182 OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 



Mr. Hughes. This gets to the question of whether it would be desir- 

 able now to designate in statute all conceivable members of this com- 

 mittee and make them permanent members. This is where we feel 

 there is some virtue in not so doing. 



Mr. Dijstgell. We might be able to iron out your objections and still 

 come up with something which would meet the approval of this com- 

 mittee by putting in a flexible section to provide for change of mem- 

 bers by the President, subject to the approval of the Congress, or to 

 add members and powers of various kinds. Do you think that is some- 

 thing you should devote your attention to ? Would you want to have 

 your sharp pencil people get to work on that for us ? I think it might 

 be helpful to the committee and desirable for you. 



Mr. Hughes. I will try it. 



Mr. Vanik. I would like to inquire, would this kind of change make 

 this legislation conceivably acceptable, or would your objection still 

 continue, or would yon prefer to answer that later ? 



Mr. Hughes. You ask me really two different questions here. First 

 of all, let me again say we are discussing a matter of judgment and 

 probably fairly close judgment on this question of flexibility versus 

 statutory authority. It would be our view that our preference would 

 probably continue to be for administrative designation. Certainly the 

 more opportunity there would be to take cognizance of developing 

 events, the better the statute, as far as we are concerned, 



Mr. DiNGELL. I want to direct your attention to just two other sec- 

 tions. I want to commend you for the very helpful way you have 

 approached this, and for the assistance you have been to the committee. 



Refer to section 8, page 5, line 14 : 



Whenever any vessel is supplied by the United States to any governmental or 

 nongovernmental department, agency, institution, or instrumentality, or to any 

 other person, in carrying out the purposes of this Act, title to such vessel shall 

 remain in the United States and shall be returned to the United States upon 

 completion or other termination of the purpose for which so supplied. 



That is a very desirable section ; is it not ? 



Mr. Hughes. Certainly we have no objection to that. 



Mr. DiNGELL. I do not have any liking for the United States invest- 

 ing several millions of dollars or more in an expensive ship and giving 

 it away. I have no objection to having it utilized freely, but I think 

 this is a particularly desirable section for the protection of the tax- 

 payers. 



The last section I want to refer you to is section 10, which appears 

 in line 18, page 6. It says : 



Each expenditure in excess of $50,000 made by the United States in any fiscal 

 year in carrying out a purpose of this Act (whether by grant, contract, or 

 otherwise) shall be subject to examination and audit by the Comptroller General 

 of the United States (including but not limited to all books, records, papers, 

 and other documents * * * ) , 



and so forth. 



That is also a very desirable portion of this bill; is it not, sir? 



Mr. Hughes. A query of my colleague here 



Mr. DiNGELL. I do not want to get you standing on one foot if you 

 need time to answer the questions. 



Mr. Hughes. My query of him was whether the GAO needed this 

 authority m order to make the operation of this group subject to audit. 



