176 OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 



Mr. Drewry. I will bring up the same j)oint I did with Secretary 

 Wakelin: You concede a statutory base is a firmer base than an 

 administrative base. "What real objection can there be to having a 

 statutory base other than the function can be built up or torn down 

 as the Executive sees fit? 



Mr. Hughes. The latter advantage is a very real advantage, the 

 matter of flexibility in structure and membership and organization in 

 an evolving area, an area where many of our efforts are exploratory, 

 we feel that flexibility is a very real advantage. 



Obviously the Congress has the last say which organization shall 

 be statutory and which administrative, but apart from this, the in- 

 terest in statutory designation of coordinating groups of this sort is 

 extensive. The range of possibilities is very wide. I can name some 

 of them for you if you would like. They are individually and col- 

 lectively very important. 



We feel in these areas of evolving programs the interests of the 

 Government are better served through flexible arrangements if flexible 

 arrangements of an administrative nature can effectively do the job. 

 While I am not an expert at all in the field of oceanography, there 

 seems to be generally accepted the fact that the Interagency Com- 

 mittee with the support of the agency heads and the President, has 

 done an effective job. We feel this type of arrangement, therefore, 

 should be permitted to continue. 



Mr. Drewry. I do not know if I can recall a situation where both 

 sides were so thoroughly in agreement on the objectives, and on what 

 has been going on and still we seem to have two definite sides. The 

 Congress, I believe, likewise can be flexible and evolving. I again 

 bring up the point I raised with the Secretary, you have to come to 

 Congress for the money. I wonder if it doesn't really strengthen 

 the base by having a statutory base so you not only have a collection 

 of appropriation subcommittees, but also a legislative committee that 

 is not only deeply interested now, but will have a continuing responsi- 

 bility to stay interested because the Congress enacted a law that 

 said they must. 



Mr. Hughes. I think there is certainly no disagreement that the 

 existence of direction in the nature of a statute does provide a firmer 

 foundation for an organization. At the same time, though, it carries 

 with it certain problems. I do not wish in any way to quarrel with 

 the forward view of this committee or the Congress in saying what 

 I said. The fact remains that the very rigidities which the statute 

 introduces are some of the things the committee is seeking. We are 

 confronted with a difference in judgment here as between us on the 

 merits of these types of firmness, let us say, the rigidities that a statute 

 would introduce here, as distinguished from the flexibility that exists 

 under the present arrangement. 



Mr. Vanik. I do not understand that answer, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Hughes. I will try again. I am sorry. 



One of the reasons, a^ I understand it, that the committee wishes 

 to designate in statute an interagency council on oceanography is to 

 insure that the existence of such council will be continued and not 

 subject to Executive action by this or a successor President. By defi- 

 nition, then, the statute imposes time limits, if nothing else, on the 

 possibility of changing the statute, changing the membership of the 



