28 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 



the proposed budget for 1963, which is the President's budget, is 

 $123.97 million. 



Now I do not wish to imply that this is all the doing of the ICO, 

 but I think we have helped a great deal to focus the agencies' require- 

 ments and their responsibilities in the national context, rather than 

 just fulfilling their own roles and missions individually. 



Mr. Drewry. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Dingell. Just one very brief question. Our counsel here has 

 led up to something that concerned me. 



Am I correct that there has been a change in the definition of what 

 constitutes oceanographic activity for purposes of activity and for 

 purposes of budgeting? 



Mr. Wakelin. Not any substantive change, Mr. Chairman, I 

 would say. 



Mr. Dingell. The point I am leading up to is simply this: is it 

 not correct that a portion of the increase with regard to oceanographic 

 activity in the budget stems from a change in definition of what con- 

 stitutes oceanography within the various agencies concerned, and 

 what constitutes oceanographic activity within the various agencies 

 concerned? Am I correct in this, Mr. Secretary? 



Mr. Wakelin. To a degree, and let me qualify my answer in this 

 regard. The figures that I read in reply to Mr. Drewry's question 

 were made on a comparable basis— these are comparative figures that 

 are not increased by having a budget unit added to it which had previ- 

 ously not been there. 



Now let me say that the Coast and Geodetic Survey puts all of their 

 survey operations in as part of the oceanographic program. We had 

 until last year excluded part of the Hydrographic Office's program of 

 the Navy from our national oceanographic efforts, and that is in the 

 area of $9 million. We decided that, to make the whole program look 

 conformal, the part of the Navy's surveys which was unclassified, 

 should be part of the Survey effort in the public program. 



When we did this, we added $9 million to the level of the budget 

 that year, but in comparing that with earlier years, this was also 

 added back, so that the increment did not look as though it was a 

 brand new item for funding. 



Mr. Dingell. I see. You are saying, then, that there was no 

 juggling for purposes of improving appearances? 



Mr. Wakelin. There is a discontinuity of $9 million if you do not 

 make the previous budgets conformal. 



Mr. Dingell. I yield for a question. 



Mr. Bauer. With respect to this budget that you have presented 

 us with, budget plan summary, is this budget concerned at all with 

 any classified oceanography? 



Mr. Wakelin. No, sir. 



Mr. Bauer. Would it be a breach of security to indicate the total 

 amount of what the classified oceanography is? 



Mr. Wakelin. I would rather give it to the committee in executive 

 session, if I might, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Dingell. I think that would be thoroughly acceptable to the 

 committee. 



Mr. Wakelin. If that is agreeable with you, sir? 



Mr. Dingell. I think it is agreeable. If it is agreeable with the 

 members of the committee, I have no objection. 



