Federal agencies which relate closely to its own responsibilities. This was recommended by the Stratton Commission as an essential function once performed by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) and for which no permanent mechanism now exists. OSTAC recommends that the execution of this function be specified. OSTAC is pleased to note the intention to establish an Advisory Committee, as recommended by the Stratton Commission. It is assumed that the membership of this Committee would be drawn principally from the private sector, including industry, universities, and oceanographic institutions and that it would be provided with its own permanent staff so as to ensure its independence and effectiveness in encouraging the responsible growth of private sector participation in oceanic and atmospheric developments. It is further anticipated that the Advisory Committee will greatly assist the Administrator of NOAA in his coordination function. OSTAC concurs with the Stratton Commission recommendation that the Advisory Committee should, among other functions, report periodically to the President and to the Congress. This function should also be specified. OSTAC recognizes that consideration of a Coastal Zone Management Act must await on Reorganization Plan No. 4. With the establishment of a NOAA however, OSTAC reaffirms its concurrence with the Stratton Commission recommendations concerning NOAA's functions in costal zone management. EXHIBIT 22 FISHERMEN & ALLIED WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 33 I.L.W.U., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman of Committee on Commerce, San Diego, Calif., July 30, 1970. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: President Nixon on July 9, 1970 submitted to Congress Reorganization Plan Number 4, establishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce; it brings together into a single agency the five major federal programs dealing with the seas and the atmosphere. One such Bureau being proposed for inclusion in the consolidation is the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries which is presently under jurisdiction of the Department of Interior. Our organization strongly supports the integration of the five closely related research-oriented agencies, and the transfer to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in a manner whole and intact; that is the Bureau with its Marine Sports Fisheries and Anadromous fish activities. I feel that it will be a giant step in the right direction. Assuredly, it will be fiscally attractive; more significantly the integration is consistent with the current public recognition of the science of ecology which sees and perceives fundamental functioning relationships in the natural scheme of things; and it finally recognizes the research and development nature of each of the agencies. Working together, these agencies will bring, I am sure, meaningful advances to the commercial fish industry. Fisheries of the world are expanding in variety, volume and geographical range at an astounding rate. Moreover during the past 20 years, science has come to the full realization of the importance and nature of the dynamic interrelationship of the atmosphere and the oceans, and how, in our case, the interplay determines fish distribution and fish behavior. Knowing, in advance, these patterns of fish areas and fish distribution will contribute substantially to the economic well-being of the U.S. fishermen. It would further provide much of the environmental, both oceanic and atmospheric, information to predict the location and possible abundance of oceanic fish species, such as yellowfin tuna, bluefin tuna, albacore and skipjack tuna. Additionally, we request that in the establishment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there be included in the top administrative hierarchy some person knowledgeable of and dedicated to research, utilization and conservation of the living resources of the sea. For these above reasons, we respectfully urge your support of the President's Reorganization Plan Number 4. Respectfully yours. JOHN J. ROYAL, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, EXHIBIT 23 U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., August 4, 1970. Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, which your committee is considering, is a forward step in oceanography. Approval will advance marine science, engineering and resource utilization, and is consistent with the Declaration of Policy and Objectives of the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act approved unanimously by the 89th Congress. Rejection of Plan No. 4 would set back many of the advances in oceanography during the past 10 years, and continue a governmental structure that all committees and commissions during four successive administrations have found inadequate to meet the many ocean and Great Lakes challenges of this modern age. Approval of the plan does not mean that it is a permanent solution to the problem of how best to organize the administrative structure to meet the nonmilitary marine needs and problems in the national interest. Administrative plans and legislative enactments are seldom, if ever, perpetual. While personally, Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred a separate ocean agency as recommended by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, the only present prospect is establishing a departmental status for oceanic and atmospheric activities as set out on Plan No. 4. This will be a marked improvement over the administrative structure that presently obtains, and it is my opinion that rejection of the plan would mean that no