Page images

This wouldn't necessarily bar foreign concerns from coming in there, I suppose, because do they recognize our right to control this Continental Shelf?

Mr. PAUTZKE. They recognize our right to control the Continental Shelf and those species that are designated as attached.

Mr. KEITH. “Appurtenant thereto” is the word.
Mr. PAUTZKE. That is right.

Mr. Dow. I am trying to get a little further along the road here that the exploitation of these mineral resources is in some respect regarded to be disturbing on fish life, I suppose, from time to time, and that is the reason for setting aside these marine sanctuaries, but we wouldn't object then to fishing either by our own people or by foreign vessels in these areas?

Mr. PAUTZKE. These are international waters, Mr. Dow, and we have no authority to stop them if they are outside the 12-mile limit.

Mr. Dow. Every time we have these hearings these demarcations are always very puzzling and I am glad to have this verification.

Mr. KEITH. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Dow. Yes.

Mr. KEITH. I think inasmuch as we are being educated here in a very important area, there is just one chapter which has been left out, and I believe that that was written in 1963. Senator Kennedy filed legislation on the Senate side and I on this side giving us the right, primarily for conservation purposes, to take the king crab exclusively. It doesn't cover scallops because they swim, and historically these resources belong to the world because they are mobile, but is there not a chapter that has been left out of this discussion?

Mr. FINNEGAN. I think I mentioned, Mr. Congressman, that we are talking about the resource that is attached. King crab was the one I mentioned.

Mr. KEITH. But that is not 1963.

Mr. FINNEGAN. No, that was more recently, within the last 3 or 4 years. I can't remember the exact date.

Mr. LENNON. Gentlemen, I appreciate the concern and interest that we have in these related matters that always develop on the hearings. We are faced here simply with a resolution or a bill which would authorize a study. I am sure that the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Department of State would brief these gentlemen individually in your offices on these matters which are inexorably related.

Mr. Dow, you say you can't get into a matter of legislation which simply provides a study without these matters coming in and it is difficult for us to be even informed, much less knowledgeable.

We have some other witnesses. I would like to ask a few questions concerning the bill itself if you gentlemen wil permit me at this time. I think we can come back, Nr. Dow. I did want to get some questions in on the bill itself. If we have the time, we will certainly come back and get into these related matters. You go ahead and finish if you can. We have some other witnesses.

Mr. Dow. I have only one other question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LENNON. Go ahead. Mr. Dow. That is relating to page 4 of Mr. Pautzke's testimony where he says:

we believe that there is adequate general authority to conduct most, if not all, of the study mandated by this legislation *

[ocr errors]

If you have this authority and presumably the desire to carry out such a study, aren't you better off, Mr. Pautzke, to have the added thrust provided by this bill and also the million dollars which I think is provided here so that the study which is implicit in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's Organic Act, the general authorities in the Bureau of Mines and the Geological Survey, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, all these efforts that contribute to this study can be reinforced by the specifics of this bill and also the authorization of money under it?

Mr. PAUTZKE. Mr. Dow, if you turn back one page, on page 3 at the bottom, one of the reasons for our recommendation is the time and dollar limitation. We are apprehensive that the passage of this bill would put this type of constraint upon these other authorities.

Mr. Dow. It might timewise. I can't say as to that. But dollarwise I would judge that it adds to the provision that you have of resources available under these other acts:

Mr. PAUTZKE. Well, again we are apprehensive that the dollar amount of $1 million is much too low and the type of a study that would be consummated under such a budget limitation would not be the type of a study that the Congress would want.

Mr. Dow. Because you say, "We believe there is adequate general authority to conduct most, if not all, of the study.” So that I presume you are going to make the study and why would you reject the additional authorization ?

Mr. PAUTZKE. Mr. Congressman, if you will recollect, I don't believe I said that we will make the study. I said we have authority to make the study.

Mr. Dow. In other words, you don't intend to make it?

Mr. PAUTZKE. We would require funding, but we have the authority and this is what I thought we were discussing. The passage of H.R. 25 coupled with the other authorities that the Secretary has already would provide ample authority.

Mr. Bow. Of course, the authority doesn't mean much unless it is exercised.

