691). Such assistance may include (1) detailing employees to the Council to perform such functions, consistent with the purposes of this order, as the Chairman may assign to them, and (2) undertaking, upon request of the Chairman, such special studies for the Council as come within the functions herein assigned to the Council. (b) Upon request of the Chairman, the heads of Federal agencies shall, so far as practicable, provide the Council with information and reports relating to the scientific and technological activities of the respective agencies." Section 4. "Standing committees and panels. For the purpose of conducting studies and making reports as directed by the Chairman, standing committees and panels of the Council may be established in consonance with the provisions of section 214 of the act of May 3, 1945, 59 Stat. 134 (31 U.S.C. 691). At least one such standing committee shall be composed of scientist-administrators representing Federal agencies, shall provide a forum for consideration of common administrative policies and procedures relating to Federal research and development activities and for the formulation of recommendations thereon, and shall perform such other related functions as may be assigned to it by the Chairman of the Council."

It is my understanding that the staffs of the Federal council committees are recognized by the Office of Science and Technology as extensions of their own staff. In the case of the ICO, both my assistant, Commander Snyder, and the ICO executive secretary, Mr. Abel, are frequently utilized in this capacity by the Office of Science and Technology. We find this to be an extremely convenient and effective arrangement, providing as it does a firm bridge between Council and Committee. This liaison makes for successful communications and a smooth flow of administration both up and down.

6. Question. Has the Interagency Committee been called upon for such assistance?

Answer. The ICO staff has been called upon frequently by the Office of Science and Technology, primarily in answering correspondence from the Congress and the public, less frequently in compiling studies on one or another issues as requested by the OST.

7. Question. What do you consider the secretariat of ICO, and how large it is? 8. Question. What agency or agencies supply this secretariat?

9. Question. How much staff support is provided the secretariat?

10. Question. What agencies provide this staffing?

Answers 7 through 10. The secretariat of the ICO consists of the executive secretary, Mr. Robert Abel, and his staff, which we expect to include eight persons by the end of this fiscal year. A list of the ICO staff members together with their agency of origin and the amount of staff support is submitted herewith for the record.

11. Question. The House Subcommittee on Oceanography has reported that ICO met six times in calendar year 1963. How many times did it meet in 1964? Answer. The ICO met nine times in 1964. 12. Question. How much time, as Chairman of the Interagency Committee, have you been able to contribute?

Answer. I, as chairman of the ICO, devote approximately 10 to 15 percent of my personal time to ICO functions. As Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research and Development), I have four special assistants on my immediate personal staff; one of whom (Commander Snyder) is concerned with oceanography, ocean engineering, and deep submergence on a full-time basis. He has the fulltime assistance of one administrative type.

13. Question. In developing an oceanographic program, how does the Interagency Committee determine division of activities and funding between in-house research and that conducted by institutions and industries?

Answer. The division of activities and funding between in-house and contractual reesarch is almost identical to the division among the ICO member agencies themselves. For instance, almost all of the activities and funding support of the National Science Foundation and Office of Naval Research concern grants and contracts. The Coast and Geodetic Survey, Bureau of Mines, Geological Survey, and Bureau of Commercial Fisheries-the Interior agencies, are almost solely concerned with in-house activities, etc.

14. Question. How are activities, projects, plans, and funding related to what may be considered goals in the public interest? (The 1963 long-range program related oceanography to certain national inteersts; i.e., national defense, managing resources in the world ocean, managing resources in domestic waters, protecting life and property, and strengthening basic sciences.)

Answer. Activities, projects, plans, and funding are considered to primarily relate to the mission oriented agencies conducting them; for instance, the National Science Foundation is almost entirely devoted to supporting basic science; the Naval Oceanographic Office is concerned with strengthening national defense; Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is devoted to managing resources in the world oceans; the Coast Guard protects life and property, etc.

15. Question. How is compatibility between funds, manpower, and facilities established in annual or long-range programs?

Answer. The ICO, over a period of years, has determined rough management indices for maintaining compatibility between funds, manpower, and facilities. The first attempt to balance these resources takes place in the panel discussions, which discussions are then reflected in agency planning. The ICO itself makes a second examination and later reviews this balance with the ad hoc advisory panel of the OST. Final recommendations are then made to the Director, OST. 16. Question. How is balance achieved between military and civilian programs in oceanography?

Answer. The ICO seldom attempts to recommend cancellation of a military program. On several occasions, where the military priority of a Navy program was deemed less important than other parts of the Federal program, a recommendation to substitute a part of some other agency program for the lower priority Navy program has been made. I should like to reemphasize the advisory nature of the ICO. In the final analysis, decisions are made by the agency and/or department head based upon ICO, FCST, and OST recommendations. There has never been, to date, a conflict between the programs of the Navy Department and those of the civilian agencies which has not been mutually resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

17. Question. What is the status of the contract sponsored by the Coast and Geodetic Survey in June 1963 for a study looking toward a long-range survey program?

