and coordination of natural resources administration. I have heard, too, that President Nixon's Ash Council on Executive Organization recommended a new Department on Natural Resources and Environment to replace the Interior Department. The NOAA organization would have been incorporated in that new department under the Ash Council's plan. At best, Reorganization Plan No. 4 appears to seek to accomplish administratively what previously has been rejected legislatively. When it became known that many conservation organizations are apprehensive about incorporation of the marine biological phases of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and some elements of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in the Department of Commerce, Administration spokesmen sought to reassure us. We were told, for example, that Commerce has a large scientific staff, up to 60 percent of its working force, and that the agency's purpose is not mainly to stimulate industry and commerce. The compelling fact, Mr. Chairman, and one that apparently is lost on the Administration's spokesmen is that no matter how great their scientific competence in their chosen fields, engineers, physicists, climatologists and others in the physical sciences are neither knowledgeable nor competent in the equally complex specialties of marine biology and fisheries. Commerce's agency names read like nothing I ever have seen in any biology textbooks-U.S. Travel Service, Office of Business Economics, Office of Foreign Direct Investments, Economic Development Administration, Bureau of the Census, Bureau of International Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration, Maritime Administration, National Bureau of Standards, and Patent Office. Commerce's Environmental Sciences Services Administration, as its budget breakdown shows, focuses predominately on the physical aspects of the environment. This is reflected in its various activities-weather forecasts and warnings, river and flood forecasts and warnings, carth description and mapping, marine description and mapping, and telecommunications. Earlier, I expressed the view that Reorganization Plan No. 4 is structured for the convenience of man and not for the welfare of the resource. The plan is quiet about the responsibility for the coastal zone, the area along our coasts where fresh and salt water mix, which is important to so many commercial and sport fish species. Agencies of the Commerce Department have little direct contact with the land, but it is the land mass and its associated runoff through the complex and little understood estuarine system that have great bearing on the abundance, diversity, and well being of fin and shell fish resources. These components of the total habitat of marine fisheries should not be sundered as Reorganization Plan No. 4 would do. The Institute is all for strengthening and expanding marine fisheries programs, Mr. Chairman. But we are for doing it within the framework of the Department of the Interior or by some realignment of the federal agencies having responsibility for land, water, forest, fish and wildlife resources. We are not for banishing this important resource to a department with little tradition or experience in the management of such an important living resource. EXHIBIT 37 NATIONAL GRANGE, Washington, D.C., August 26, 1970. Hon. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF, Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: The National Grange is quite concerned over the Reorganization Act, which would establish an Environmental Protection Administration. It is our understanding that the Act would include a transfer to this new agency of the pesticide registration and regulation activities from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the pesticide standard-setting programs from the Food and Drug Administration. It is also our understanding that Congress has 60 days either to accept or reject the President's recommendations on establishing the new Environmental Protection Administration, which is our primary concern. We understand that you cannot amend the President's recommendations, but we would like to offer the following suggestion: that your Committee send the plan back to the Executive branch along with its recommendation. The main function of the "Environmental Protection Administration" is, as the name implies, the protection of the environment. We therefore recommend that only that portion of the pesticide program that protects the environment be transferred to the new agency. At the present time this portion of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act is administered by the Food and Drug Administration, under the agency that administers the pesticide research and setting of standards program. It is this portion of the pesticide program that protects the environment and therefore we can see the logic in transferring this agency's functions. However, the pesticide registration and licensing of pesticides should remain in the Department of Agriculture, for it is only here that the importance of pesticide chemicals as essential tools of production can be judged. This must be high on the list of priority in determining what chemical can be used on what crops and in what dilution. We believe that the Department of Agriculture has managed its responsibilities in the pesticide chemical field well. Leaving the pesticide registration program in the Department would permit producers, formulators and manufacturers to maintain their relationship with U.S.D.A. and the U.S.D.A. then, in turn, would deal directly with E.P.A., the same as they now do with F.D.A. Our primary concern can best be summed up by this question: Who will have control over agricultural production-a high-level, integrated super-agency, easily influenced by public opinion through the various news media, or the Department of Agriculture that has a mandate from Congress to see to the efficient production of food and fiber and control over the inputs to bring about such production? It was because we feel so strongly that pesticides, their use and control are so important to the economic production of the food and fiber for our great nation that the National Grange, at its 103rd Annual Session, held in Daytona Beach, Florida, adopted the following resolution: "AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS "Because of the vital importance of insecticides, pesticides, herbicides and other similar chemicals to the efficient production of agricultural products, the regulation and control of these substances for the protection of the public should be continued in the Department of Agriculture and the Department should be provided with any additional Authority and funds required to carry on the necessary research for the safe and effective use of these substances." Pesticides are often considered as entirely unnecessary, pollutants, food toxicants, or an economic crutch for farmers. It should be obvious to all that by the nature of statements expressed in opposition that they are too often