390 OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES 



Mr. McIvERNAN. When it receives departmental approval, we will 

 then attempt to implement the recommendations by budgetary re- 

 quests. In fact, of course, in a sense we have been trying to do this 

 at the present time. We have actually attempted to organize our 

 program along the lines of the results of this 10-year study and within 

 the budgetary limitations imposed upon us always. 



I might add that the National Academy of Sciences Subcommittee 

 on Oceanography had access to at least part of the recommendations 

 in this particular report, that part dealing specifically with ocean- 

 ography. So that to some extent the recommendations of the 

 National Academy of Sciences Subcommittee on Oceanography cor- 

 respond to or parallel perhaps more currently the needs as the Bu- 

 reau sees them, with a great many expert advisers and world famous 

 oceanographers that were on that subcommittee, and with that advice 

 in a sense this portion of the program has been brought currently 

 up to date. 



Mr. Drewry. Will your program be made public when it is ap- 

 proved within the Department ? 



Mr. McI^RNAN. As soon as it is approved it is my understanding 

 the Secretary will make it public. 



Mr. Drewry. Without having to go to any higher or other level 

 of approval ? 



Mr. McIvERNAN. I did not mean to mislead you. My understand- 

 ing is that departmental approval will come after the Secretary has 

 received clearances, I presume, from the Bureau of the Budget, for 

 example. 



Mr. Drewry. That is what I was talking about. The Budget con- 

 trols the program rather than the program influencing the budget. 



Mr. McIvERNAN. There is a balance. This is true to some extent 

 but not entirely, I would not sa«y. 



Mr. Drewry. Have you given consideration to the need for re- 

 vamping of your laws to fit into this? Is that included in the 

 program ? 



Mr. McIvernan. Yes, we discussed that at considerable length. 

 In fact, I believe our present authorization under the Fisheries Act 

 of 1956 provides fairly adequate legal structure to implement the 

 oceanographic program as it is recommended by this subcommittee, 

 with one or two exceptions. I believe those exceptions are being 

 taken care of by special bills that are now introduced. Those would 

 involve the making of grants to certain oceanographic institutions 

 or contracting on a little freer basis than we now have authority for 

 to contract and grant money to these oceanographic institutions. 



Mr. Drewry. That is all. 



Mr. McKernan. May I say that it was brought to my attention 

 by handwriting which I readily recognize as that of Dr. Wilbert M. 

 Chapman of California that the atomic waste disposal at sea was 

 considered hy the Conference on the Law of the Sea last year in 

 Geneva. Dr. Chapman l>elieves that subject will come up again. 

 I was not at that Conference. 



Mr. Miller. Before the Department of Defense dumps antiquated 

 or old ammunition and other waste at sea, the surplus defense waste, 

 do tliey consult you or do they just go aliead and dump ? 



Mr. McICicRNAN. I cannot oe sure that they always consult with 

 us, Mr. Chairman. 



