Imagini ale paginilor

met by the committee, that the bill would be agreeable to the administration, because as you know, from the viewpoint of actual passage, it is very important that there be some specífic statement of approval of the Bureau of the Budget.

Captain SNYDER. I think each agency's official submission to you does have in its end paragraph that the Bureau of the Budget has no objection, again, stated, not in the statements, but in the official letters that the heads of each agency write to you in their comments on the bill.

For example, the National Science Foundation's statement says in its final paragraph:

The Bureau of the Budget has advised us that it has no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

So that if the agency, the majority of agencies, are in favor of it and they all contain this statement, as I understand it, that is the Bureau of the Budget's concurrence.

Senator PELL. And, as I understand it, your Interagency Committee is the key executive branch group for coordinating executive branch's opinion and you are authorized, in this connection, then, to speak on behalf of the Bureau of the Budget so that if—and I am not saying that the committee will agree to the various points raised in your statement, but if all the points were accepted, would this bill be agreeable to the Bureau of the Budget?

Captain SNYDER. I think I would have to directly ask them but it is my impression that it would be agreeable, as stated.

Senator PELL. Right. I think it would be of help after we have discussed this, if a letter could be forthcoming from the Bureau of the Budget to this effect and maybe Mr. Green of my staff could be in touch with you in this regard.


Now, another question is, with regard to the matching formula idea, which we had not thought of in the basic bill. It may have merits. Have you thought of the idea of what formula-50-50, 90-10, 75-25? Captain SNYDER. Speaking for Dr. Morse, Dr. Morse has kicked this around in his own mind and has not come to any firm formula. is only a suggestion on his part because there are many things that have to be taken into consideration-the exact nature of the programand it may not be true that the apportioned formula would be the same as rigid guideline.

Senator PELL. What about the viewpoint of the Bureau of the Budget? Do they have any view as to what the formula should be? Captain SNYDER. No, sir. They have not expressed any view, sir. Senator PELL. But they do have a view that it would be a good idea, presumably.

Captain SNYDER. They accept that, sir.

Senator PELL. They accept it. I see. But, from the viewpoint of the Government, if it was a 90-10 percent formula, 90 percent Federal, 10 percent State, which would show some sort of State interest or commitment, that would be acceptable to the executive branch of the Government and the Bureau of the Budget, in your view.

Captain SNYDER. That is my understanding. And my understanding is, also, what you just expressed, that the real reason for this is that a person doesn't have a stake unless he has an interest, and the best way to insure interest is actual dollars out-of-pocket.

Senator PELL. This, of course, is not done with other programs administered, if my recollection is correct, by the National Science Foundation in similar programs, is that correct?

Captain SNYDER. That is correct, sir. However, there is no prohibition against this.

Senator PELL. Nor is it a custom in the administration of landgrant colleges.

Captain SNYDER. That is correct.

Senator PELL. In other words, this would be a new concept.
Captain SNYDER. Yes, sir.

Senator PELL. This one might find difficulty in being worked out. Now, with regard to the administering agency, the thought has gone through my mind as we have discussed, speaking privately, that since the purpose of the bill is more to develop grant assistance to programs and, also, the purpose of the bill is the actual exploitation of the knowledge we already have, not the development of further basic research, that it might be best to put it in some temporary agency. The idea being that it will be spun off eventually to the agency that is set up as a result of the bill presently being discussed in the Congress to administer oceanological studies or oceanological work. My main thought was that the Smithsonian Institution might be a good agency to take it on a more or less temporary basis, since I feel that if it went to the National Science Foundation, there would be too much emphasis on pure science, and also that the grant aid would generally be to individual projects and not on an institutional basis. What is your thinking on that?

Captain SNYDER. I would like to speak for what I believe to be Dr. Morse's thoughts on this matter.

No. 1, all of the agencies in the Federal Government who could administer this bill were considered. Each one was looked at with the objective which I believe is the objective of your bill, and that is to deal more in the applied areas, more in the actual exploitation as opposed to the basic research. It is true that the National Science Foundation is oriented toward basic research and that is its principal responsibility. However, I believe that the statement made by Dr. Morse is very explicit on that point and that is, in order to assure the kind of objectives that he feels you are discussing, that at a minimum, the Navy Department, Interior Department, and the Commerce Department should play a key role.