based on happenstance or conjecture, not on existing scientific information, and all too often arise in emotional concern (by scientists and lay groups alike) for special interests. The new "Interdepartmental Agreement for Protection of the Public Health and the Quality of the Environment in Relation to Pesticides" provides for a sound, scientific review of pesticide registration and regulation, assuring that none of the three Departments can ignore the needs and responsibilities of the others. The National Grange cannot, after serious consideration of the proposal, see any benefit in changing the triple responsibility of the Departments of Agriculture, Health, Education and Welfare and Interior for the monolithic administration of a single agency. In fact, in our judgment, the single agency will be subject to so much pressure from public opinion that it will be unable to function properly, either in the interest of the public or the producers. However, we could support such an agency if the interest of pesticides as a tool of production is protected by having the pesticide registration remain in the Department of Agriculture as we have suggested. We respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the hearings on the proposed Environmental Protection Administration. Sincerely, JOHN W. SCOTT, Master. EXHIBIT 38 HON. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, Washington, D.C., August 31, 1970. Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, Committee on Government Operations, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: We welcome the invitation to submit to the Senate Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization for the hearing record under date of September 1, 1970 our views on Reorganization Plans No. 3 (Environmental Protection Agency) and No. 4 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Concerning Plan No. 3, we recognize the desirability of bringing together in a single unified agency the several governmental units concerned with the administration and enforcement of laws and regulations designed to protect the environment from pollution and other abuse. Given clear authority and adequate funding, such an agency should be able to make a most valuable contribution to assuring a clean, healthful and pleasing environment for life on this planet. We do question the wisdom of placing within the regulatory agency the function of carrying on the research with respect to the effects of chemical agents on plant and animal life as provided in Section 2(2) of Plan No. 3; it is too easy for the research to be subordinated to inadequate regulation. Concerning Plan No. 4, we take strong exception to this plan because of its proposed transfer from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Commerce of the commercial and the marine sport fishing programs. These programs are primarily concerned with the life habits of fish, that is, with research into the biology, physiology, nutrition, reproduction, habitat and other factors directly related to the preservation and the continuance of the fishery, plus the preservation and/or establishment of suitable environment. Such research, biological, and natural habitat programs are entirely foreign to the traditional thought and practice of the Department of Commerce; indeed that is the basis for their transfer from the Department of Commerce many years ago. Conversely, these programs are precisely the sort of activities which the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries were established for and are equipped to skillfully carry on. Further, to presume to separate the biological programs for what are commonly thought of as ocean fish from the biological programs for freshwater fish is exceedingly illogical. In fact, both classes of fish intermingle to an important degree, and particularly so during the critical spawning and early life periods. A closely coordinated program, under a single administrator (presently the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks in the Department of the Interior) is essential for successful government programs. Because of the importance of maintaining an effective government fisheries program, in our opinion Reorganization Plan No. 4 as presently drafted should be rejected. Resubmission to the Congress after deletion of the provisions pertaining to fisheries programs and their administrative units would then be in order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to submit these views. Sincerely, ERNEST M. DICKERMAN, Eastern Director of Field Services. EXHIBIT 39 STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES PERCY, a U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, SEPTEMBER 1, 1970 MR. CHAIRMAN, I am pleased that this extra day of hearings has been scheduled on Reorganization Plan No. 4 establishing in the Department of Commerce the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Several questions have been raised concerning the wisdom of placing such a function with the Department of Commerce. Similarly, questions have developed over the specific functions included or not included, as the case may be, in the transfer. I should indicate at the outset that I am inclined to support this Reorganization Plan as a good first step. There is a conspicuous need to draw together in a single new administration the major Federal programs dealing with the oceans and the atmosphere. This Reorganization Plan would meet this need. To the extent that further experience indicates that other related functions should have been included in NOAA, I think we should be prepared to legislate the transfers of functions, but we should not delay the creation of this new Administration because we might find, in the future, that certain responsibilities should have been transferred that were not. It appears that the major controversy centers down on whether or not the Department of Commerce is the proper repository for the new NOAA. I am eager to hear the testimony on this point today. However, again, my initial reaction is to favor the Plan as presented to Congress. I noted with interest that when the Department of Commerce was first created in 1903 among its responsibilities was the promotion and development of the fisheries industry. The function was subsequently transferred to the Department of Interior, but, in a sense, as far as the commercial fisheries industry is concerned, Reorganization Plan No. 4 would bring us full cycle by returning this authority to its place of origin. It is my feeling that the concerns which have been expressed as to whether the Department of Commerce, because of its interest in commercial affairs, would therefore neglect environmental considerations relate to an earlier image of the Department which is inaccurate today. The promotion of Commercial activities is not necessarily mutually exclusive with preserving marine reaources. Secretary Stans has pointed out that "We regard economic development in a much more sophisticated manner than merely to exploit today and forget