Mr. PAUTZKE. Yes, or funded. That is the next step after H.R. 25, which has already passed the House, becomes law.

Mr. Dow. Thank you, Mr. Pautzke.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Secretary, you favor the objectives of the legislation that you are here appearing on today?

Mr. PAUTZKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Give us, please, sir, your understanding and interpretation of the objectives of the legislation which you say you favor.

Mr. PAUTZKE. Those objectives are the protection of the resources, Mr. Chairman. That is the objective.

Mr. LENNON. There is a long-range objective based on the study if the study ever takes place.

Mr. PAUTZKE. That is right, sir.

Mr. LENNON. How can you reach the objective that you refer to unless the study is made, particularly in the areas that are defined in this legislation?

Mr. PAUTZKE. These studies could be carried out under the estuarine bill-H.R. 25.

Mr. LENNON. Under H.R. 25 and you cite other statutory authority.

Mr. PAUTZKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. You are saying to this committee that you have under existing law, either under H.R. 25, assuming its ultimate passage, as well as the other acts that you refer to in your statement, the authority to do what is requested here, mandated here in the bill that you are testifying on; is that a fair statement?

Mr. PAUTZKE. That is correct.

Mr. LENNON. That is correct. So your opposition then is to the moratorium that is provided for under the bill that we are considering now?

Mr. PAUTZKE. May I have Mr. Finnegan answer that?

Mr. LENNON. I think that is a policy question. That is not a legal question.

Mr. PAUTZKE. All right. Then I refer to my answer to Mr. Dow on the time and the dollar limitations of 11584.

Mr. LENNON. Now, at that point would you say that the scope of H.R. 25 is equal to the scope of the legislation we are considering here today or is it broader?

Mr. PAUTZKE. You want my answer on this?
Mr. LENNON. Yes: I want it for the record.

Mr. PAUTZKE. H.R. 25 refers to seaward areas and I interpret seaward to mean to the sea and no limitations.

The intent of the hearings on H.R. 25 was to concentrate on the estuaries, but it did say seaward were to be included.

Mr. LENNON. Then you are saying that in your judgment as a professional and charged with the responsibility as Assistant Secretary that H.R. 25 gives you the authority comparable and even equal to the authority of the legislation with respect to the study that we are considering now?

Mr. PAUTZKE. Comparable; yes.
Mr. LENNON. Comparable ?
Mr. PAUTZKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. But not equal to. What is the difference between comparable and equal to? There is a difference. What in your judgment is the difference?

Mr. PAUTZKE. It seems to hinge, Mr. Chairman, on this definition of the word "seaward.” Now, as you look at the estuarine hearings, they talk most about estuaries, but the term “seaward” is there, and from my technical standpoint and from the definition of "seaward,” the coastal and Continental Shelf areas could be included.

Mr. LENNON. Now H.R. 25, like the legislation now under consideration, is a 2-year bill from the time it is enacted into law.

Mr. PAUTZKE. That is correct.
Mr. LENNON. That is correct.

H.R: 25 provides for $750,000 for the first fiscal year and $250,000 for the second fiscal year, which is the authorization of 2 years. The sums $750,000 and $250,00 equal $1 million.

Mr. PAUTZKE. Right.

Mr. LENNON. Now you are saying here to us that the objectives on the study of H.R. 25, in your judgment, is good legislation and can be done in the 2-year period which is identical to what this bill is and it has the same dollar. That is true, isn't it, Mr. Secretary? Isn't that true, Mr. Secretary?


Mr. PAUTZKE. Wait a minute, please.

Mr. LENNON. I mean isn't it? I assume that you know. You are a specialist in this field. Members of Congress are spread in every agency and department and bureau of the Federal Government. We don't have time and can't get the time to be really knowledgeable, sometimes not even informed, but I would certainly believe that you are an expert in this field.

Mr. PAUTZKE. Mr. Chairman, this study can be accomplished under H.R. 25.

Mr. LENNON. In 2 years with the funds allocated ?
Mr. PAUTZKE. No, let me finish.
Mr. LENNON. All right.

Mr. PAUTZKE. I didn't say that we would accomplish this study under H.R. 25 in that period of time.

