respects. So, we think it would be a mistake to separate these two management agencies in the manner than has been proposed by Reorganization Plan No. 4.

This is really the main thrust, I think, of my statement which has been prepared in writing, and I hope has been provided for your committee. We simply feel that protection of these important resources will come out second best in the department where commerce is given over toward exploitation and development, even though we see nothing wrong with that as long as it is done in the proper

context.

We would even be more amenable to the creation of an NOAA outside the Department of Commerce than we would in the Department of Commerce, even though we see some difficulties there, too.

Well, thank you. That is the gist of my statement, Senator. (See exhibit 15, p. 158.)

Senator RIBICOFF. Mr. Penfold, do you have a statement?

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE

Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Chairman, very quickly and briefly, we oppose the plan as being premature and unresponsive to the needs of the American public for a truly meaningful national oceanographic and marine program.

Our reasoning coincides with that of Senator Nelson.

We believe, as Mr. Clapper has just said, that these things should be kept together. We think that it is basically wrong to put standards setting, let us say, of the biological aspects of marine resources into an agency which basically is concerned with development for commercial purposes.

Our argument is not between sport fishing and commercial fishing. They are part and parcel of a resource management program and always should be.

MARINE RESOURCES

We think that it is highly important that basic national policies towards our marine resources-and this includes our coastal areas, our estuarine areas, the coastal zone management program. These are basic policy things which should come first. And when we have determined national policies, when the Congress itself has determined these national policies, then is the time to look at what is the best institutional arrangement for carrying out the purposes, the public purposes, of marine resources.

I think this, in essence, is the way we feel about it.

Certainly, the studies, the Stratton report, indicate that the marine program should be in a separate independent status.

The Ash report, which, of course, we have not seen, apparently points in the direction of a Department of Natural Resources. Whether it be a new department or a revised Department of the Interior, we think that these options should be left open for the Congress or the Executive to determine after we have arrived at sound national policies affecting our marine resources. And we cannot separate marine resources from the land itself, because it is from the land that man's activity comes-in a boat with nets or barges with filth to be disposed

of, or the pollution that runs through our estuaries and out into the

ocean.

We hope that Congress will see fit to reject for the time being Reorganization Plan No. 4 and let us get on with the basic determinations of the direction in which we should go as a basic public policy.

I have a prepared statement for the record, and to it we have appended our Washington Newsletter, one devoted in a little more depth to Reorganization Plan No. 4 and in which we discuss these matters more fully with our membership.

Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection, your entire statement and your Newsletter will go in the record at this point.

(See exhibit 16, p. 160.)

Mr. PENFOLD. Thank you.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Javits, do you have some questions?
Senator JAVITS. Yes.

I wondered whether you gentlemen would comment on the extent to which your questions about this reorganization plan are answered by the ideas suggested by the chairman and Senator Nelson, whose intercession in this matter I join the chairman in welcoming.

We like to get all the enlightenment we can.

Our chairman suggested that the report make it crystal clear that the essential thrust of the functioning of the Department will be along the lines of development but that we do not intend to preempt all of the policies contemplated with respect to the environment and the National Environmental Policy Act itself by this reorganization plan; so that we make that clear, we are not compromising the environmental policy.

Secondly, isn't it a fact that section 102 of this very same act; that is, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 imposes an obligation on every government department with respect to environmental protection in all determinations which are made? It says:

The Congress authorizes and directs the policies, regulations and public laws shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policy set forth in the act

and we thereupon set forth certain criteria, and, then, go on to sayPrior to making any detailed statement, the responsible federal officials shall consult with and obtain the comments of any federal agency which has jurisdietion by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved.

Now, do not you gentlemen feel our statement in the report will preserve the integrity of that section?

And I join with our chairman in that and with Senator Nelson. And, secondly, that even the Department of Commerce will not have untrammeled jurisdiction to merely develop but under the Environmental Policy will have to consult with regard to the effect their actions may have on the environment, and hence the effect and influence of other departments can be brought to bear on anything the Commerce Department wishes to do in this field?

So, what they are seized of in the way of jurisdiction is not insulated from the effect of other departments which you gentlemen may feel to be more congenial with your points of view.

Mr. PENFOLD. Senator Javits, we certainly, speaking for myself, my organization, would hope that if it is the will of the committee and the

Congress to accept Reorganization Plan No. 4, that the report spells this out very, very clearly. We have no hate for the Department of Commerce. They are perfectly competent, forward-thinking people. But we do want it crystal clear that in the environmental, biological, and ecological aspects of handling marine resources, that we are bringing to bear all of the facilities and the skills and the competence of the Government on these problems. They are tremendously important. Senator RIBICOFF. There is a vote going on.

The committee will recess until 11:35, and will you gentlemen be at your ease, and we will return in about 20 minutes after we have answered a rollcall.

(Short recess.)

Senator RIBICOFF. The committee will be in order.

Now, I think we interrupted you, Mr. Penfold, and my apologies, but the bells sort of run our lives.

Do you want to continue with what you were saying, sir?
Mr. PENFOLD. Well, just a brief remark, Mr. Chairman.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

We have had the Environmental Quality Act for 8 months. It might be interesting for the committee to take a close look at how the Department of Commerce has carried out its responsibilities under the Environmental Quality Act. They have had 8 months of experience now, and there are very different activities which each of the departments is supposed to have carried out. It might be interesting, as I say, for the committee to take a look at it. Will this give a clue to the extent of the interest at this time of the Department of Commerce in these environmental, biological, and ecological matters which concern us?

Senator RIBICOFF. Any other comment from either of you gentlemen?

