OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 177 



advisory group, changing its relationship in certain ways to the Pres- 

 ident, perhaps its relationship to the science adviser or the scientific 

 community. The point I was trying to make was that the judgment 

 as between the chairman and the committee members and the Bureau 

 is the difference in weighing the advantages of administrative flex- 

 ibility versus the statutory authority. 



Mr. Vanik. The same objection could be raised against almost any 

 kind of legislative authority one wanted to impose on an organization. 

 They are not unique or special to this particular problem. If you 

 want this high degree of flexibility, then probably we should eliminate 

 legislation and go ahead and carry on everything by Executive decree. 

 Sooner or later, I think what we will search out for is accountability. 

 I think this legislation seeks to establish accountability to Congress 

 for achievement. How can you get that high degree of accountability 

 for achievement and development, research, and all the other things 

 involved, if you have this loose type of organization that you advo- 

 catej Something with an open end. Something which can be changed 

 every hour ? How can you do what the President says we ought to be 

 doing with respect to this subject? We are trying to carry through 

 his mandate. That is the purpose of this legislation. Do you object 

 to an effort to centralize this thing? What are you trying to tell us, 

 that you do not want this legislation? 



Mr. Hughes. The first thing I would try to convey is, whatever 

 its disadvantages as the committee looks at it, the present arrangement 

 apparently by mutual agreement is working very well. There is an 

 aggressive program involving a considerable number of agencies and 

 apparently producing a very good end quality product. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Are you not now making a whale of an argument for 

 enactment of the legislation which Mr. Vanik, Mr. Miller, and I have 

 been discussing this morning ? 



Mr. Hughes. I did not think so. 



Again I come back to the fact that we are differing in judgment, as 

 I see it, over the advantages of the permanent, the specificity of a stat- 

 ute, versus the flexibility and the lesser permanence, I would certainly 

 concede, of an administrative arrangement. 



Mr. DiNGELL. It is not inconceivable that in your lifetime and in 

 mine and in our public lifetime collectively — and I expect to be in 

 Congress for quite a while, or at least I hope to — this business of a 

 concentrated and strenuous endeavor in the field of oceanography 

 will be important to the security of the United States. Am I correct 

 in that? 



Mr. Hughes. I would think so. 



Mr. Dingell. In fact, it is not inconceivable that this endeavor will 

 become more important rather than less, at least in terms of dollars 

 spent and in terms of activity. Am I correct ? 



Mr. Hughes. That is correct. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Over the last few years we have witnessed a sharply 

 rising curve of activity by the Federal Government, including ONE, 

 including the physical and biological sciences, which has reflected 

 itself in a very real way in the budget, with which you are familiar. 



We come now to a situation where we have a program which is 

 working very nicely, one which conceivably will require continued 