Answer. Completion of the contract sponsored by the Coast and Geodetic Survey is expected by summer 1965.

18. Question. Has a report been made on this and, if so, it is available? Answer. A single report on ship adaptability has been made by the contractor; a copy is submitted herewith for the record.

(NOTE. The report dated September 15, 1963, is in the committee files and available for reference.)

19. Question. What would you consider the objectives of oceanwide surveys, and how would priorities be set if such a program were envisioned?

Answer. Simply stated, the objective of oceanwide surveys is to obtain an inventory of the oceans, the better to plan research and exploitation. The ICO

would require its survey panel to recommend to it priorities for accomplishment of this program.

20. Question. How does ICO prevent program duplications?

Answer. Program duplications are eliminated in panel sessions. Actually most duplications are prevented before they start due to the efficient and easy communications existing among all of the panel members.

21. Question. Is the National Oceanographic Data Center represented on the Interagency Committee?

Answer. The National Oceanographic Data Center is not represented on the Interagency Committee; however, its Director, Dr. Jacobs, is normally invited to attend the ICO meetings.

22. Question. Does NODC report to ICO, or are operations of NODC subject to ICO review?

Answer. The NODC does not report directly to the ICO. However, the NODC advisory board reports to their member agencies who review the NODC program and make recommendations to the ICO.

23. Question. What steps have been taken to standardize collection and tabulation of oceanographic data, and what backlog, if that information is available, does NODC now have?

Answer. The first major step toward standardizing oceanographic data was the decision, based on the recommendation of the ICO, to use metric units as the basic unit of the NODC archives.

In November 1961, the NODC began its operation using the inherited NAVOCEANO station data file and the bathythermograph (BT) data file in the standard 3- by 5-inch analog format. Since then, the NODC has issued data reporting forms and manuals for the following types of data:

These reporting forms are being used nationally and internationally as well. The reception of these forms has been favorable by such international bodies as SCOR, UNESCO, IHB, IIOE, and EQUALANT to name a few.

Recently, the NODC published "Computer Programs in Oceanography" NODC Publication C-5. A copy is submitted herewith for the record (TAB C). It is the NODC's belief that standardized tabulations of oceanographic data will come about more rapidly by facilitating the exchange of computer programs.

The goal of the NODC is to archive data which is either immediately compatible with the most advanced data processing system or it must be in a form rapidly and economically convertible to compatible format without manual steps. An estimate of the backlog of oceanographic data existing today is submitted herewith for the record. Of the data listed in this report, there are three types which appear to have higher priority than the rest. These three are: 1. Nearshore station data.

2. Ice data.

3. Thermal records (including BT data, infrared radiation data, ship of opportunity data, etc.)

NOTE. The estimate of the oceanographic data backlog is included in the Appendix to the hearing record.

24. Question. The ICO report for fiscal 1965 indicated the executive branch was concerned with the problem of how the enginering competence of American industry could be more effectively blended with American science for a concerted exploration of the sea frontier. What steps are ICO taking to stimulate this goal?

Answer. The ICO, in late April 1964, requested that industry conduct a voluntary study in an attempt to answer the question, "How may the engineering competitiveness of American industry be more effectively blended with American science for a concerted exploitation of the world's ocean?" Over 400 industrial firms, independent oceanographers, and engineers were contacted by mail for contributions to this study. These contributions varied widely in

magnitude and included some extensive reports specifically written for the purpose of this study.

It is hoped that this ocean engineering report will provide a focal point and a stimulus for further studies and action. Such an on-going effort is felt to be essential because of the growing importance and dynamic nature of ocean engineering, and in view of the potential technological advances and contributions of industry which could contribute to this field.

A copy of the preface to this report is submitted herewith for the record. The first edition of the industrial report is expected in early summer.

(NOTE. The preface referred to above is available in the committee files.)

25. Question. In coordination of the national oceanographic program, what consideration is given to the contributions or the potential contributions of industry?

Answer. The ocean engineering report mentioned will be the first specific ICO attempt to bring the potential contributions of industry into the Federal oceanographic program on a broad scale. All of the ICO ship construction program has relied heavily on American industry, in fact, all construction has been accomplished in private industrial yards. In the months to come, we plan to take advantage of the research and development by government and industry which has preceded the effort in ocean engineering we hope to embark upon, and translate this important background of experience into engineering objectives with clear implications and purposes. These concerns, of course, bring us to the question of American industry's role in exploitation of the ocean. Because of the great national interest in oceanography in recent years, there has been a significant upswing of interest in oceanographic activity by industry. In particular, the National Security Industrial Association has been eager to cooperate with the Federal agencies and the ICO in exploring areas susceptible to industrial effort. We welcome this and will continually seek means (such as information exchange, mutual studies, and our ocean engineering efforts) to identify fruitful areas for industrial participation in the long-range development of the ocean's resources.

