387 



because if it is applied it is not legal, under our act, except the sea- 

 grant provisions. 



For oceanographic research facilities, we have $5 million estimated. 



For our national research programs, including the Antarctic pro- 

 gram and the ocean sediment coring program, $7.5 million. 



For the national sea-grant program, $4 million. For direct science 

 education activities, about $1.4 million, and for other activities, in- 

 cluding institutional support and science information, about $1 million. 



That is the broad breakdown by categories. 



Mr. Karth. I would assume, however, that a good deal of that $7^/^ 

 million for sedimentary core research is also tied up into physical 

 things such as ships, and that type of thing, which may well be done 

 by another agency of the Government equipped to do it. This I do not 

 consider to be basic research as the implication may lead us to believe. 



I understand that ocean currents are important, and I understand 

 that the topography of ocean basins and all of these things are im- 

 portant, but I have a feeling that perhaps the Navy studied these for 

 some 50 or 100 years, and I am not suggesting that they have done 

 enough in it. I assume that never will the time come when enough has 

 been done. But I do feel strongly that there is more duplication of 

 effort, perhaps, than meets the eye, and that until such time as we have 

 a very careful and explicit breakdown, the committee will not be able 

 to determine whether or not this is true. 



I have just one other comment, Mr. Chairman, if I may. 



Mr. Lennon. Go ahead. 



Mr. Karth. My colleague from New York mentioned the space pro- 

 gram. I would merely like to say for the record that at great expense to 

 the taxpaying public, technologies have been developed by NASA 

 which, in my opinion and the opinion of the people who are much more 

 expert than I am, are very similar to the type of technologies we will 

 be using in ocean ology. 



In many instances, I am not so sure that this experience has been 

 used at all, and I can understand the reasons why. I know that one 

 agency very rarely, if ever, wants to give up to another agency a 

 portion of its budget, but in addition to that, we have spent many 

 billions of dollars developing good professional teams in the field of 

 research and development, and I think that perhaps they, too, 

 occasionally ought to be called upon. 



I have a feeling that maybe this is not the case. 



One of the projects that NSF got involved in, which — I don't 

 know — ran into $200 -million-plus a year, until Congress felt that it 

 was just tipping over by its own sheer weight, was Project Mohole, as 

 you recall. 



There were many of us who felt that from an applied scientific 

 standpoint, from a development standpoint, other agencies of the Gov- 

 ernment were much better equipped to do this kind of work than was 

 the National Science Foundation, and that, as a result, it grew topsy- 

 turvy, and was not the best utilization of dollars. 



If you could break these things do\^'n speciQcally for the record, I 

 think it would be helpful. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



