its recommendations are implemented within the agencies by persuasion from the Office of Science and Technology, often in concert with the Bureau of the Budget. 2. Recognizing that oceanography has been designated administratively as one of a series of national programs, what are the criteria for establishing such programs and who establishes them? There is no such thing as a formal administrative designation by the executive branch of a series of "national programs." The term "national program" simply means that a given area of science or technology is significant for the Nation as a whole, or that most or all national activities (i.e. the totality of relevant research and development financed from all U.S. sources) in a given area have been drawn together so that they can be seen as a whole. National programs are not established by the executive branch in the sense of creating an entity which is given special treatment because of that designation. Accordingly, the term “national program" can be applied by anyone to the total national effort in any area of science or technology. 3. I note in the 1966 budget a brief table of obligations by Federal agencies for oceanography; also of obligations by 5 major functional areas, accompanied by 30 lines of explanatory text. Do you consider that ample for consideration by the appropriations committees of the Congress? The 1966 budget contains Special Analyses H. Federal Research Development and Related Programs, which has as its major function the presentation of the $15 billion Federal R. & D. program in a form which permits the broad elements of the total program to be understood. Thus, the $7 billion R. & D. program of the Department of Defense is described in 50 lines and 1 table. The executive agencies provide the more extensive data required by congressional committees through a variety of means. One of the most important of these for oceanography is the national oceanographic program. The fiscal year 1966 version of this document was forwarded to the Congress by the President on March 2, 1965. 4. The budget includes a brief analysis of funding obligations for the atmospheric sciences. How is distinction between related programs such as oceanography and the atmospheric sciences delinated; for example research on air-sea interchange? The most important means of distinguishing between programs in oceanography and in meteorology when problems involving both fields (such as air-sea interaction) are under study is by noting where the research is actually carried out. Those phases of the study of air-sea interaction involving primarily study of the sea are funded as oceanographic. Those involving primarily study of the air are funded as research in the atmospheric sciences. This guide permits the assignment of all but a few projects. These are formally assigned to oceanography or atmospheric sciences after consultation with the groups involved. To provide an identifiable point of responsibility, the Department of Commerce has been given a position of leadership. In that Department, a panel on air-sea interaction has been established to identify and promote and assign research dealing with interchange of energy between ocean and atmosphere. The panel reports to the Federal Council through the Interagency Committee on Oceanography and the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences. 5. How was the rate of growth of the oceanographic program over the past few years established and what yardsticks are now employed to establish balance between scientific fields? The rate of growth of the President's budgets for oceanography over the past few years has been established by assessment in the executive branch, with the assistance of scientific advisers from outside government (including ad hoc scientific panels and the President's Science Advisory Committee), of factors such as the following: (1) Assessment of the scientific and technological opportunities presented by oceanographic studies, surveys, and exploration, and of needs in terms of ships, people, shore facilities, and funds needed to exploit the opportunities; (2) The relative urgency of oceanographic programs in comparison with other research and development programs; (3) The capacity of the existing physical and personnel resources to undertake new and expanded tasks; (4) The balance between various elements of the program, such as research, surveys, ship operation, and capital investments in ship and shore facilities; (5) The general budgetary guides established by the President. The final appropriations have reflected the judgments of a large number of congressional committees on the total budgets of agencies within which are found the components of the oceanographic program. Balance among scientific fields is sought primarily through reliance upon the informed judgments of experienced scientists, including persons from universities and industry. 6. The letter to the Congress forwarding this report noted that the plan would be supplemented by "additional reports on special topics such as manpower and instrumentation needs." Have these reports been prepared and are they available? (To the committee, if not publicly.) Publications of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography are listed on the back cover of National Oceanographic Program, Fiscal Year 1966 which is available to the committee. You may note that several of the reports (e.g., pamphlets 8, 14, and sections of 15 and 17) concern oceanographic manpower. Instrumentation occupies an important position in each of the annual national oceanographic program documents as well as having been the subject of a special ICO report entitled "Government-Industry Oceanographic Instrumentation Symposium of August 16-17, 1961." This 500-page volume documented the needs of the Federal agencies for oceanographic instrumentation, covering all aspects of the field. 7. and 8. How does the fiscal year 1965 and 1966 budgets-the first prepared since publication of the long-range plan-compare with the projections of that plan? What, if any, are the present inconsistence between goals and programs? The long-range national oceanographic plan did not project annual budgets, but rather recommended total spending over a 10-year period. Interpolation of the total recommendation places the fiscal year 1965 total about $30 million (or 20 percent) below the projected level and the fiscal year 1966 budget at approximately $50 million (or 25 percent) below the projected level. The budget for each year is determined in the light of the entire range of factors, such as those noted in the answer to question 5, that must be considered when the budget is prepared. The existence of a long-range plan is one of these factors, but it is not necessarily the governing factor. The long-range oceanographic plan dealt primarily with substantive scientific and developmental goals, and cited levels of expenditure as means to attain these goals rather than as ends in themselves. Scientific advances, the rate of col lection and analysis of survey data and the variety and utility of developmental work have all been impressive during the past 5 years. We see no inconsistencies between goals and programs. 