450 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 



jiig the management of the Nation's oceanographic program. Any management 

 group will have to recognize the mutuality of the technology for different appli- 

 cations and would find it ineflficient to divide the activities arbitrarily based 

 solely on their area of use. 



The third type of work, that relating to the oceans but not directly to oceanog- 

 raphy, is so far from physical or biological oceanography itself that it is only 

 nominally considered in relationship to the oceanography program. It would 

 not be sensible to add work on food irradiation and water desalination to work 

 on field investigations in physical oceanography in describing a national program. 



When we look at all these programs and projects, we see, taking our agency 

 as an example, that there is a rather wide spectrum of activities whose relation- 

 ships to fundamental investigations in oceanography differ in closeness and 

 in nature, and it should become rather clear that the problems of management 

 in this general field are not simple. It is rather easy to look at a table showing 

 work in oceanography to consist of separate efforts in many agencies, and to 

 say that the situation would be improved or rationalized if all of these programs 

 were brought together under single management, but such a simplistic view does 

 not go beyond the table itself and becomes much less clear when one looks into 

 the details and reasons behind the individual programs. 



These considerations in the organization, management and support of our 

 ocean-related programs lead us to feel, first, that insofar as our own activities 

 are concerned, the coordination among ongong programs is being adequately 

 handled by existing mechanisms. The management perhaps could be improved 

 by some further centralization, and we would certainly cooperate in attempts 

 to bring about any possible improvement, but it is not at all clear or evident 

 just how this should be accomplished. A separate administration to handle all 

 oceanographic problems probably does not represent a reasonable approach. 

 Similarly, it is not clear that a Cabinet-level council would represent an 

 appropriate solution. 



These and other related topics are under serious study within the executive 

 branch by a panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee. We look 

 forward to guidance from it on improvements that could be made in both co- 

 ordination and management. It is jwssible that such guidance may clearly 

 indicate the need for further legislation, and if such need becomes clear, we 

 would support specific action. Pending such further information on how best 

 to proceed in organizing the overall program, this agency does not feel that 

 specific legislation can effectively be devised. In general, we would tend to 

 favor the legislation, H.R. 2218. which encourages the administration to take 

 this important field as seriously as possible, to develop a comprehensive program 

 and to report on status and Mrogress to the Congress, but we would not at this 

 time favor specific bills setting up defined centralized authority. 



This concludes my comment on the general approach to legislation on the 

 management of oceanographic programs, but I should like to add a specific 

 comment on the security provisions contained in a number of the bills before 

 the committee. In its detailed comments on H.R. 5654, H.R. 6457, and H.R. 

 7849, the Atomic Energy Commission has suggested certain changes relating to 

 access to restricted data in the event any of these bills should be considered 

 for passage. The same comments would apply to S. 944, which was passed by 

 the Senate on August 5. All of these bills have provisions patterned on section 

 304(b) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act under which officers or 

 employees of the Council created by the bill could have access to restricted 

 data relating to oceanography and the marine sciences upon certain determina- 

 tions made by the Council or its designee. Only two agencies, the Department 

 of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have been 

 provided this authority. Both of those agencies have a large complex of 

 employees and contractors who require access to restricted data. We do not 

 visualize that the Council which may be created by the bills mentioned above 

 would have the need for access to the quantity and types of restricted data 

 which the Department of Defense and NASA require, nor would the number 

 of individuals requiring access be large. 



The Atomic Energy Act was amended in 1961 to provide a mechanism, not 

 available when NASA was created, for granting access in situations such as 

 that presented by the bills mentioned above. Under that mechanism, the 

 Atomic Energy Commission may accept as the basis for granting access to 

 restricted data an investigation and report on an individual made by another 

 Government agency which conducts personnel security investigations provided 



