Ii51 



of the members of our committee tliat the Council should be furnished 

 with this testimony in their consideration of the recommendations they 

 are going to make to the President. 



Mr. Pollock. I think that would be wonderful. 



Mr. Lennon. If there is no objection to that, gentlemen, we will 

 proceed in that way. 



I will come back with questions later after we go around. 



The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Mosher. 



Mr. MosiiER. Mr. Chairman, I find myself without any significant 

 questions of Dr. Kirkbride, but I do want to say that I think his is a 

 very significant statement. I like the emphasis in it, particularly the 

 emphasis on the fact that our goal should be a national program as 

 distinguished from strictly a Federal program. I like his emphasis on 

 the extremely important role of private industry and the free enter- 

 prise system. 



I agree with him that the popular use of the phrase "wet NASA'' is 

 not an accurate phrase as applied to the proposed NOAA. In fact, I 

 think it is a very unfortunate phrase in that respect. 



I agree with him where he suggests that we should not get bogged 

 down at this point in technical arguments over the definition of the 

 Continental Shelf, that we have more important things to discuss at 

 this point. 



I agree with him that if there is any criticism to be made of the 

 Commission's report it is the fact that it is rather modest in its goals. 

 However, in the dollar comparisons, you are making at the bottom of 

 page 3 and the top of page 4 just for the sake of accuracy, let me raise 

 this question : I think when reference is made to the spending by the 

 Federal Government of $17 billion on all its research and development 

 programs annually, it is my understanding that that figure includes 

 military research and development. 



Dr. Kirkbride. Both figures do. 



Mr. MosHER. Well, I do not think so. I think the proposal in the 

 Commission report purposely leave out some of the Navy's potential 

 expenditures here. This may be a misunderstanding on my part, but 

 I understood that the proposed dollar goals in the Commission report 

 include only part of the Navy's expenditures. 



Dr. Kirkbride. Both statements are correct. I hadn't caught up with 

 this and I asked Dr. Wenk to provide me with the figures. I am ap- 

 palled to find that the percent of Federal funds going into Federal 

 marine programs goes up at the startling rate from 2.6 percent in 

 1967 to 2.8 in 1969. He tells me that the figures which started out $J:38 

 million in 1967 and climbed up as high in 1969 as $471.5 million include 

 that part of all the Navy's research and development program that 

 applies to the ocean. 



The situation is that the amount of funds devoted to defense in the 

 ocean is pretty small in the overall total. In other words, the big part 

 of the Navy program that he emphasized — and frankly, I really 

 shouldn't be parroting Dr. Wenk because you can get this informa- 

 tion directly from him, and I am sure you will, but I was rather 

 shocked to learn that most of the Navy R. & D. is directed to other 

 areas outside of the marine sphere. 



