92 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 



information, to also include the operating schedule. This was favor- 

 ably received by the ICO, so we just developed it. 



Mr. Bauer. Now, on page 6 you have mentioned the National 

 Science Foundation approved the assignment of a ship to Texas 

 Agricultural and Mechanical College because the Navy's long-range 

 plan could not provide a ship to Texas A. & M. before fiscal 1965. 

 Who owns the ship? 



Commander Alexander. Sir? 



Mr. Bauer. Who owns that ship? 



Commander Alexander. The National Science Foundation ship 

 is under construction. 



Mr. Bauer. The National Science Foundation? 



Commander Alexander. That is part of their shipbuilding pro- 

 gram; yes, sir. 



Mr. Bauer. I thought they had stopped at Woods Hole. 



Commander Alexander. No, sir. When I say that they are pro- 

 viding the ship, I mean they are providing the funds. The ship has 

 not actually been built yet. 



Mr. Bauer. Who will own the ship? The Navy or the National 

 Science Foundation or Texas A. & M. ? 



Commander Alexander. Texas A. & M. will retain title. 



Mr. Bauer. I see. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Morse. Thank you, Mr. Bauer. 



Do you have any questions, Mr. Drewry? 



Mr. Drewry. Right along that line, Commander Alexander, the 

 Texas A. & M. and the Navy's long-range plan would not provide a 

 ship for Texas A. & M. before fiscal 1965. We are now dealing with 

 fiscal 1963. When will this National Science Foundation ship be 

 available? How much sooner? 



Commander Alexander. What I meant by that, sir, was that 

 funds would not be provided by the Navy for the Texas A. & M. ship 

 before fiscal year 1965, which meant the ship would be available in 

 fiscal year 1967 from the Navy's plan. Texas A. & M., according to 

 my records, will have a ship built, funded with fiscal year 1962 money; 

 keel will be laid down in fiscal year 1963 and should be available some- 

 time in fiscal year 1964, or the beginning of 1965. We gain 2 years. 



Mr. Drewry. You gain 2 years? 



Commander Alexander. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Drewry. Now, this is a new ship that you are talking about. 

 Now, back to the point about your position on new ships. I don't 

 think anybody can quarrel too much with the concept that something 

 that is built specifically for a particular purpose might in general be 

 better than something — and possibly cheaper — than something that 

 has to be extensively converted, because conversion involves tearing 

 out as well as putting in. 



But I don't quite understand how firm that position is as a matter 

 of policy when I think we can expect that the construction of new 

 survey ships is not going to be a huge program every year. In fact, 

 as the general oceanographic program is getting off the ground, there 

 will be other things, perhaps, making earlier demands on funds than 

 much shipbuilding, at least. In fact, you haven't got, really, the 

 people to serve on the overall program that is in concept for TENOC 

 or NASCO or whatever. 