tomorrow. Our economic programs. . . are long-range and are designed to deal with the elements of conservation and the environment and the interest of all parties." Of course, 60% of the budget and personnel of the Department of Commerce are now already designated for scientific and technical purposes, including the Environmental Science Services Administration. ESSA when established in 1965 was to provide a single national focus for our efforts to describe, understand and predict the state of the oceans, the state of the lower and upper atmosphere, and the size and shape of the earth. Thus, it seems to me that by placing NOAA in the Department of Commerce we are following a logical course of action begun under the prior Administration. The Marine Science Commission, under the leadership of Dr. Julius Stratton, recommended the creation of NOAA after two full years of study. NOAA will be charged with providing a good information base on which standards can be based, enforcement carried out, programs planned and undertaken. But NOAA will not set the standards nor administer the enforcement. These will of course be taken care of by the Environmental Protection Agency. So, I will say again, my first inclination is to support the President's Plan. It has the support of people who have been very close to the problems including the members of the Stratton Commission, and the House and Senate Subcommittees on Oceanography. And in any case almost everyone seems to be in clear agreement that the substance of the reorganization proposal is long overdue. EXHIBIT 40 STATEMENT BY RICHARD H. STROUD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 1, 1970 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Richard H. Stroud. I am Executive Vice President of the Sport Fishing Institute, which is America's only non-governmental, professionally-staffed, national non-profit organization devoted principally to the conservation of America's water resources and the aquatic life therein. The Institute's main objective is to stimulate and encourage the rapid development and sound application of fish conservation principlies and practices. This, in turn, will provide for optimum sustained production of aquatic life resources. There will then be a maximum of opportunity for recreational fishing for the benefit of 60,000,000 Americans who now look principally to angling for their vitally-needed outdoor recreation, including an estimated 15,000,000 citizens who fish in estuarine and coastal marine waters. The Institute derives much of its operating funds from a wide representation of manufacturers of various sorts of equipment and supplies used in some manner by fishermen. Some funds are also provided by many individual anglers and other citizens who share increasing concern for the quality of their environment, particularly the nation's waterways, and their related living experiences. The Sport Fishing Institute (SFI) appreciates this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to appear before you today to express opposition to Executive Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 (House Doc. 91-365), to establish within the Department of Commerce the proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We regret the necessity to record that we have serious reservations about the wisdom of placing such an organization in the Department of Commerce. We especially challenge this action in its proposed form, which would bring together responsibility for conservation of the living resources of the sea with that for ocean engineering and related resource development functions, as well as administration of atmospheric and oceanographic services. We also have some reservations with respect to Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 (House Doc. 91-364), to establish the independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Nevertheless, we have endorsed that proposal, as we have already advised you separately by letter, because we believe that the gravity of environmental degradation and the related short-term urgency for concentrated coordination of government efforts to abate pollution of all kinds are so great as to override all counter considerations. At the same time, unless substantial new funds are also pumped into the pollution abatement programs, after being collected together in the new agency, we very much fear that Reorganization Plan No. 3 will prove to have been merely and exercise in useless paper shuffling. The very reason that the proposal for EPA makes some sense is the same one, in our view, that makes it illogical and improper to set up NOAA, in its proposed structure, within the Department of Commerce. That reason is, as a July 12 New York Times editorial (in part) succinctly stated, that: "No agency entrusted with promoting the development of... natural resources-minerals, seafood, water power-should be entrusted at the same time with protecting the environment against the consequences of that development. The two objectives often conflict, and it is almost invariably the organized exploiters who win, the unorganized public that loses." It makes sense, for example, to remove regulation of radiological emissions at nuclear power plants from the AEC, which is charged with promoting their development, and placing that responsibility in an independent EPA. Conversely, it courts disaster to assign the responsibility for conserving marine fisheries resources within the Department of Commerce, which is traditionally devoted to development and exploitation of resources rather than their protection from the consequences of such exploitation. This is the basic reason why, on July 8, responsible officers of eight national conservation organizations joined together to send the following telegram to President Nixon: "The undersigned national conservation and environmental organizations endorse the Administration's executive reorganization creating an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an independent agency dealing with our nation's serious environmental degradation problems. "But we are strongly opposed to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric [Administration] that proposes to transfer research, management, and regulatory functions of a most important renewable resource belonging to all of the people to the Department of Commerce, which traditionally represents the industrial and economic viewpoint. Moving commercial fisheries management, research and the anadromous fishery program to the Department of Commerce would split executive jurisdiction of the fisheries resources to the detriment of a growing public use of the resource by sport fishermen." Signed by: American Forestry Association, William E. Towell, Execu- Many of the reasons cited in his Message to the Congress by President Nixon as contributing to his rationale for bringing together many scattered oceanographic functions, by means of the proposed Reorganization Plan No. 4, make obvious sense. There is a compelling need to research the physics and chemistry of |