improvement, either in this Congress or for several to follow, can be anticipated. It has required a decade for us to come this far. Plan No. 4 differs mainly from the recommendations of the Commission in proposing that a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration not be independent but in the Department of Commerce. Of the Departments of our national government, Commerce is the logical choice. The Department has wide and varied marine interests. It has been solicitous for advancement of these interests and has, with the cooperation of the Congress, achieved a record of constructive accomplishment. The major element of NOAA, the Environmental Science Services Administration, is already located in the Department of Commerce. This agency would comprise 73% of NOAA's budget and 83% of its personnel. It provides as well the "solid base of science and technology" which the Stratton Commission emphasized must serve as the common denominator for accomplishment in these areas. The National Data Buoy Program would be transferred from the Coast Guard and with respect to the need for other Coast Guard components there is an excellent background of cooperation between ESSA and the Coast Guard. Congress has been given assurances, Mr. Chairman, that if Plan No. 4 is approved the Department of Commerce will make every effort to maintain this record with the greatly enlarged marine responsibilities. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I add that the need for unifying our marine administrative, scientific and technological resources is—now. Sincerely, EXHIBIT 24 WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman. STATEMENT OF PARKE C. BRINKLEY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION, ON REORGANIZATION PLANS Nos. 3 AND 4 of 1970, August 4. 1970 My name is Parke C. Brinkley. I am President of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, a non-profit trade association which represents the agricultural pesticide industry in the United States. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee this morning to discuss the implications of Reorganization Plan No. 3. This plan, which establishes the Environmental Protection Agency, has as its principal goal the control of pollution in our environment. A number of existing programs related to environmental protection will be transferred to the new agency. The only complete regulatory and enforcement program for a particular class of commodity transferred to the new agency is the registration of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the establishment of permissible residues of pesticides on raw agricultural commodities under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Enforcement of these residue limits remains with the Food and Drug Administration. Enforcement of pesticide registration moves to the new agency. When this plan was first brought to our attention, our reaction was negative. After careful reflection, however, we accept the Plan because we think it can bring benefits to the American public. We hope it will create a less emotionally charged atmosphere within which Government scientists can more objectively appraise the benefits and attendant risks in the use of pesticides. I suppose we all mean by the word pollution, the despoiling and befouling of our environment-air, water, and soil-with resulting harm to human health and our wildlife resources. With this definition in mind, we say that though there have been instances where pesticides have contributed to environmental problems, pesticides have done far more to clean the environment than to despoil it. To recite the accomplishment of pesticide use is no longer exciting and commands no space in the press because we accept these benefits as if they were a part of our life charter. The emotion stems from the discovery of pesticide residues in non-target species but without regard to the benefits achieved when these calculated risks are taken. We are no longer concerned with malaria, yellow fever, and a host of insect-borne diseases because they are not a health factor in this country. They do remain a major health factor in other areas of the world, however. Dr. M. A. Farid, Director of Program Planning for the Malaria Eradication Section of the World Health Organization, advises that in 1936 there were 200,000,000 cases of malaria in India alone resulting in 2,000,000 deaths. In 1968, only 156,000 cases were reported in India with approximately 750 cases resulting in death. Last month in New Mexico several cases of bubonic plague were reported. This is worthy of little attention as the disease is now readily controllable with penicillin. Yet these disease vectors are controlled only by pesticides. Flies, mosquitoes, rats, roaches, body lice-perhaps we can live with these environmental contaminants but we must not forget that they continue to spread a host of diseases including encephalitis, of which there have been three or four outbreaks in the last 15 years. We will not make an effort this morning to review the pesticide record. We are aware of the criticism that has been leveled at the Federal agencies and their enforcement of pesticide programs. We feel that a careful objective review of the record will bear out the fact that these agencies have done an outstanding job with the few failures or inadequacies that have been reported testifying more to the dimension of the problem than to the failures of the dedicated personnel in these agencies. Transferring these programs may appear to reflect a lack of confidence in the ability of these agencies to do their job. We trust this is not so and that the record will be clear that transferring these functions