NATIONAL OCHANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1965 17 
On page 16 you amended your text to read, at the third line from 
the bottom, “The Federal Government will have invested $134 million 
in new ships over,” and you inserted, ‘“‘the previous 5-year period.” 
Dr. Hornic. I do not think that differs from my prepared testi- 
mony. By the “5-year period,” I mean through this year. 
Mr. Ketru. I was just wondering if there was an extraordinary de- 
velopment in the previous 5-year period over the preceding 5 years? 
Dr. Hornic. Oh, yes. At the time of the National Academy study 
in 1959, we were really very deficient in the number and quality of 
ships we had available and this fact was widely publicized. Now, 
m these last few years, we have really built up a fleet of specialized 
oceanographic vessels. So our capabilities—that is what this ivest- 
ment represents—have been very considerably expanded. 
Mr. Kerru. Are we relatively in a better position vis-a-vis the Rus- 
sian effort than we were 5 years ago, or have their efforts paralleled 
ours ? 
Dr. Hornic. I think 5 years ago there were really very much better 
off than we. They had built a number of fairly large, specifically 
designed oceanographic vessels, and my impression is, and this can 
be checked by other witnesses, that we have gone a long way toward 
closing that gap. 
Mr. Kerra. Thank you. 
On the top line of that same page, 16, you say, following from the 
previous page— 
We are somewhat disappointed to find that some elements of this program, as 
was the case with fiscal year 1964 oceanography programs, have not received 
support by the Congress— 
et cetera. Will these areas or these elements be specifically developed 
by successive witnesses or do you want to comment briefly on what ele- 
ments you have in mind ? 
Dr. Hornic. I hope they will be since the other witnesses represent 
the various areas in the program specifically. 
T havea table, just one moment. 
Mr. Lennon. Will the gentleman yield to me at that point ? 
I would think that the respective representatives from the several 
agencies on the ICO would be in a better position to say what success 
they had with their respective subcommittees on appropriations in 
these categories and perhaps directed it. 
Mr. Kerra. It does not make any difference to me who comments on 
the question, but in view of the fact he states some elements of the pro- 
gram have not received support from the Congress 
Mr. Lennon. I was saying some of the representatives of the ICO 
who in turn appeared before the various appropriations subecommit- 
tees could say how successful they were in obtaining the funds for 
their overall program for oceanography. I think they could. I 
would hope they can. That would be one of their responsibilities, in 
my judement, at least. 
Dr. Hornte. Perhaps we can leave it that way. I assume they 
will, but I will see that this committee gets a detailed statement. 
Mr. Kerra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Lennon. Doctor, this subcommittee had a very pleasant rela- 
tionship with your predecessor during the previous 5 years that Dr. 
Wiesner served. I give him credit to a considerable degree for the 