Mr. CLEMENT. Senator, I would echo Mr. Penfold's suggestion, because, although it is true that the Environmental Quality Act, section 102, is a good handle, I am sure that I do not need to tell you that a very long national experience points to the fact that good policies sometimes simply do not produce the result they are expected to produce.

COASTAL ZONE

I agree with you, Senator Ribicoff, that we need to be sensitive to the fact that the climate of opinion is changing, and I, for one, and my organization, try never to be doctrinaire about these things, but I think that Senator Nelson has made one of the most valid arguments against implementing NOAA right now, and that is that we have not yet decided what to do about the coastal zone which, from a biological point of view, is the most crucial zone related to marine resources.

Mr. CLAPPER. Senator, I would like to second the other suggestions that have been made, that certainly the committee come out with the strongest possible language to safeguard an environment that is absolutely essential, if you decide to recommend approval of this reorganization plan. And, in line with Senator Javits' question, we are highly encouraged by the work of the Council on Environmental Quality. We think that their first report was a good one, and it confirms largely some private research that we have done and soon will

publish in our own magazine on our second index to environmental quality on the same line.

I would also like to make one other thing clear, that we applauded a basic principle in the Reorganization Plan No. 3, Senator, in which the regulatory functions of the Federal Government relating to pesticides and radiation be separated from those agencies which promote the development and use, and we believe that the same principle applies here; that the regulation and management and research of the basic fisheries resources should be separated from the marine resources.

Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, you feel that that has not been done in plan 4?

Mr. CLAPPER. We do not think it is consistent. We think the reorganization plan is inconsistent with Reorganization Plan No. 3 in this basic principle.

Senator RIBICOFF. Well, you say you are concerned with where future reorganization plans may place certain functions that concern you, but any reorganization plan that would come up would have to come to this committee. So basically, this committee could certainly express its philosophy and thinking very strongly in a report.

And from past experience, that would be very persuasive in any other reorganization plan that might be presented to the committee. Mr. CLAPPER. Well, thank you, sir.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Stevens?

Senator STEVENS. One particularly to Mr. Penfold.

You will recall, at the time of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, which I think started us in the direction in which we are now going, we did not raise any question about which agency was, you might say, the parent agency, the operating organization. We required a coordinator. And I think the Environmental Policy Act, which Senator Jackson and I cosponsored, follows this same idea.

Why does it make a difference in terms of the environmental policy concepts whether NOAA has, you might say, the housing function and the administrative control of these operating agencies rather than any other agency?

I, myself, do not see any differences as far as environmental aspects are concerned, but I do see a great many as far, for instance, as commercial fishing is concerned. The Ship Construction and Subsidy Act has been, for all intents and purposes, ignored for the past two decades. Commerce has a very viable program that is starting up again now for subsidy and assistance to commercial shipping, and they understand these programs and understand the necessity for subsidy and for assistance for the construction of fishing vessels. And I find the commercial fishing people saying that they are going to be subject to the same environmental considerations but they are going to get better assistance over there as far as the construction program is concerned.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

I do not think anyone, Mr. Penfold, sees any change in environmental policy, as the result of NOAA, which is adverse to, or goes against, the Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

That is why I cannot understand the opposition to this reorganization which, I take it, really, is a change in administrative supervision

over agencies which are not going to be changed internally once they come to Commerce.

Mr. PENFOLD. Senator, I do not think we would have any objection to the transfer of a program such as you mentioned to the Department of Commerce. The subsidy to the fishing industry, the assistance with the construction of fishing boats and techniques, and that sort of thing, is very definitely in the realm of the functions of the Department of Commerce. We would have no objection to that.

Senator STEVENS. Well, the other atmospheric and oceanographic services are in Commerce, weather functions, tide prediction functions. It just seems to me that NOAA makes sense from an administrative control point of view, and I do not think anyone has advocated any change, as I said. Can you find anything in NOAA which would be contrary to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ?

Mr. PENFOLD. No. I think it is a matter of actually implementing and carrying out the functions of it.

Senator STEVENS. We intended in that Environmental Policy Act that every agency follow the guidelines set out in that act.

Now, what we are doing in NOAA is taking in related functions and trying by virtue of a reorganization plan to reduce the administrative cost of the supervision of on-going agencies.

For instance, I have been assured by Secretary Stans that BCF will remain an entity. It is not being fractionated. It will remain an entity in NOAA. As such, whether the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is housed in the Department of the Interior or whether it is housed under NOAA in Commerce, it has exactly the same environmental responsibilities in Commerce as it does in Interior. Don't you agree with that? Mr. PENFOLD. Well, this is certainly the intent, Senator. There is no question about that.

Senator STEVENS. Do you have a fear about that?

Is there some reason you fear that Commerce is not going to comply with the Environmental Policy Act?

Mr. PENFOLD. Well, I would not express it as a fear but as a question as to whether there will be the full "oomph" behind it that the environmental aspects require. And, as Dr. Clement brought out, we do feel that the coastal zone management plan, the principals and policies that will be involved in that on a national basis should be ironed out first. And when that is done and these other considerations have been wrangled out and Reorganization Plan No. 4 seems to be the logical thing to do-well, OK.

Senator STEVENS. Well, but that has to be resolved by the Congress itself; does it not?

Mr. PENFOLD. That is right.

COORDINATION ASPECT

Senator STEVENS. And, as a practical matter, we can make our impact on that at the time that it is before us.

Again, though, we cannot possibly get everything that pertains to the oceanographic activities in one agency, we are going to have a coordination aspect just as we did in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 and as we did in the Environmental Policy Act.

We are going to have a coordination aspect after we get to this coastal zone solution.