9. What specific action did the Council take with respect to the fiscal year 1966 program recommended by the Interagency Committee? The Federal Council made no specific recommendations with respect to thefiscal year 1966 program recommended by the Interagency Committee. In June 1964, the Federal Council suggested that ICO undertake to identify needs in oceanography, and to estimate the cost of meeting these needs. This was to be done without regard to the levels proposed in the separate agency budgets. ICO proposed the augmentation of some programs and the initiation of others at an incremental cost of $50 million. Both the regular oceanographic program amounting to $135 million and the suggested incremental program were reviewed by a special ad hoc review group set up by OST. In October, theICO proposals and the views of the ad hoc group were reviewed by the Federal Council. In November, there was a similar review by the President's Science Advisory Committee. Both groups commented upon but took no specific action. with respect to the proposals. The proposals were considered in the course of preparing the President's budget for fiscal year 1966, and they are still under consideration as part of the process of forward planning. 10. How does the Federal Council and the Interagency Committee resolve problems of agency jurisdiction in connection with the oceanographic program? Problems of agency jurisdiction are normally settled within the operating panels of the ICO. In rare cases the ICO must review jurisdiction of projects. The Federal Council has never had to decide a problem of jurisdiction between ICO member agencies. 11. The committee is advised that responsibility for preparing an inventory and calalogue of all current oceanographic programs lies with the Science Information Exchange of the Smithsonian Institution. Has such an inventory or catalogue been prepared? If not, what is its status? Please provide for the record. The Science Information Exchange has prepared listings of current oceanographic programs. This is a highly effective mechanism for cataloging and disseminating information on oceanographic research. ICO has in its files both the inventory, in the form of a tape print-out, and summaries of 1,525 oceanographic research projects. These are available to the committee upon request. 12. and 13. How many persons on the OST staff are assigned to duties in connection with the oceanographic program, and what proportion of their time is devoted to those duties? Without designating by name, can you supply the committee with the scientific or administrative background of the person or persons on your staff who are assigned to duties in connection with the oceanographic program? OST has requested authority to add a limited number of senior staff members, and one of these is requested for full-time professional work on oceanography. This full-time arrangement is the general pattern for OST staffing for other scientific programs, including many that are larger and more complex than oceanography. Until the new staff member is recruited, responsibilities for oceanography within OST will be carried primarily by (a) a senior staff member (Executive Secretary of the Federal Council for Science and Technology) who is experienced in the administration of Federal research programs and problems of policy associated with them. He will spend about 10 percent of his time on oceanography. In addition, the ICO Chair-man, Dr. Robert W. Morse, has volunteered the services of his (b) assistant, and (c) the ICO Executive Secretary to the OST for staff assistance. The administrative backgrounds of the persons involved are respectively: (a) Ph. D in public administration, Associate Director of the National Institutes of Health; (b) M.S. in electronics from MIT, commander (selected for captain), U.S. Navy; (c) 2 years-Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 10 years— Naval Oceanographic Office, 2 years-Office of Naval Research, 4 years-ICO Executive Secretry. 14. "Ocean Sciences," published last year by the U.S. Naval Institute, contains in its chapter headed "Government,' a detailed description of what it describes as the "long and involved" process of preparing an annual national oceanographic program. If accurate, I propose to include it in the hearing record. Both you and Secretary Morse will be supplied copies for your perusal It is my under and comment at your leisure, should you desire to comment. standing that this chapter of "Ocean Sciences" was prepared by Capt. S. N. Anastasion, USN, formerly on the Interagency Committee staff and now on sea duty. Captain Anastasion's article in "Ocean Sciences" accurately describes the process of preparing the national oceanographic program. (The information referred to above appears in the appendix to the record.) 15. and 16. How much of the oceanographic program projected in the fiscal year 1966 budget would you consider basic research, how much applied research, and how much development? As you know, the Special Oceanography Analysis in the budget does not distinguish between basic and applied research. From your knowledge as Chairman of the Federal Council, has the proposed funding of basic research been increased or decreased, and has that for applied research been altered and in what respect? Would you undertake to supply the committee with the ratio between recommended appropriations for basic research and applied research? The oceanographic program does not lend itself well to the "basic research, applied research, development" categories, but the program can be divided roughly into these categories. Of the total oceanographic budget of $141.6 million for fiscal year 1965, $115.6 million or 80 percent is for research and surveys. The capital program will amount to $26 million, or 20 percent of the total. This capital program could be considered as a development effort. Of the research and survey portion, the maximum estimate for strengthening basic science would be $25 million. A lower figure for basic research would be $10 million per year. Either figure is defensible. Applied research, including surveys, would range from $90 to $105 million. The research, survey, ship construction, facilities construction, and instrumentation and equipment procurement description is more useful than the "research-development" description. Looked at this way, it is important to note that expenditures for research and surveys will expand by 15 percent in fiscal year 1966, while the capital program will require less. This means that expenditures for both basic and applied research will increase. The existing distribution of effort among the various components of the oceanographic program is generally satisfactory as a consequence of the deliberate decision to expand research and survey expenditures. It appears at this time that the desirable future course of action will be to continue to expand for some time in the future both the absolute and relative size of the research and survey component. 17. What ships have been retired as having been replaced by new oceanographic vessels? The following ships have been replaced during the period 1960-65 by those indicated in the table below: 18. What proportion of the research budget is devoted to ship operations? Of the survey budget? The average annual ship operating costs have run between 40 to 45 percent of the research budget with extreme values ranging from 23 to 65 percent. This varies by agency and is mission dependent. The three agencies which conduct oceanographic surveys have an average annual operating-cost equivalent to 60 percent of the total survey budget. This is a relatively uniform figure throughout the three agencies. |