Images (15)
Document
| id |
id
114639270
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 15N.A.S
Mi chasjahnson
use
Mr. Devall
May 22, 1968
EST Division (F. c. Schuldt)
Withing by BOD of pending legislative proposal
Attached is the file on DOD's legislative proposal of August 10, 1967,
involving two emendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 in the accurity
and classification areas. Included also is some material from earlier
and related AEC legislative proposals.
Section 2 of the proposed DOD bill was cleared on November 2, 1967, and
at that time DOD indicated that they wished to consider section 1 to be
still before - for clearance (see my memo to the Files of November 22,
1967).
X had expected that w would hear from DOD again at the beginning of the
present session of Congress, but we aid not hear. On or about May 10 I
called Frenk Sharlock to inquire regarding IND'S desires with respect to
section 1 of the legislative proposal of last August. He referred - to
a Mr. D. Missel in the office of the Assistant General Counsel for
Logistics. Missel is apparently taking the place of Mr. W. A. Inhof,
with whom I had dealt previously on this matter.
with respect to section 2, Missel indicated that, although the report of
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on ABC's "unitus bill" last fall
implied that further consideration would be given to the DOD legislative
proposal, and although DOD has been informally in touch with the Joint
Committee, there is at present no indication that the Joint Committee will
hald hearings at the present session of Congress. (This is too bad,
because we think that exactment of section 2 sould greatly simplify the
handling of classified information in MADO, save substantial dollars and
staff time, and probably Improve security.)
with respect to section 1, involving the definition of am stonic waspon,
Rissel advised me that DOD had decided to withdraw this section from
further Dureau consideration. I said that I would mark our file
accordingly.
In light of the above, I think me can consider this legislative matter
closed, as for as Bureau clearance is concerned, but we are left with
the fact that DOD has pending in Congress s desirable legialative
progosal which we may wish to encourage DOD to resubmit at the next
session of the Congress. We will got no help in this regard from ABC,
because, since the Joint Committee is known to be rather cool about
timbering with the definition of "Restricted Date," ABC has little
inclination to promote this legislative proposal.
Attachments
cet Neears. Hyde and Norrill
328
Relations
belongs_to
belongs_to