OCEANOGRAPHY 1961— PHASE 3 231 



Professor Lewis. It is, Mr. Ellsworth. 



I think in order to give the proposed National Oceanographic 

 Council the requisite means of exerting effective leadership, it should 

 have financial resources at its disposal to transfer to these other agen- 

 cies, and through that means provide for the projects that are required 

 to prosecute a fully balanced national program on oceanography. 



Mr, Ellsworth. Thank you. I wish I had more undei-standing^ of 

 your statement to question you more at length, but I did want to bring 

 that one point out and clarify myself on it. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to ask questions 

 and for providing m.e with the statement, too. 



Mr. Bauer. There is just one question I want to raise. Professor 

 Lewis, and that is : In your statement you imply the importance of 

 congressional oversight. We have had testimony before us indicating 

 to me, at any rate, that the present setup does not desire congres- 

 sional oversight. I feel it is important. 



Would you talk to that, please ? 



Professor Lewis. I can speak to the importance of congressional 

 oversight. 



I am very mindful of the 19 j^ears I spent in the Navy and the im- 

 pact that congressional oversight had on the caliber and effectivity of 

 our naval programs. And I would think that congressional over- 

 sight is equally important in this field, particularly in view of the 

 fractionated nature of the program as it is now organized. 



Mr. Bauer. In other words, tlio, Congress should be in a position of 

 continually scanning the importance and effecti v eness of the programs. 

 Is that correct ? 



Professor Lewis. It should, sir, and I would say the absence of 

 such scanning in the past might be accountable for the lack of progress 

 to date in this important field of our national welfare. 



Mr. Drewry. Professor Lewis, somewhat along those lines, did you 

 hear the testimony on Monday ? 



Professor Lewis. I had the opportunity to read the testimony that 

 was given Monday. 



Mr. Drewry. The emphasis on the part of Dr. Wakelin and the 

 Bureau of the Budget witness was on the constant reference to the 

 need for flexibility. One of the things that I believe I recall was 

 mentioned was the desirability perhaps of adding new members to 

 the council and not having to wait for legislation. 



But as I undertstand your testimony, it is your feeling that that 

 is a fairly simple matter to take care of right now, to include within 

 the membership of the Council, in the legislation itself, every agency 

 that has any oceanographic activities at all. Is that not correct? 



Professor Lewis. It is, sir. And I would suggest that the relative 

 ease with which the membership in the National Aeronautics and 

 Space Council was amended this spring fully confirmed the fact that 

 full flexibility can be provided promptly through congressional action. 



Mr. Drewry. Then further, your proposal to have vested with the 

 Council funds which could be allocated as appropriate and on a dis- 

 cretionary basis — that would provide still further flexibility, would 

 lead still further toward the flexible situation which Dr. Wakelin 

 was concerned about. Is that not true ? 