to EPA is to bring together the variety of disciplines necessary to regulate the sale and use of pesticides and to render more efficient this continuing effort. We view optimistically the bringing together of all relevant scientific disciplines into one agency to improve interdisciplinary communication, evaluation of data and measurement of the significance of the information that is collected by Government and industry. Prior to sale a pesticide must be registered by the Department of Agriculture. The burden is upon the applicant to establish safety and efficacy. No agricultural use is permitted until a tolerance for any residue of the pesticide on raw foods is established. Pre-registration review includes the Departments of the Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare. After registration each pesticide is subjected to a comprehensive monitoring program designed to point out unanticipated effects. As you know, the fish and wildlife resources of this country, including shellfish and our water and air resources are subject to careful monitoring, the results of which are reported regularly in the Federal Pesticide Monitoring Journal. USDI laboratories at Patuxent, Maryland, Gulf Breeze, Florida, Denver, Colorado, and Columbia, Missouri report on studies of invertebrates, fish and wildlife. Other agencies make important contributions the community health profiles of the Public Health Service, the market basket surveys of the Food and Drug Administration-every phase of our environment is studied under the coordination of the Working Party, Subcommittee on Pesticides of the President's Cabinet Committee on the Environment. These programs provide a continuous source of data to measure the input of pesticides into our environment. As more agencies became more involved in recent years with the regulation of pesticides, we faced a proliferation of regulators which ultimately required the development of the Interagency Review Agreement of January 29, 1970. This is perhaps the most elaborate interagency review program in the Executive Branch of the Government. One result, at least, was to add an indefinite amount of time to the evaluation of new products and new uses for old products. We found ourselves dealing with second and third hand information and experienced great frustration in attempting to locate the source of the information as problems arose. Thus we were extremely hampered in bringing to bear the implication of the scientific data relevant to the problem area. We then look forward to the opportunity to deal principally with one agency where there will be an opportunity for prompt communication between the regulators and the regulated. We anticipate that this increased efficiency will result in more prompt and relevant responses, and a more effective and efficient handling and resolution of problem areas. From the testimony already presented to this Committee, we anticipate that there will be a unified division of pesticides in EPA, hopefully headed by a Deputy Director of the Agency. In this manner the Agency can function most efficiently and, we believe, the benefits of this reorganization can be more fully realized. The Agency must accept a premise that is not particularly popular at the moment and that is, that there is a desperate need to continue pesticide use for the protection of food, the protection of the public health, and for improvement in the quality of the environment. Pesticides, like drugs, present a host of benefits but there are risks which can be calculated and measured, and accepted to achieve the benefits. The validity of the benefit-risk equation was soundly endorsed by Senator Ribicoff in Senate Report No. 1379, 89th Congress, 2d Session, following a three-year review of pesticides by the Subcommittee on Reorganization of the Committee on Government Operations. Senator Ribicoff underscored the need to mitigate confusion and anxiety in the public mind and the need to evaluate pesticides in an objective atmosphere. The Report points out: "The reservoir of apprehension in the public mind evolves from three signs of our time: (1) The lack of understanding of science leading to distrust and actual dislike; (2) nostalgia for a simpler life, the good old days, and the "peaceable kingdom;" and (3) a feeling of individual incompetence to avoid the threats of technological side effects (e.g., helplessness against community aerial spraying, unknown source of food stuffs, and total reliance on governmental control and regulation). This anxiety (amounting to fear) is a barrier to facts and presents a bad climate for decisionmaking." [Ibid., page 50] The results of the emotional approach to pesticides have been significant. The pesticide industry historically committed a relatively high percentage of gross sales to research. Recently, several chemical companies have completely abandoned their research and development programs on pesticides. Others have sharply reduced their efforts in insecticides while continuing to go forward with other types such as herbicides. The mounting cost of research and development, the unreceptive mood of state and Federal regulators, and the extremely poor image of the industry in the public mind, were major contributing factors. Corporate executives find little comfort in outstanding achievements in the pesticide field when they are constantly harangued and barraged by stockholders and others as despoilers of our environment through the development of effective insect control techniques. We look forward then to the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency. We look forward to cooperating and working with this Agency to bring to the public the