16^ 



the OCS leasing and supervision program is vital to meet the responsibilities 

 of the Department in connection with increasing exploratory activities necessary 

 to meet increased demands for fuels and minerals. 



The funding required for this program and the professional staff to implement 

 it have been estimated by the Geological Survey to be $600,000 and 12 profes- 

 sional employees by 1973. 



Mr. Drewry. Dr. Cain, one of the purposes of this series of hearings 

 is to try to get a picture of the total marine sciences effort in the govern- 

 ment. For purposes of comparison and understanding, we hoped that 

 the same language would be used throughout. 



In your table on page 13 you list under the heading "Marine Re- 

 sources and Engineering Developments" a number of major purposes 

 and the actual amounts for fiscal 1966, the estimated for 1967, and the 

 budget for 1968. 



I was taking a look at those figures and the categories to which they 

 are assigned in comparison with similar categories, identical catego- 

 ries in the Marine Council's first report, and I do not find that any of 

 the figures compare with each other, as far as I can tell. You have $128 

 million for fiscal 1968 and I believe $72,3 million is what the Marine 

 Council report shows. 



You do, on page 14, make the statement that these figures will vary 

 from those published by the Marine Council in its first report because 

 of the inclusion of additional amounts for acquisition of marine-based 

 recreational areas. While that may explain a little bit, it does not ex- 

 plain a lot of others such as fisheries resource assessment, geological 

 investigations, and so on. 



Can you either briefly explain that now or submit a statement for 

 the record ? 



Dr. Cain. I think Mr. Eckles can explain that now. 



Mr. EcKLES. I can comment for the moment. 



Mr. Rogers. Our time is almost up. 



Mr. Eckles. The principal major difference in these figures is that 

 we have included here the cost of acquisition of marine-based recre- 

 ational areas, and this is a substantial difference. This is a question 

 of definition. The other ones are question of balance between what the 

 actual expenditures were as tlie programs were finished versus what 

 were estimates at the time the Marine Council's report was published. 



In essence, programwise, there is no real major difference or change 

 between those figures and what we have reported here. 



Mr. Drewry. I think it would be helpful if you could at least supply 

 for the record a detailed explanation of these variations, because, for 

 example, under the heading of "actual" for 1966, the "actual" in the 

 eyes of the Marine Science Council comes out different from the "ac- 

 tual" for you. My understanding was that you were working with the 

 Council. 



Mr. Eckles. That is right. 



Mr. Drewry. In fact, I assumed you would supply the basic figures 

 to them. This is a problem we have had ever since 1959 in trying to 

 determine whether we are using the same language when we talk to 

 one agency as we are when talking to another as to what the magnitude 

 of the program is. So I think it is important that the record show some- 

 thing to clear up this point. 



That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 



(The information follows :) 



