104 



Responses to Questions bv the Honorable Curt WcldOD 

 on the National Undersea Research Program 



No. 1 



^The genesis of the space program had all the ingredients to capture the imagination of the public 

 and when the former Soviets got into the business, our pride and the perceived threat to our 

 National security instantly became factors. The public fervor over space ultimately led to 

 President Kennedy's announcement that we would put a man on the moon and to the creation of 

 an independent NASA with a large budget. 



Ocean programs did not have the same public image at that time, and, in fact, still do not. We 

 already had a sizable and effective undersea warfare capability. Another key factor was that 

 space study was brand new, whereas research on and in the oceans had been underway for years 

 and its proponents were somewhat provincial in their receptiveness to new and aggressive 

 programs. 



I believe that the only way we are going to stimulate oceans research programs is to take an 

 aggressive approach to increasing public awareness, starting with a reorganization of NOAA as 

 an independent agency. It should not become part of EPA or a new Department of the 

 Environment, but should fiinction as an autonomous agency. Right now it is virtually unknown 

 to the general public. NOAA should be charged with an aggressive program of ocean research 

 and exploration on a global scale. We are putting a greater empasis on the global environment 

 these days without having explored but a small part of the world's oceans. 



Nos. 2 & 3 



I do not object to the scientific advisory committee and believe that it can provide healthy 

 scientific oversight. My testimony was not meant to address this part of the bill, merely the 

 committee's potential involvement with the merger of Centers. 



As we well know, when a piece of legislation, with all good intentions, is signed into law, it is 

 then subject to interpretation by the legal sector of the Administration which can lead to the 

 public law having a different twist than what Congress intended. I believe, therefore, that very 

 specific language should be added to the NURP Act to at least guide the committee in their 

 decisionmaking on the issue of mergers. Even though we would hope and expect that any 

 committee appointed by the Secretary would be fair and strictly professional, it is still possible 

 that one or more members with specific interests could swing a vote in the wrong direction. I 

 cannot think of very many scientific reasons for merging Centers, but I can definitely think of 

 some political reasons to do so. My point is to urge Congress to consider the addition of 

 language that provides clear and precise guidelines to the merger section of the bill that afford 

 little possibility of being misinterpreted by legal counsel to the Secretary. 



o 



ISBN 0-16-040995-0 



9 780160"409950 



90000 



