630 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 



vital to national interests, that researcli in this field has been neglected 

 and that it was the purpose of this bill to strengthen U.S. capabiUties 

 through a national poUcy of coordinated and balanced studies, the 

 education and training of additional scientists, construction and 

 operation of new ships and laboratories, the coordination of various 

 Federal agency programs and improved international and inter- 

 departmental exchange of data. The biU emphasized the importance 

 of oceanography for mihtary security and reflected a view that the 

 U.S.S.E. program sin-passed that of the entire free world. 



The Senate report contains comments from the executive agencies, 

 all opposing enactment of S. 2692. While supporting goals, the 

 agencies and the Bureau of the Budget asserted that growing Federal 

 budgets in oceanography were already responsive to the NASCO 

 proposals, that extension of NSF authority to coordinate programs of 

 other agencies was inappropriate, and that such coordination was 

 being initiated under the Federal Council. There was also strong 

 objection to the specificity of authorization. 



Note 10. This 180-page analysis by the Legislative Reference 

 Service (Reference 7) summarized arguments in support of ocean- 

 ography by leaders of CongTess and the executive branch, scientists, 

 and others; inventoried existing U.S. capabiUties in oceanography in 

 terms of level of research, ships, laboratories, and manpower; made 

 direct comparisons with Soviet oceanography; compared three 

 difi^erent 10-year plans and identified issues in oceanography before 

 the Congress concerning the degree of iu:gency, national goals and 

 problems in organization to achieve these goals. The House Com- 

 mittee on Science and Astronautics endorsed the body of the report 

 and added a set of 20 of its own conclusions that oceanography had 

 been neglected, that expansion in the program was warranted by a 

 factor of 4 over then-current levels and that such expansion could be 

 achieved without waste through proper long-range and coordinated 

 planning. The Committee was also sympathetic to the view that 

 future expansion of oceanography should be concentrated more heavily 

 in the civiUan agencies than in the mihtary, that although authority 

 already existed for individual agencies to conduct parts of the pro- 

 gram, coordination needed to be improved to meet criteria stated in 

 the body of the report. The Committee also concluded that a major 

 study of Federal organization for oceanography was necessary, 

 particularly to explore whether objectives in program planning and 

 coordination would best be accomphshed through a new agency to 

 plan and coordinate a national program, although major sectors 

 would continue to be undertaken by existing agencies. Three 

 advisory and coordinating committees were visuahzed; one similar to 

 the ICO, one similar to NASCO, and a third reflecting interests of 

 American industry and commerce. 



Note 11. While Federal funding for oceanography was growing in 

 fiscal years 1960 and 1961, questions were raised by congressional 

 committees as to whether this represented increased support or 

 whether the scope of definition of Federal activities encompassed by 

 the National Oceanographic Program had been expanded without 