He feels this can be accomplished through the mechanism which already exists in the executive branch, namely, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. I think most people on the ICO feel very strongly that it is a worthwhile bill. Therefore, there should not be any sort of temporary home, that it should have a permanent home, because if people really are convinced it is temporary, they won't get, necessarily, the best kind of people to administer the program. Senator PELL. What about the Smithsonian as a permanent home? Captain SNYDER. Actually, and particularly after having read Mr. Galler's statement yesterday, the Smithsonian seems to be only interested in basic research and pure science.

Senator PELL. My recollection of Mr. Galler's statement was that they fully understood, though, that this bill was for the practical exploitation of scientific knowledge already available. Maybe this came


out in the verbal exchange. I realize the statement he made had this emphasis. I want to refresh my memory on that.

Captain SNYDER. I didn't mean to infer by that, that the Smithsonian wouldn't accept it. I merely meant to infer that my understanding of the Smithsonian's role is that it is a more narrow role than even the National Science Foundation in this field.

Senator PELL. Right. I will revert to that in a moment because I am getting a copy of the statement.

There are several other questions that I would like to ask, not only in behalf of the minority who have offered them, but, they are very sound questions and I share their viewpoint in this, just to get it in the record.

What executive agencies comprise the ICO?

Maybe you can

submit a list for the record. Fine. Just the 18 differentCaptain SNYDER. Well, there are only eight or nine. Actually, when they refer to 20 or 22, they are referring to subdivisions within, say, the Navy Department and Commerce Department.

Senator PELL. Maybe you can submit for the record, for inclusion at this point, a list of the agencies that compose the ICO and a breakdown of the Government agencies which are presently involved in the administration of oceanological work.

Captain SNYDER. Yes, sir.

(The information subsequently supplied follows:)



Department of Defense: Hon. Robert W. Morse (chairman).
Atomic Energy Commission: Dr. John N. Wolfe.

Commerce: Vice Adm. H. Arnold Karo.

Health, Education, and Welfare: Mr. Harry G. Hanson.

Interior: Mr. Donald L. McKernan.

National Science Foundation: Dr. Harve J. Carlson.

Smithsonian Institution: Dr. I. E. Wallen.

State: Mr. Herman Pollack.

Treasury: Rear Adm. William W. Childress.


Bureau of the Budget: Mr. E. L. Dillon.

Council of Economic Advisers: Dr. Guy Black.

National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography: Dr. Milner B. Schaefer.

Office of Science and Technology: Dr. H. William Menard.

ICO Executive Secretary: Mr. Robert B. Abel.

Senator PELL. What do you estimate the cost for each of the first 5 fiscal years of this bill, what do you think would be the cost of this administration? Do you have any thoughts?

Captain SNYDER. I really couldn't answer that without having seen the real specifics of the bill.

Senator PELL. My question here is, Since the Bureau of the Budget would prefer not to tie it into the rents and royalties, what do they think would be fair authorization for the bill, for the first 5 years? Mr. Abel.

Mr. ABEL. If we can go back a couple of statements, Senator, we were originally discussing the application of this bill, talking about the Federal-State relationships as limits, and then, within these

limits, allowing the administering agency to manage the program according to the merits of the proposals received. Traditionally, the Science Foundation reacts to these proposals after they are received, and can better formulate its planning on the basis of the nature of the proposals themselves, in terms of their scientific merit, the capacities, the alreeady recognized facilities of the agency or the institution in question, and the proven work or reputations of the investigators within those institutions.

Senator PELL. You are not thinking that the money authorized in this bill should be just turned over to the National Science Foundation to be allocated between a variety of its programs, are you?

Mr. ABEL. As Captain Snyder stated, the National Science Foundation would also acknowledge roles to be played by Interior, by Commerce, by HEW, Smithsonian, and Navy, and would react, based partly on their influence and advice.

Senator PELL. Right. But my basic question is, What would be the cost to the taxpayer of the enactment of this bill if we do not relate it to the rents and royalties for the first 5 years, in your view?

