phasis upon environmental protection and pollution abatement by providing a focal point for financial support, technical assistance, and program guidancethat it will separate and thus avoid, any real or apparent conflicts between(1) pollution abatement standards-setting and enforcement activities, and (2) the continuing responsibility of various departments to promote activities which may cause pollution if proper safeguards are not provided.

EPA will have an estimated 5,605 personnel and a budget of $1.4 billion for fiscal year 1971. Of this total, the functions to be transferred from the Department of the Interior presently have 3,005 personnel and $1,098,576,000 budgeted for fiscal year 1971.

EPA will be comprised of the following components :

The Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA), now in the Department of the Interior;

The National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA), now in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare;

Parts of the Environmental Control Administration (Bureaus of Solid Waste Management, Water Hygiene and part of the Bureau of Radiological Health), also from HEW;

The pesticides research and standard-setting program of the Food and Drug Administration, also from HEW;

The pesticides registration authority of the Department of Agriculture; Authority to perform general ecological research, from the Council on Environmental Quality;

Certain pesticide research authorities of the Department of the Interior; Functions regarding radiation criteria and standards now vested in the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Radiation Council. Specifically, there will be transferred from the Department of the Interior: the functions of the Secretary and the Department which the Federal Water Quality Administration administers the functions which Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966 transferred to the Interior from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare-the functions which the Federal Water Pollution Control Act vested in the Interior-the functions with regard to studies of effects of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides on fish and wildlife resources vested in the Interior by the Act of August 1, 1958-and the Gulf Breeze Biological Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries at Gulf Breeze, Florida, which performs research on the effects of pesticides on fish and wildlife resources as its chief function.

In addition, the plan specifically transfers from the Department the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board and enforcement hearing boards provided for in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and the Secretary's functions as the Chairman of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board under the Act.

The Department consistently has endorsed the concept of consolidating activities related to environmental protection and pollution abatement in a single agency.

We are cooperating fully in making the necessary changes and adjustments which Reorganization Plan No. 3 requires.

I have with me other officials of the Department. We shall be happy to answer any questions which you may have.

EXHIBIT 7

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS ON REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 4 OF 1970, TO CREATE A NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this distinguished Subcommittee to speak about Reorganization Plan No. 4, to establish a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce. I agree with the President that it is a "sound and significant beginning". And I support the proposed reorganization.

Congressional interest in strengthening our Nation's ocean programs dates back at least to 1959. At that time the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Senator Magnuson, began attempts to strengthen our national marine programs. We went from complete disarray and lack of coordination of Federal marine programs in the late 1950's, to administrative steps within the Executive Branch to coordinate oceanographic programs through the Interagency

Committee on Oceanography, beginning in 1962. When the Interagency Com. mittee on Oceanography proved insufficient to the task, we moved to the establishment of the Cabinet-level National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development in 1966. But the Council was conceived as a temporary expedient until a more permanent structure could be created.

Concurrent with the creation of the Council was establisment of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources to study our national oceanic needs, and charged with a responsibility to recommend a Federal civil marine organization. In January 1969, after two full years of study, the Marine Science Commission submitted its report, "Our Nation and the Sea" to the President and the Congress. The Commission recommended creation of an independent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. That Agency, or NOAA, would be composed of most of the agencies and programs that the President now proposes to place in the Department of Commerce, plus the Coast Guard. Based on fiscal year 1970 employment and budget, the Marine Science Commission's independent agency would contain 55,000 people and have an $800 million budget. By contrast, the present proposal is for an administration consisting of 13,000 people and a budget in excess of $300 million when reimbursable expenses are taken into account.

The type of leadership we need for our marine and atmospheric programs was recommended by the Marine Science Commission and spelled out in detail in a bill I introduced earlier in this Congress, S. 2841. Essentially we need an agency with a broad range of responsibilities and capabilities in the marine and atmospheric environments. NOAA is not conceived solely as an oceanographic agency, devoted only to the science of the ocean. NOAA is conceived as a socially and scientifically relevant agency. The development of scientific and technological capabilities and services for the Nation will be important functions for the new administration. But equally important are the economic, environmental, legal, political, diplomatic, and other social activities relevant to NOAA's responsibilities. Its responsibilities would begin in the coastal zone of the United States and extend to the global seas.

Mr. Chairman, without trying to preempt the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee over Reorganization Plan No. 4, the Subcommittee on Oceanography held a closed briefing session Monday morning, July 27, at which the Under Secretary of Commerce answered many questions posed by our Subcommittee. I have a copy of the transcript of that briefing session which I would like to offer for the use of your Subcommittee. We do not plan to make this transcript public until the Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization has had an opportunity to complete its hearings and to make whatever use it wishes of the information contained in it. I think that you may find it particularly helpful for its inquiry into the organizational structure of the new NOAA, as presently contemplated by the Department of Commerce.

Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, Senator Nelson introduced a resolution to reject Reorganization Plan No. 4, and in his testimony before you stated that "Congress should thoroughly consider all of the ramifications not only of this proposal but of the numerous alternatives that have been proposed in high level reports and in legislation now pending in Congress." Senator Nelson stated that the purpose of Reorganization Plan No. 4 was not clear to him, and Senator Muskie observed in response that he feels that it is inconsistent to combine both environmental protection and development in the same agency. I want to address most of my remaining remarks to these concerns and hope to contribute to a thorough understanding of the proposal.

The NOAA concept had its genesis in the Marine Science Commission, chaired by Dr. Julius A. Stratton, the Chairman of the Ford Foundation, and formerly President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Marine Science Commission included fifteen members from government, industry, academic institutions, and represented not only the oceanographic sciences but also legal, economic, and political interests. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert here in the record a list of the members of the Commission. In addition to those members, close liaison was maintained with both the House and the Senate. Senators Magnuson and Cotton were advisers from the Senate, and Congressmen Lennon and Mosher were the House advisers.

The Commission approached its work by establishing seven panels to examine and assess areas of marine activity: basic science; marine engineering and technology; marine resources; environmental monitoring and the management of the coastal zone; industry and private investment; international issues; and education, manpower, and training. These panels traveled throughout the country, heard and received statements and advice from over 1000 people, and after two

years of study published their report, "Our Nation and the Sea." But in addressing the matter of Federal organization assigned to them in the enabling legislation, the Commission did so only after a list of specific national objectives in the marine environment had been compiled.

The Marine Science Commission recommended creation of an independent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency consisting of: Coast Guard; the Environmental Science Services Administration; the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries; the powers, function, and duties of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife regarding marine and anadromous fisheries; the U.S. Lake Survey of the Corps of Engineers; the National Oceanographic Data Center; and the Sea Grant Program of the National Science Foundation.

Last year I introduced S. 2841 to implement the Stratton Commission recommendation and to create a National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere. The Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceanography held extensive hearings on S. 2841 this past spring, and recently published them in a 771page volume. I would be pleased to have copies of the hearings made available to your Subcommittee, for the rationale for such an agency and the need for a strong national oceanic and atmospheric program is clearly expressed throughout the many pages of testimony.

Senator Nelson stated yesterday that the purpose of Reorganization Plan No. 4 is unclear to him. I can well understand why in light of what has appeared so far, and would like to offer nine objectives of the new NOAA, taken from S. 2841 and consistent with the recommendations of the Stratton Commission. The new NOAA should encourage, develop, and sustain a national program in the marine and atmospheric environments, conducted so as to contribute to these objectives: 1. The accelerated development and use of marine resources consistent with sound resource management practices and in knowledge of the effects of such development and use on the marine environment.

2. The expansion of human knowledge of the marine and atmospheric environments.

3. The encouragement of private investment enterprise in exploration, technological development, marine commerce, and economic utilization of the resources of the marine environment, consistent with sound resources management practices.

4. The development and improvement of the capabilities, performance, use, and efficiency of vehicles, equipment, and instruments for use in exploration, research, monitoring and prediction, surveys, the recovery of resources, and the conversion and transmission of energy in the marine and atmospheric environments.

5. The advancement of education and training in marine and atmospheric science, technology, and technical services and social studies related to the marine and atmospheric environments.

6. The advancement of capability to observe and predict environmental changes, and ultimately to modify the environment, in order to enhance the safety and welfare of the public and to permit more efficient use of the oceans and the atmosphere.

7. The effective use of scientific and engineering resources of the Nation, with close cooperation among all interested agencies, public and private, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment in marine and atmospheric programs.

8. The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in marine and atmospheric activities and in marine resource development and conservation. 9. The cooperation by the United States with other nations and with international organizations in marine and atmospheric activities when such cooperation is in the national interest.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing inherent in the creation of a new NOAA in the Department of Commerce that would prevent accomplishment of these objectives. The Subcommittee on Oceanography would actively seek to have these objectives fulfilled by the new NOAA if the Congress approves Reorganization Plan No. 4. A blueprint for them was laid out by the Stratton Commission. They show a great concern for the quality of the marine environment. And that was one of the main reasons the Stratton Commission recommended creation of a NOAA. Marine programs have been in such disarray that to attempt to harvest the riches of the oceans without better Federal organization and national programs for wise resource management could only lead to environmental disaster. Senator Muskie's concern that environmental protection and resource development not be lodged in the same agency is certainly well founded when one looks

at the difficulties that the Department of the Interior has had over the years. But, Mr. Chairman, the problem of Santa Barbara, the problem of Machiasport and Hilton Head, is how are we going to provide for the needs of our people without destroying the very environment on which we rely to survive? The problem is not going to be solved by one Federal agency. Not by an Environmental Protection Agency alone. Not by a NOAA alone. And certainly not by the Corps of Engineers alone! Just as the bumper stickers say that "The population bomb is everybody's baby," environmental quality is everybody's responsibility. As we develop resources for the well-being of our people, we must all be involved in understanding what adverse impacts that development will have, and move to avoid those adverse impacts or minimize them. We must draft our laws to require that those adverse impacts will be avoided or minimized. We must insist that our laws, our Federal and national programs, be administered with environmental impacts fully in mind. All of us are involved-the Executive Branch; the Congress in its legislative and oversight functions: our courts; our State and local governments; our industry; all of us. And if we find that agencies charged both with developing and protecting resources do not adequately protect the environment, there are many ways to call them to task. Certainly Senator Muskie's Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has been ingenious in devising legislative checks and balances to enhance environmental quality. The Section 21(b) authority of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 is an excellent example. The Subcommittee on Oceanography would be charged with the same responsibility if Congress approves Reorganization Plan No. 4.

