32 OCEANOGRAPHY 



programs in space exploration, for example, and let us be specific, 

 for this program of oceanography, as the chairman has said, is only- 

 peanuts in comparison with that program. Are we pressing oceanog- 

 raphy enough as far as our executive thinking is concerned ? 



Mr. Wakelix. In order to get a quantitative fix on this problem, 

 Mr. Oliver, the National Academy of Sciences recommended a 10-year 

 program and, if I can translate that in 1961 dollars, I believe it was 

 at a level of $949 million over 10 years. 



The Interagency Committee on Oceanography recommended a pro- 

 gram of about $50 million in excess of that for the 10-year period. 



Our total effort this year was of the order of $80 million if you 

 add the military' research and the purely scientific and open, unclassi- 

 fied research. 



The total level by which the xVcademy would like to see us approach 

 is about $95 million on an average per year. 



Mr. Oli\T2R. This, of course, we are not facing up to, are we? As 

 I note your figures here, you talk about a fiscal 1961 program of $56 

 million and, in 1960, the level having been $37 million, and com- 

 paring that with 1959, where the level was $24 million, and draw the 

 conclusion from this that we really are moving ahead here, I should 

 expect, reasonably satisfactorily so far as you are concerned. 



Is that a justified conclusion ? 



Mr. Wakelin. In part, but may I answer in this way : I am not 

 trying to equivocate but I would like to present all the facts to you. 



The program of 1959 was about $25 million. In 1960 it was $37 

 million. In 1961 it is proposed at $56 million. 



Now, tlie program in oceanography has essentially tliree parts and 

 three problems : research, surveys, and ships. 



I am trying to get up to the National Academy's recommendation, 

 which is practically in H.R. 9361 ; the survey and research parts are 

 in fairly good shape. We are down $40 million this year under our 

 estimate. The reason that we are below our estimate is because 

 of the amount that we have not put into new ship construction. We 

 are using older ships longer. We are still getting work done on an 

 accelerated basis but we are not facing the problem of replacing the 

 overage ships and getting adequacy in 1970 that will be good in terms 

 of usable ships. 



Mr. Miller. Will the gentleman yield ? 



Mr. Oliver. Yes. 



Mr. Miller. Are we using old ships? Are we not falling behind 

 when we do not appropriate money for ships because many of these 

 ships that the National Academy recommended entirely new ves,sels 

 and not replacements ? 



Mr. Wakelin. Yes, some of them are new for replacement and some 

 are new for augmentation. 



Mr. Miller. You just told us that the Russians have 100. 



Mr. Wakelin. This is the first year since 1931 that we will have 

 built a ship for oceanographic research. 



Mr. Miller. If we were going to be up on this program and in 

 keeping with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sci- 

 ences, should we not have five ships on the ways right now? 



Mr. Wakelin. The total we have recommended, which is a variant 

 on the Academy report in terms of size, is aV)out 7S, so that we sliould 

 liave 8 ships on the ways. 



