in the Congress. But if you have one, even a small one, you would still have the Department of Defense which would have environmental concerns; you would still have a Department of Agriculture which would be charged with environmental concerns; commerce and business would have environmental concerns; and so it would be the case with transportation, and all down the line. So I think in reorganizing and assigning oceans responsibilities to the Department of Commerce, we should not just ipso facto say that something is wrong in assigning it to a department other than the overall agency of environment. Another point that should be emphasized is that somehow when you get to Commerce, this is the department in Government that would only be concerned with developmental and economic issues, and somehow the other environmental concerns will take a back seat and not even be considered. The fact is the opposite. In the Department of Commerce, you have the Coast and Geodetic Survey which does not work for profit. You have the Environmental Science Services Administration which does not work for a profit and are not just missionoriented in business development. You have the Bureau of Standards. The fact of the matter is that much of the environmental information that is employed by all of the U.S. Senators and Congressmen alike is obtained from the Bureau of Standards. Sixty percent of the Department of Commerce at the present time has its budget or its personnel in science and technology. I did not want the national oceanic and atmospheric program to go into a department, and, actually, S. 2841, the bill that we introduced to create an independent NOAA would have upgraded the entire oceanic and atmospheric effort, would give statutory direction. and we hoped that the President would go along with the independent agency concept. But if it is to be assigned to a department, I know of none better than Commerce. STRATTON COMMISSION REPORT Thirdly, on the matter of the study of the Stratton Commission, there is a general feeling that we have found that somehow or other the approach of the Stratton Commission to oceanography was developmental with no environmental concern, specifically pollution. We found that many witnesses came to us who had not read the report. Certainly, they had not studied the different sections relative to pollution, and suffice it to say that you will find no better language or better documented report on the threat of pollution in all of its aspects than in the Stratton Commission report and this is back three years ago before pollution got popular when they found this out. They found that 7 percent of the Nation's important fish and wildlife estuarine habitats have been destroyed by dredging, by filling, and they go right on down the line, giving quite an excellent compilation of pollution threats. I would like to refer to those things, because the Stratton Commission, seemingly, was statutorily charged with no pollution concern at all. However, they had a conservationist, Dr. David Adams from North Carolina, and they had a former Assistant Secretary Frank DiLuzio, from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, who were Commissioners. They pointed out that the pollution load in many coastal waters already had exceeded the limit. POLLUTION LOAD STILL GROWING The pollution load is still growing. Industrial pollution alone is increasing at a rate of 4.5 percent per year despite abatement efforts. The problem of pollution must be viewed and combatted in the context of total waste management systems. There are more than 12,000 oil wells on the U.S. coast and the number is increasing at the rate of 1,400 per year. This is all within the Stratton Commission Report. On the matter of ocean pollution, the Stratton Commission estimated that there are 1.3 million boats with toilets in the United States. And they used such language as "It takes man to create the devil's brew, of pollution oil spreading into the ocean from a stricken tanker, phosphates from washday detergents leaching into the estuaries, phenol and cyanide streaming from industrial processing plants, the waste-laden effluent pouring from some sewage treatment plants so poorly designed or so badly operated that they are barely worthy of their name: Pollution in one sense is a measure of affluence," and on down the line. Gentlemen, I only quote those because this is a finding of 2 years ago; this is all documented. The Stratton Commission was conservation and pollution oriented, and I think that the proposed NOAA within the Department of Commerce would certainly have this concern. They are a leader with the Environmental Science Services Administration at the present time. Now, a fight has been going on to get this headless horseman of civilian oceanography, consisting of some 55,000 personnel and with a budget of around $800 million, to be coordinated and directed. The Stratton Commission recommended the independent agency approach. We tried our best. My bill was for that. Mr. Magnuson and I-and I would say the majority of our committee would support it. The President saw it otherwise. And I think that this is a positive step in the right direction that ought to be supported. I am going to leave copies of the many reports that have been made on oceanography during the 1960's, because in yesterday's testimony the idea was left that somehow we ought to study the alternatives more. The President's proposal has been submitted, as I see it, in spite of the studies, and pursuant to the studies. You have "Oceanography-1966, Achievements and Opportunities," of the National Research Council. You have the President's Science Advisory Committee in June of 1966, "Effective Use of the Sea." You have the hearings in 1965, entitled "National Oceanographic Council." The National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development was established at that time, as was the National Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. After a 2-year study and a thousand witnesses the Stratton Commission came up with reports that nobody in the Senate read. Everytime we had a hearing, we went into it, and yet they have come up to testify and say that it looks like we ought to study it. TIME TO FACE THE ISSUE Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, it is time to face the issue instead of avoiding it with another commission? Senator HOLLINGS. Exactly. Mr. Chairman, we did not want to preempt your committee, and we had closed briefing in the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Commerce Committee last Monday. It was an executive session, and we have a transcript of that record in which you will find answers to some of the concerns expressed by Senator Gravel, by Senator Nelson, and by other conservationists. We got directly into those particular points, because we wanted everything to come right out on the table to see if we were headed in the right direction. And here I offer a copy of the hearings that we have just had on this particular oceanography concern. Senator RIBICOFF. Well, I appreciate having the benefits of your views, because I do not think there is another man in the Senate who is more knowledgeable in this field than you are, Senator Hollings, and I consider your testimony most valuable, and I thank you for taking your time. We would appreciate it if you would allow us to have the different reports and documents. (The complete list of reports and documents available in subcommittee files can be found on p. 129.) Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much. Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much. Senator Moss was here and had to go to another meeting, and he has left his testimony with us. The entire statement of Senator Moss will go into the record as if read. (See exhibit 8, p. 129.) Senator RIBICOFF. Mr. Siciliano. STATEMENT OF MAURICE H. STANS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, Mr. SICILIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me today several key officials from the Department who have devoted a great deal of time and energy to handling many of the details of the proposed reorganization, and they are prepared to respond to questions which you may have. I would like to introduce them. They are Steven Schanes, on my far left, who is special assistant for policy development activities in the Department; Dr. Myron Tribus, on my immediate left, who is assistant secretary for science and technology for the Department, and Dr. John Townsend, on my right, who is the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Science Services Administration. I would like also to make just a few comments in addition to my formal statement which I think has been given to you and the members of the committee. The very first one is an obvious one, and yet I think it is an important one, that Secretary Stans who, unfortunately, was not able to come this morning, has pledged his strong personal support to NOAA. We are honored to receive this assignment, and we are determined that NOAA will not be just another ordinary bureaucratic reshuffling. Its work will be, as far as we are concerned, the highest, in terms of priority. And, secondly, we recognize that while Reorganization Plan No. 4 is a sound administrative package, we also know that no agency is an island. Therefore, we will wish, want, and need the help of our sister agencies. We intend to work with them to the very best of our ability. If I might just very quickly run through my statement, Mr. Chairman. Senator RIBICOFF. I think I have read your statement, and since I am the only member here, I do not think you have to repeat the entire thing. We will put your entire statement in the record as if read, and you can go ahead and make whatever remarks you want. (See exhibit 9, p. 130.) Mr. SICILIANO. In addition to the actual submitted statement, we are aware of some of the concerns about the plan that have been expressed by different organizations, and I would like to comment briefly on some of these. We have met with some of these organizations and, in fact, I would say that most of the concern has been expressed by one group of organizations that are conservationists but also support the fishery people. Secretary Stans and all of us, in fact, have met with these representatives a number of times and most recently on Monday. It is clear to us that their questions about the plan relate to an early image of the Department of Commerce which no longer exists. We have said publicly, but apparently it is not too well known yet, that more than 60 percent of our people and more than 60 percent of our budget in the Department of Commerce are concerned with science and technology. This early image dates back to the twenties or even the thirties when the Department of Commerce was considered an organization whose primary mission was to work with business, as you I am sure know, often considered big business. But this is not the case any longer. We now have these technological and scientific functions in the Department which are, in themselves, highly respected. There is a great deal of integrity and confidence there and a complete acceptance by the scientific and other constituencies that are concerned with these activities. The formal statement touches on some of these new activities. It identifies the Bureau of Standards whose world-famous measurementsetting is known and is an evaluatory type of agency. The Environmental Science Services Administration, which is in the Department, was established in 1965 to serve as a national focus on our efforts to describe, understand, and predict the state of the upper and lower atmosphere and the size and shape of the earth. ESSA will comprise about 83 percent of the personnel and 73 percent of the budget of this new NOAA organization. SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES Dr. Tribus, who is the Secretary of Science's adviser is also a line administrator over the National Bureau of Standards, the Patent Office and, at the present time, ESSA. We have scientific activities that have recently been enlarged, and we are receiving new responsi bilities. The most recent of which has been the new National Bureau of Telecommunications which is just now being established in the Department of Commerce. So, with this background, we have no doubt as to our ability to handle scientific and research responsibilities. A second concern, I think, stems from this first misunderstanding. It is the erroneous belief that Commerce's only function is to promote commercial activities, and thus we would be exploiting marine resources without regard to the long-range interests of conservation. Very simply, we regard economic development in a much more sophisticated manner than merely to exploit today and to forget tomorrow. We also know that commercial interest in fish to be reconciled to the interests of the sports user and the environment. A ROLE FOR THE INTERESTED PUBLIC So, in order to insure that the opinions and the views of interested segments of the public are going to be given not only an opportunity to be considered but a real role to play, Secretary Stans intends to establish a special fish and fisheries advisory committee. The purpose of this committee would be to work with the proposed National Marine Fishery Service that is the temporary name that we have given to this new activity within NOAA, and to provide advice to the Secretary of Commerce to achieve these goals as well as to report on the successes or failures of the organization. We fully intend to see that this committee is broadly representative so that it will include in its membership those from the conservation field, the industry interests, as well as the representatives from the scientific and academic communities. Just one further comment on this point: Again, here we do not intend this to be just another committee, of which there are, of course, plenty in all departments. We want to make sure that it is a working kind of conduit for diverse and refreshing ideas. I think that might conclude my additions to the formal statement. I do know that there was some concern expressed yesterday by Senator Nelson, and, again, I think that this is based to some extent, on a misunderstanding of the Commerce Department today, recalling this bygone era. Senator RIBICOFF. I have a series of questions from Senator Nelson, and I am going to submit those to you, Mr. Siciliano, and I would appreciate your reply to them as soon as possible, so that the questions and answers will be made a part of the permanent record of this hearing. Mr. SICILIANO. We would be glad to do that, as promptly as you would like. (See exhibit 10, p. 134.) Senator RIBICOFF. Now, in your statement, you discuss prior proposals for the establishment of NOAA. It seems significant that not one of them recommended the placement of NOAA in Commerce. The Stratton Commission recommended the creation of an independent agency, and it is well known that the Ash Council proposal came in for an expanded Interior Department. What do you think were the reasons for rejecting these recommendations and placing NOAA in the Commerce Department? |