168 OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 



committee have indicated pretty clearly that the objectives of the bill 

 are in no way in conflict with the administration's own objectives in 

 this area, and the issue, if any, seems to center aromid the question of 

 the statutory versus the administrative structuring of this organ- 

 ization, and i)erhaps to an extent at least of the details of the organ- 

 ization. 



Mr. Miller. The Bureau of the Budget does not recommend the 

 bill, or support the bill ? 



Mr. Hughes. No, sir. It has been our view that the interagency 

 committee has functioned very well. 



With the support, as Secretary Wakelin indicated, of the President 

 and the administration, there have been very substantial strides made 

 by the Interagency Committee and by the Government in general in 

 the field of oceanography, and our judgment would be that the flex- 

 bility that is inherent in the present arrangements makes desirable 

 their continuance. 



Mr. Mbller. One of the things that disturbs me and I would like 

 to have you comment on is this : I serve on another committee that 

 has to do with science, a committee that authorizes the expenditure of 

 a great deal of money. NASA is within its jurisdiction. I am con- 

 scious of the fact even now, in spite of the fact we are confronted 

 with a great effort by another nation in this field, and while there is 

 a great demand in this country that we maintain our lead in the field 

 of astronautics, there is a very definite feeling oceanography is a very 

 expensive thing with no material gain to come from it, and we should 

 take a complete new look at it. These, things have aw ay of pyramid- 

 ing outside of actual threats of aggression. 



Do you think in 5 or 10 years from now we can continue to get 

 money for oceanography with this drive for economy ? 



There are people who are not conscious of it and what it means. 

 In the long haul, the sea is a source of food and chemicals. The things 

 we can take from the sea are going to be very important. Other 

 nations have learned, to use them and use them successfully. 



Would we then be better off, do you think, if the Interagency Com- 

 mittee is subject to the feeling of one man. Or is this of sufficient im- 

 portance in its overall — I do not mean the physical, I am talking 

 about the biological phases of oceanography — that law assure its 

 continuance. 



Mr. Hughes. First of all, I think we who try to predict budgets 

 recognize that prognostication 5 years ahead is a very risky business. 



Mr. Miller. Particularly in the field of biology, Mr. Hughes, life 

 is a funny thing. We just cannot handle it on a year-to-year basis. 

 We have to have some long-range plans just as we have in the fiscal 

 side of this field, or in the development of a weapon system, or any- 

 thing else. We realize the shortcomings of a program from year 

 to year. Let's take a little longer on these things. 



Mr. Hughes. It is our feeling that the interest not only in the 

 Government, but in the Congress and in a scientific community at 

 large is sufficiently and clearly established to assure, as we see it, a 

 major emphasis in the field of oceanography in the foreseeable future. 

 I think you used the term "frozen in statute" in asking me your 

 question. We see this problem to an extent at least as a matter of 

 weighing the virtues on the one hand against the disadvantages on 



