996 
oceanographic vessel or two, and if it had been coordinated early 
enough, maybe they could have worked it in their budget. 
This is a matter of conjecture of course as we don’t know. 
Dr. Froscu. The difficulty there, Mr. Rogers, is the matter of timing. 
We did not know that we were going to be hit with the budget pres- 
sures until they were already hit with the budget pressures, too. 
Mr. Roesrs. I understand. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can have 
before this committee some of the Bureau of the Budget, perhaps the 
individuals in the Bureau of the Budget, for instance, that handle the 
oceanography program for each department. These are the men I 
want to talk to because evidently they are overruling all of our experts 
who make the recommendations, and I know for a while there in 
Defense I think they had a former captain and maybe somebody else 
who was overruling the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
So I hope before our hearings are over, Mr. Chairman, we can get 
these individuals who seem to be telling every agency just what you 
can do and what you can’t to come before this committee. We can then 
find out some of that background and how these decisions are made 
because obviously they are the most important decisions made in these 
ongoing programs. 
I think your testimony has been most helpful. You have brought 
out some points that I think we need to consider, and I am glad that 
the Navy really is fairly openminded about this and has made some 
very constructive points. 
Thank you. 
Dr. Froscu. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 
Mr. Lennon (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 
Mr. Dellenback. 
Mr. Detiensack. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
I have appreciated this testimony, as has been expressed by other 
members of the committee, from both you, Dr. Frosch, and from you, 
General Koisch. Sometimes the very best way that one can examine 
a suggestion made is when one isn’t sitting down with somebody who 
says what a great suggestion it is, but rather one who says, “We think 
this has weaknesses and these are the weaknesses.” 
I think probably each of you would be subject to crucifixion within 
your Departments if you stepped out here and said, “This is great 
and far better than what we have at the present time.” I am neither 
surprised nor at all concerned adversely by these comments that you 
have made. I consider much of it as highly constructive testimony. 
I would ask either of you this because in both instances there is 
partly a thrust of talking in terms of both testing against alternatives, 
which you both spoke of, and you have also talked in terms of possi- 
ble, not certain, but possible desirability of an interagency approach 
rather than to create a new agency like NOAA. 
Dr. Frosch, let me ask you this. Do you think that the present co- 
ordination in this field is ideal, excellent, good, fair, poor? How would 
you rate it? 
Dr. Froscy. I think if I may chose another word, I would rate it 
as workable. It is operating. It is certainly dealing with the severe 
problems. 
I would certainly not rate it as ideal or excellent, and I think it is 
true that with the number of agencies that have mission responsi- 