maximum benefits pesticides offer with the minimum risks attendant upon pest control programs. We look forward to a continuation of the elaborate Federal monitoring systems of pesticide residues in our environment. to the opportunity to work cooperatively to improve pesticide effectiveness and minimize the exposure of non-target organisms to these materials. We are not completely persuaded that establishing a new agency will result in better regulatory programs, except to the extent that they will be more efficient and thus more effective. This alone may be of sufficient value to justify the creation of the new Agency. Reorganization Plan No. 3 does not deal with the structure of the Agency though the indications are that a Pesticide Division will be designed to put all pesticide activities in the new Agency under one top level executive who will have the ultimate authority and the concurrent responsibility for these programs. An integrated pesticide program in one division of the Agency could be the key to an effective regulatory program. EXHIBIT 25 STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS ON REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 4, AUGUST 5, 1970 This statement is submitted on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, a voluntary association of business enterprises, large and small, located in every State and providing a substantial portion of the nation's manufacturing employment. The purpose of this statement is to comment on Reorganization Plan No. 4, proposing creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Many NAM member companies have been, and are, leaders in the development of our nation's capacity to recover and use the living and non-living resources of the oceans for the benefit of our total society. For several years, the Association has had an Ocean Resources Subcommittee whose members study issues and questions connected with the formulation of a national policy for developing the resources of the oceans. This subcommittee has developed, and during recent years, continually refined, a policy position on ocean resources development. A copy of the Association's official policy is attached to this statement. It is the position of the NAM that the development and utilization of ocean resources offer unlimited potential to assist our nation's growth. The wise and active development of these resources requires that basic respousibility should continue to be shared by the government and by private groups. In his message submitting his reorganizaion proposal to the Congress, President Nixon states that this nation faces "a compelling need for exploration and development leading to intelligent use of our marine resources We must understand the nature of these resources and assure their development without either contaminating the marine environment or upsetting its balance." NAM supports the President's call and concern. It is the responsibility of the federal government to develop an orderly national and international legal framework which is necessary for continued progress. It is our position that research efforts relating to national defense, weather forecasting, mapping the oceans' floors and the gathering and dissemination of basic research information about the oceans are primarily federal responsibilities. We think it is clear, however, that it has been the initiative of the private sector that has provided the capacity for the country to gather and use the food, mineral and other resources of the oceans and to make them available for many uses throughout society. We think that industry should be encouraged to devote the resources and talents to expand this capacity and that it should continue to have the primary responsibility for developing the resources of the oceans. But until now, we suggest, the oceans-related activities of the federal government have been partially hindered by being fragmented and diffused. These efforts have been slowed by competitition, not only among agencies with similar functions, but also with other more highly publicized non-oceanic programs. We agree with the President's emphasis on the need for greater coordination. Although the Association has urged the creation of an independent ocean resources agency, we feel that the essential consideration is to consolidate these diverse activities under a single office. In this regard, we support the President's recommendation. A single agency would allocate priorities and responsibilities, and serve to eliminate duplications and conflicts in federal programs. It would act as the focal point for industry-government relations in the ocean development field. Since the President has decided to place NOAA in an existing department, we applaud his choice of the Department of Commerce. We share his reasoning in this regard and also suggest that his direction lends credence and support to the concept that development of ocean resources should, in fact, continue to reside in the private sector. On another item in the President's transmittal message, NAM is pleased at the President's call for the establishment of a National Advisory Committee for the Oceans and the Atmosphere to advise and assist the Secretary of Commerce in identifying and achieving national oceanic and atmospheric objectives. NAM's policy position specifically calls for the establishment of such an Advisory Committee. We believe it should be composed of individuals from outside the federal government, broadly representative of the states, industry, science, and other interested areas. We suggest that the Advisory Committee provide continuing guidance for a national ocean resources development program and annually report |