Mr. LENNON. Did you ask for any money or any amount of money or any period of time to do it?

Mr. PAUTZKE. We did not ask for any money under H.R. 25, for this study.

Mr. LENNON. In other words, you didn't initiate H.R. 25?
Mr. PAUTZKE. No, I did not.

Mr. LENNON. Your Department didn't. It came from the committee. Did you come here and say that in your judgment it couldn't be done in 2 years and couldn't be done for a million dollars?

Mr. PAUTZKE. I reviewed the testimony of the Department's witness, Dr. Cain, and the Department was favorable to the objectives of H.R. 25.

Mr. LENNON. They did testify? Did the Department testify?
Mr. PAUTZKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Did it suggest then that it couldn't do it in 2 years and certainly couldn't do it for a million dollars ?

Mr. PAUTZKE. We testified to the objectives of doing a survey.

Mr. LENNON. But you didn't give us any estimate of what it could be done for?

Mr. PAUTZKE. In review, it did not.

Mr. LENNON. In other words, the members of the committee who are not specialists or experts had to just pick a figure out of the hat without the help of the Department of the Interior in something that you say ought to be done; is that a correct statement?

We need the advice and counsel of you people who are experts and charged with the responsibility. This is not unusual, Mr. Secretary. I serve on a number of subcommittees in Armed Services and others, and we have the same thing.

Mr. PAUTZKE. Mr. Chairman, we did, in our testimony on H.R. 25, testify as to priorities.

Mr. LENNON. But dollar amounts were not suggested essential to do the job?

Mr. PAUTZKE. We did. Mr. LENNON. You did ? Mr. PAUTZKE. Yes; I would like to refer this to Mr. Finnegan. Mr. LENNON. What figure, if you recall, was recommended by the partment ? Vr. FINNEGAN. Mr. Chairman, when we testified originally on the arlier version R. 25 in the previous Congress and in this Con

gress we indicated that the study would be more than the million dollars that is now authorized in H.R. 25. I believe we came to 'a figure of somewhere in the vicinity of $3 million. I would have to go back and check.

The committee, in its wisdom, decided that the figure that we have here would be sufficient, and we were asked by your committee whether this was adequate, and we felt that we could do at least a pretty good study under this analysis, enough to come back and give you the kind of information that we thought was important, not as in depth as we originally expected.

Mr. LENNON. This bill was before the Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife?

Mr. PAUTZKE. That is correct, sir.
Mr. LENNON. Some of us are not members of that subcommittee.

Mr. Secretary, have you had an opportunity yet to read the testimony that was given before this subcommittee in the last 2 days of this week, particularly by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ? Did you have an opportunity to read it!

Mr. PAUTZKE. I was here but I have not had a chance to read his testimony. I was here on April 9.

Mr. LENNON. That started or set the pitch, you might say, for the testimony of the people in the New England area, and it was supported of course by statements from Members of Congress from California in particular, who are interested in a certain seaward estuarine area out there.

I am concerned about this testimony, and I will ask the counsel to furnish you the original statements that were made before the committee, and I want you in addition to your statement here to answer specificially and categorically the suggestions or charges that were made by these several witnesses. It

goes back to what the gentleman from Massachusetts said earlier, a lack of dialog, of communications between the affected areas and the Department of the Interior. In the transcript of the record which is, of course, verbatim, with the prepared statement that was made in behalf of the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I want to just refer to page 39 of the transcript, and I am quoting:

What has brought about this type of petition?
Meaning the petition for this type of legislation.

Well, for nearly two years the fishermen-and certain recreation and conservation people have been crying to Interior and to the oil companies to consider their interests in the Northeast Atlantic. Also, Mr. Chairman, we are all aware of the many scares emanating from offshore oil spills. The oil industry at the outset replied with polite letters of assurance. Interior applied its historical, in this particular field: “We know what we're doing and we will conserve" therapy.

I am sure they were both sincere. But it became highly debatable that they knew what they were doing either of them.

Speaking of the Department of the Interior or the oil interests.

There were seismic operations, and there was a fish kill, a cry from Massachusetts and a withdrawal of seismic permits for the future in that order.

« PreviousContinue »