120 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 



Mr. Abel. No, sir; I do not believe so. 



Mr. Bauer. In other words, the Survey Panel, was that the one 

 that took the month to get the show on the road? 



Mr. Abel. I am afraid I do not understand the question. What 

 I was referring to was a 3-day trip out of town to review certain activi- 

 ties within their area of cognizance. 



Mr. Bauer. I was referring to amount of time away from their 

 Government positions. In other words, what I am driving at is the 

 question of when there are two people, for example, who are on five 

 panels, and an alternate member of ICO, how much time can he 

 devote to his official position? I think one of these is Mr. Eckles, is it 

 not? 



Mr. Abel. Well, Mr. Eckles does serve on more than one panel, 

 it is true, but in a great many cases, as I understand it, Mr. Bauer, 

 the positions that these men hold down both nominally and actually 

 or completely are very closely identified with ICO work; and in some 

 cases the very nature of the jobs that they hold nominally in the 

 Departments are so bound up with ICO work as to be almost un«. 

 recognizably different. 



Mr. Bauer. Do you have any budgetary information you can 

 supply this committee? 



Mr. Abel. Yes, I have the comparisons of the actual 1961 budget, 

 the 1962 budget and the 1963 President's budget for submission for 

 the record, sir. 



(Previously submitted for the record. See p. 32.) 



Mr. Bauer. In these budget splitups that you have, is there any 

 question of the budget moneys there being associated with the re- 

 naming of an already existing job as an oceanographic position? 



Mr. Abel. You mean a — • — ■ 



Mr. Bauer. In other words, after the National Academy's report, 

 is it not true that suddenly we had people that were formerly, we will 

 say, good fisheries biologists who became oceanographers? 



Mr. Abel. The semantic problem associated with defining an 

 oceanographer has proved, possibly, the toughest single job facing 

 any of us. It has been described by so many people, by so many 

 committees, so differently that it would be impossible for me — or, I 

 suspect, almost anyone — to say to any given person in any given 

 job "You are" or "are not an oceanographer." 



Mr. Bauer. Did the money suddenly appear in the oceanographic 

 splitup that previously was in, say, the Bureau of Commercial Fish- 

 eries for marine biology, fisheries biology, and so on? 



Mr. Abel. Not to my knowledge, sir. There was one hydrographic 

 survey where it was decided after examination of the work that it 

 should be included properly as part of the national oceanographic 

 program. Accordingly, in all of our fiscal submissions, we have extrapo- 

 lated these figures back so that the figures are comparable and in 

 harmony. 



Mr. Bauer. Is that the same situation that you have in the Coast 

 and Geodetic Survey? I think there was some $9 million? 



Mr. Abel. Yes, sir; it is about $9.3 million, as I remember it, and 

 the situation in the Coast and Geodetic Survey is it was the same kind 

 of activity, but had been reported right along. 



Mr. Bauer. In other words, there was no transfer of funds into 

 the oceanographic splitup that you have, budgetwise, that went with 