Shortly after the proposed reorganization was inadvertently made public, Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Oceanography made a survey of reaction in key committees in the Senate and the House, and canvassed many top members of the oceanography and conservation communities. There was a surprising unanimity of response; they were pleased that the proposal is as strong as it is; disappointment that the agency is not proposed to be independent and include the Coast Guard, but favorable nonetheless. Dr. Stratton and Dr. Edward Wenk, former Executive Secretary of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, were among those we consulted and who responded favorably to the proposal. One observer in the National Academy of Sciences summed up the responses well when he said it is a “damned good beginning." Certainly important in my own decision to support the proposal was the degree to which support for an independent NOAA disappeared in the House of Representatives when the President made his proposal. And that is the situation today.

I support a strong national oceanic and atmospheric program, Mr. Chairman. The proposal sent to the Congress by the President has been well thought out. It makes substantive sense. But I am a political pragmatist also, and this is what we can attain now. And after more than ten years of Federal disorganization, the President's proposal is an important beginning. I urge that the Senate support creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you this morning, Mr. Chairman.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND RESOURCES Chairman: Julius A. Stratton, Chairman, The Ford Foundation.

Vice-Chairman: Richard A. Geyer, Head, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University.

David A. Adams, Commissioner of Fisheries, North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development.

Carl A. Auerbach, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota.

Charles F. Baird, Under Secretary of the Navy.

Jacob Blaustein, Director, Standard Oil Company (Indiana).

James A. Crutchfield, Professor of Economics, University of Washington.

Frank C. DiLuzio, Assistant Secretary, Water Pollution Control, Department of the Interior.

Leon Jaworski, Attorney, Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski. John A. Knauss, Dean, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island.

John H. Perry, Jr., President, Perry Publications, Inc., Florida.
Taylor A. Pryor, President, The Oceanic Foundation, Hawaii.

George E. Reedy, President, Struthers Research & Development Corp., Washington, D.C.

George H. Sullivan, M.D., Consulting Scientist, General Electric Reentry Systems.

Robert M. White, Administrator, Environmental Science Services Administration, Department of Commerce.

Congressional Advisers: Norris Cotton, U.S. Senator; Warren G. Magnuson, U.S. Senator; Alton A. Lennon, U.S. Representative; Charles A. Mosher, U.S. Representative.

MATERIALS AVAILABLE IN SUBCOMMITTEE FILES SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HOLLINGS

"Oceanography 1966: Achievements and Opportunities," National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., publication No. 1492. dated 1967.

"Effective Use of the Sea," report of the Panel on Oceanography, President's Science Advisory Committee, The White House, June 1966.

"National Oceanographic Council," hearings before the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, 89th Congress, first session, on S. 944. Serial 89-21. dated 1965.

"Federal Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization," hearings before the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, 91st Congress, first and second sessions, on S. 2841 and S. 2802., part I, Serial 91-59. dated December 1969, and February 1970.

Transcript of Proceedings, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. July 27, 1970, executive session.

"Marine Resources and Legal-Political Arrangements for Their Development," Volume 3, Panel reports of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, 1969.

"Industry and Technology: Keys to Oceanic Development," Volume 2, Panel reports of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, 1969. "Science and Environment," Volume 1, Panel reports of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, 1969.

"Our Nation and the Sea. A Plan for National Action," Report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, dated 1969.

EXHIBIT 8

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK E. Moss ON REORGANIZATION PLANS Nos. 3 AND 4

OF 1970

Mr. Chairman: The purpose of Reorganization Plans Nos. 3 and 4-to bring together in two agencies the major Federal programs dealing with our environment is most laudable.

The many pollutions of our life today are closely related-our air, our rivers and lakes, our earth are all contaminated primarily as the result of our mass population and our advanced technology, and these pollutions should be dealt with as a whole.

Again, the oceans and the atmosphere above them are interacting parts of our total environment, and the Federal programs relating to them should be fully coordinated.

So generally, I support the President's recommendations, and urge the subcommittee to recommend their adoption.

However, I do not feel that the establishment of either the Environmental Protection Agency as an independent body, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as an agency within the Department of Commerce, is the best answer to the coordination of Federal efforts to deal with the total environment.

As the subcommittee chairman well knows, I have long advocated the creation of a Department of Natural Resources and the Environment which would bring together not only the Federal agencies concerned with pollution of our environment, but with all natural resource programs-all programs which relate in any substantial way to the development, conservation, and best use of any of our environmental resources.

I understand that the Ash Committee report to the President recommended the establishment of just such a department as the most practical and beneficial way to coordinate Federal activities in the environmental field. This recommendation was reached only after long and exhaustive study.