Captain SNYDER. This is a function of the total numbers of centers of excellence that you would have. You can get a ballpark figure by, for example, what does it cost to run Scripps or Woods Hole, or depending on what you really envision, it costs you approximately a million dollars a year to run an oceanographic vessel, and Scripps and Woods Hole budgets are between $6 and $8 million a year. And smaller institutions run between $2 and $5 million a year. And your advisory services, much simiar probably to the Department of Agriculture in its

Senator PELL. What I am really driving at here is what sort of figure would fall within the guidelines of acceptability to the administration from the viewpoint of the budget? Do we talk in terms of $10 million a year, $25 million a year? Would you hazard a thought? I had tied it in originally, you see, to the rents and royalties which gave the specific amount, probably in the neighborhood of $15 million a year. I am very interested in your thinking since you are in touch with both the administration, and the Bureau of the Budget, what sort of figure they are thinking about.

Mr. ABEL. Speaking in terms of allocations that the Science Foundation and other sponsoring agencies will give to some of these major institutions and, of course, it is going to vary, and depending on the number of institutions that come in with proposals, I would suggest that a minimum of $10 or $15 million woud be required to get the program off the ground the first year.

It is a guess on my part, without interviewing the institutes themselves.

Senator PELL. Right. But, then, as one said, if we made an authorization of say, $15 million, $20 million a year, for the first 5 fiscal years, that would be acceptable to the administration? Not as a minimum but as an approximate figure.

Mr. ABEL. I would have to defer to a statement from the Bureau of the Budget.

Senator PELL. Right. This is what we need. This is the hard core of trying to promote this bill's passage, because I know how important it is to have the administration's support and approval. Not only

would I like to see no objection, but I want to know if the administration supports the objectives of this bill and believes in it, and if they do, what are they willing to allocate in their budget for its enactment.

Mr. ABEL. We have found, in preparing the national programs in previous years, that it is rather difficult to try to predict what can be allowed by the executive branch of the Government for one agency or a combination of agencies owing to the unforeseeable factors that creep in.

For instance, we could not, ahead of time, predict the Vietnam problem in terms of the money needed for other programs.

Senator PELL. No, but in this particular case, if you want us to leave out the 10 percent of rents and royalties, we are going to have to put in a dollar figure. I am asking your suggestion from the administration's viewpoint, what dollar figure

Mr. ABEL. I think in this case, Senator, what we could do is ask the Bureau of the Budget for an opinion.

Senator PELL. I would be grateful and, as you know, we plan to close out the record, I think, on May 12, so I would like a figure. My assumption would be a figure equivalent to the rents and royalties if we left the rents and royalties concept, then it would be a figure equivalent to the amount because this is what all the witnesses have been thinking in terms of, 10 percent of that amount, which would be in the neighborhood of $15 million or $17 million.

But, finally, how do you believe the funds should be allocated among the different States? You do believe, as you say in your testimony, that the inland States should be included, but should they receive proportionately the same allocations as seaboard or lake States?

Captain SNYDER. This would be a function in addition to an ordinary apportionment, what their program actually was, and what this contribution would be to the national goal of exploiting the ocean.

I don't think you can answer that arbitrarily. If you did, I think you wouldn't have a very good program

Senator PELL. I must say I agree with you. I don't think it can be decided like the basis for midshipmen for the Academy.

Captain SNYDER. No, sir. I don't think anyone had an intent in that direction. The fact is that the sea is a national resource belong to the whole country. Some method should be found as, for example, the Navy is not limited as to its sailors and officers-they do not come from just the coastal States.

Senator PELL. I think we really must depend, as you say, on the degree of interest and the desirability of the individual States.

Are there any further points that either you, Captain Snyder, or Mr. Abel-and I would like to pay tribute here to the work Mr. Abel has been doing in helping pull together the work of the ICO-would like to submit for the record?

If there are any further thoughts you have, the record will be open to May 12 so they can be inserted.

Mr. ABEL. Thank you, Senator. Not at this time, but we will approach the Bureau of the Budget.

Senator PELL. Yes. My main objective is to get this bill passed, the basic concept passed. I think it will carry itself once it is passed. It is obviously in the national interest, both from a civilian and economic and defense viewpoint. So we will adjust the various portions of the bill in order to secure the passage of the basic concept of it,

« ÎnapoiContinuă »