26. Question. What encouragement is being given industry to participate to a greater extent in the development of oceanographic instruments and vehicles? Would you please list ICO activities in this connection?

Answer. The first manned deep submersible vehicle built as a part of the national oceanographic program was constructed by private industry. The ocean engineering panel of the ICO maintains active liaison with industry specifically in the area of vehicle development.

Industry is encouraged to participate in the development of oceanographic instruments through the Navy Oceanographic Instrument Center (NOIC). Participation to a greater extent is a function of the numbers of instruments required. Note. Subsequent to receipt of the above answers the Committee on Commerce received on April 9 from IOC a supplementary answer to question No. 26. This supplementary answer follows:

On August 16-17, 1961, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography sponsored a Government-Industry Oceanographic Instrumentation Symposium. This symposium included 25 papers presented by top administrators and scientists and included comprehensive and candid discussion among panelists from both Government, industry, and the academic communities. The purpose of this meeting was to facilitate communications between Government and industry in the areas of oceanographic instrumentation research and development programs.

The proceedings from this symposium, issued to the public the following year, included all of the presented papers, questions and answers during panel discussions, lists of the scientific and industrial laboratories concerned with oceanographic research and development, lists of instrumentation developments required for oceanographic surveys and research, and other miscellaneous information. It is safe to say that this symposium was responsible for stimulating several industries to consider the possibilities of entertaining the oceanographic field. It was even more instrumental in providing meaningful clues to industries already competent in oceanography but who desired guidance for further development and expansion. In evidence of this, it was noticed that contacts between Federal agencies and industrial firms immediately thereafter increased by at least an order of magnitude.

In September of the same year a marine sciences conference was sponsored jointly by the Instrumentation Society of America and the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography. Several instrumentation papers which had been prepared by holders of Government contracts and fellowships were collected and published as "Marine Sciences Instrumentation" in two volumes.

The National Oceanographic Data Center has published and continually updates "Oceanographic Vessels of the World" which includes treatments of equipment and vehicles.

In 1963 the U.S. Naval Institute published "The Ocean Sciences" which featured a comprehensive chapter on "Instrumentation and Underwater Research Vehicles" prepared by the Director of the Navy's Oceanographic Instrumentation Center.

In June 1964, the Naval Oceanographic Office sponsored the first U.S. Navy Symposium on Military Oceanography. The unqualified success of the first meeting on the subject among industrial, institutional, and governmental representatives has led to the convening of a second symposium, scheduled for May 5-7, 1965, at which over 200 industrial representatives are expected.

In 1963 the Navy's Oceanographic Instrumentation Center issued its dedication brochure describing the purpose and facilities of the Center which has since become a focus of attention by persons throughout the country who are interested in oceanographic instrumentation.

The U.S. Navy conducts on an approximately semiannual basis, research and development clinics in various parts of the country. These clinics invariably include several sessions on oceanography featuring instrumentation and vehicles. The Small Business Administration customarily cosponsors these meetings, usually attended by about 500 industrial representatives.

The National Security Industrial Association includes a subcommittee on oceanography, consisting of about 75 industrial representatives. At one time or another every Federal agency concerned with oceanography has made formal and informal presentations to this subcommittee to acquaint them with organizations, activities, and problem areas, highlighting instrumentation.

During the past 2 years it is estimated that approximately 200 postal and personal contacts are made each week between industrial and Federal agency personnel in oceanography. This attention and enthusiasm is further demonstrated by the spirited and sophisticated bidding for oceanographic instrumentation contracts, e.g., NAVOCEANO's instrumentation suits, etc.

Subsequent to the hearings on S. 944 on February 19, the chairman by letter submitted a request to Dr. Hornig for additional information. The letter follows:

Dr. DONALD F. HORNIG,

Director, Office of Science and Technology,
Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.

FEBRUARY 24, 1965.

DEAR DR. HORNIG: Additional information, other than that to be supplied by you in response to questions submitted at the February 19 hearings, and to be answered by correspondence, is needed by the committee. This further inquiry is prompted in part by your valuable testimony at the hearing, and in part by the comprehensive report on the Nation's aeronautics and space efforts in the calendar year 1964, transmitted by the President in his message to the Congress of January 27, and published as House Document No. 65.

Chapter I of this report contains a summary of major scientific and technological accomplishments. Chapter II lists policy and coordinating activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Council. Would you please advise the committee which of the activities of NASC are duplicated directly by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, and if not duplicated by ICO, but performed by other governmental units, what units perform them?

Other chapters of the report detail the responsibilities, programs, activities, and accomplishments of the 10 departments or agencies participating in the program. Information would be appreciated by the commitee as to whether a similar report of missions, activities and accomplishments of the departments and agencies particpating in the oceanographic program is available.

The committee is, of course, aware of the ICO pamphlets published each year presenting plans and budgets for the coming fiscal year and assumes that a similar document will be forthcoming for this or the next fiscal year. While