226 OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 



Mr. DiNGELL. You mean that it be authorized to receive appropria- 

 tions at least for purposes of carrying out its housekeeping functions ? 



Professor Lewis. Yes, sir ; but I think even beyond that it should 

 have $5 to $10 million out of which it could establish 



Mr. DiNGELL. Discretionary funds? 



Professor Lewis. Yes, sir; out of which it could establish projects 

 to be carried out by the other departments and agencies. That, then, 

 would provide for closing the gap in the oceanographic program that 

 evolves through this uiiAvieldy process of the budget cycle. 



Mr. DiNGELL. As an alternative, would it not be better to give this 

 Council authority to superintend generally the programing of these 

 various agencies, and in addition to that give it authority to request 

 transfer of, let us say, not over 5 percent of the total budget available 

 to all 'of these agencies to different programs, and thereby still main- 

 tain control of your budgetary process? And you would achieve some 

 additional flexibility in achieving a united national purpose objective 

 under the program ? 



Professor Lewis. That provision would have a lot of merit. The 

 difficulties inherent in it stem from the fact that there are so many 

 agencies involved, each of which has its own statutorally assigned 

 responsibilities. And, secondly, much of the oceanographic effort that 

 is accomplished is done as an incidental part of some other undertak- 

 ing of the department involved. 



We want, I would think, to take advantage of all of these contribu- 

 tions to oceanography, but we must recognize that these contributions 

 do not in themselves become a national oceanographic program. 

 There needs to be some provision for supplementing these vari- 

 ous projects which are generated from other considerations. And 

 it is for that reason that I am suggesting that the Council have a 

 limited appropriation available for transfer. 



Mr. DiNGELL. What about, rather than having a discretionary fund, 

 letting them enter into the budgetary programing? Make them 

 actually a budgetarj?^ programing unit, and let them come up to the 

 office for funds not only to maintain staff, but funds to actually con- 

 duct briefly, or as necessary, certain limited projects to round out and 

 help these other programs into a unified structure to carry out the 

 national objective? 



Professor Lewis. That essentially is what I am suggesting for your 

 consideration, with this one reservation : that so long as the agencies 

 participating in oceanography are parts of executive departments and 

 independent agencies, I believe the facts of life are that the amounts 

 of money they are going to obtain are going to be determined by the 

 individual actions of the Cabinet officers or agency heads, and it would 

 generate considerable conflict if there was an overla^pping respon- 

 sibility. 



It is for that reason that I think the most effective way of accom- 

 plishing the objective is to provide a small sum which is not in com- 

 petition with the decisions of the Cabinet officers and agency heads 

 with respect to their own primary programs. 



Mr. DiNGELL. You raise on page 12 of your statement the following 

 point : 



The principal virtue of the proposed Oceanographic Act of 1961 in my opinion 

 is the orderly structure it provides for resolving the multiagency confusion 

 which now besets our oceanographic endeavors. 



