20 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1965 
are about as big as we can handle one at a time. I think that Secre- 
tary Wakelin would concur with me on this, that it is a convenient 
means, both administratively and scientifically, of organizing science. 
Mr. Bauer. Consider the air-sea interface, who would consider that, 
the [CO or ICAS? The problem of the air-sea interface ? 
Dr. Hornic. Both. In addition, there was delegated to the De- 
partment of Commerce a responsibility to focus attention on this inter- 
action area that had been neglected, and to do this in consultation with 
both the ICO and the Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric 
Sciences, ICAS. 
Mr. Baurr. I notice in your budget breakdown on pages 19, 20, 
and 21 of the fiscal year report, that you have allocated $208,000 to 
the Weather Bureau; $25,000 to the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and 
this is all for air-sea interface problems; $998,000 to the Bureau of 
the Commercial Fisheries; $60,000 to the Coast Guard; $2,734,000 
to the Office of Naval Research ; $856,000 to the Navy’s Office of Ocean- 
ography ; $500,000 to the Navy’s Bureau of Ships; $200,000 to the U.S. 
Army ; and $300,000 to the National Science Foundation. 
Recapping the situation it puts Commerce in at $233,000; Interior 
$998,000; the Navy $499,000; the Army $200,000; the National Science 
Foundation $300,000; and the Treasury Department $60,000. 
Why was the Department of Commerce picked to head up this pro- 
gram with the apparent appropriations as shown on pages 19, 20, and 
21 of your report? In other words, the Navy, it seems to me, has 
the largest appropriation for the study of air-sea interface, even the 
Interior Department has more than the Department of Commerce. 
How did the Department of Commerce get in the picture ? 
Dr. Hornic. On scientific problems one cannot say that leadership 
must necessarily follow dollars. One looks to where one has a group 
of able people that have authority to fit into the Government-wide 
organization. This was discussed by all the agencies through both 
ICO and ICAS committee structure. I think it is perfectly true that 
the leadership might have been centered in a number of places but 
it had to be centered somewhere. The competence existed in Com- 
merce; the other agencies were agreeable, and this was where it was 
settled. 
Mr. Bauer. Who is most concerned with the problems of the air-sea 
interface, the Navy or the Department of Commerce? 
Dr. Hornig. I think there is plainly a concern on both sides. I 
thing that the Navy has very large responsibilities and perhaps on 
this score scientifically—no, I do not think I would be willing to draw 
any distinctions—I would rather say that the Navy has important 
interests, the Department of Commerce, which is primarily the 
Weather Bureau in this case, has interests, too; and on an interaction 
problem it was generally decided, by consensus largely, that this was 
a good place to put it. I would not be willing to get into a debate as 
to which of the two might more appropriately have done it. 
Mr. Bauer. I was not trying to create a debate, sir. It seems to 
me that with the ASWEPS program, for example, it is vital for the 
Navy to know all it can about the air-sea interface, and also the ques- 
tion of forecasting of preferred ship routing and wave structure. 
Dr. Hornie. There is nothing in this interaction program which 
discourages the Navy or anyone else from exerting a maximum pos- 
