on George's Bank insofar as they affect plankton, for example, and there is a need to go beyond the estuarine area bill concept.

I don't believe that any definition of "seaward areas" in H.R. 25 would contemplate the far reaches of the Continental Shelf. If they did, it would just be adjunct to the study and not the prime theme. What we are calling for is to start on the offshore areas and work inward.

So what we need to do is have somebody of real stature look at both the oil interests and the allied mineral resources, including the ocean, and we must have someone of broad stature who looks at the fisheries sources themselves. And it must be, as you suggest, coordinated with any study of estuarine areas, and our bill does provide for that.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Keith, what I am trying to do in my own mind was trying to distinguish the differences between the basic objective, the differences between H.R. 25, which passed the House, the subcommittee, the full committee, and the House of Representatives, and H.R. 11584. I have copies of both in front of me, and I note that section 3(a) on line 13, page 2, of the bill which you are now sponsoring before the committee, and I read :

In furtherance of this policy, the Secretary of the Interior shall study, investigate, and formulate recommendations on the most feasible and desirable means of establishing portions * *

and then you go on from there.

Then we turn over in H.R. 25 as it passed the House, in section 2(a), page 2, line 11, and the language is just about as verbatim as it can be, except that it does not mention the George's Bank area adjacent to lower Cape Cod, Mass.

Mr. KEITH. That is a pretty big and pretty important area.

Mr. LENNON. Of course, it is. You are saying that H.R. 25 would not include, in your judgment, the George's Bank area adjacent to lower Cape Cod, Mass.?

Mr. KEITH. Pardon, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Are you saying that H.R. 25 is not applicable to the study that you delineated in H.R. 11584?

Mr. KEITH. Yes, I am; and I suggested to the subcommittee chairman that heard H.R. 25 that we wrap them in one package and include the offshore areas as well.

Mr. LENNON. What are the seaward areas? What is your definition of the seaward areas? What would that include?

Mr. KEITH. As contained in H.R. 25, or in my legislation?

Mr. LENNON. Contained in either or both?

Mr. KEITH. I would say that it would represent going toward the Continent Shelf, but it would not-it implies an extension to the open ocean, bordering along the 3-mile limit, getting beyond the territorial waters enough to get the impact of the seaward areas.

But, as contained in the bill which I have most recently filed, it would go all the way out to the Continental Shelf and include thousands of miles that were only tangentially of interest to the estuarine area bill, but primarily of interest in the bill which I have filed.

Mr. LENNON. It presents a very interesting question on this. I read that under the mandate of H.R. 25, the Secretary of the Interior, the same individual whom you designate in your bill, is required to submit

to the Congress and the President no later than January 31, 1970, a report of the study conducted pursuant to H.R. 25, with his recommendations.

Now, the gentleman has referred to the fact that the chairman of the commission established under the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 is mandated to make a report to the Congress and to the President by, I believe it is by June 30 of next year, since we have extended the 6 months, which would permit him to complete the various studies we are now talking about initiating under your bill, or at least one of them.

I don't want the committee to find it is impaled on the horns of two dilemmas, by reporting out a bill to the full committee and then to the floor, and have it characterized as almost identical legislation that the House has already passed. In my judgment, off the top of my hat, it is nearly identical.

Mr. KEITH. They are parts of the same problem, and to get the most effective result from the studies which we have asked for, they must both be made, and there should be coordination, as I have said in my legislation. But, as I mentioned, Mr. Dingell requested that I not incorporate my legislation into H.R. 25, because in his view-and I concurred this was one with which the committee was familiar, and was about to move again, and by the complication of adding my proposal to it, we might not have acted on the estuarine proposal.

I did obtain from him at that time interest in and support for my proposal, and I think his logic is good. I don't think it is inconsistent. I think both are necessary.

It is quite like other problems in this country. There are people who want to study the cities, and they try to indicate that the cities are not really involved in the suburbs, and there are others who want to study the suburbs.

You have got to study them both, but there has got to be coordination between the two, because one exists for the other.

That is the same situation that we face here. H.R. 25 deals primarily with the estuarine areas and the coastal waters. The fish that propagate there spend much of their lives off the Continental Shelf and elsewhere. There is not sufficient scope in H.R. 25 to provide a solution to the problem that faces the Nation with the possible adverse effects of oil and other mineral exploration in offshore areas where there is an existing interest in fisheries resources, even though it may be relatively small by comparison with the wealth that is back of the oil interests and other mineral interests.

We ought to stake out some priority. We ought to have some recognition for the need of protecting America's first industry, which was fishing, because in the long run it is going to be terribly important to Americans and people throughout the world.

H.R. 25 doesn't get to these offshore areas adequately.

Mr. MORTON. I think I can help my colleague on this concept, Mr. Chairman, because the thrust of H.R. 25 was a study which was preliminary to the development of a system of estuaries, or a system of estuarine areas, to be more accurate.

It was felt by the author of the bill, Mr. Dingell, and by most members of the full committee and all the members of the subcommittee

who study the matter in depth that at some point in time, compatible with the sovereignty of the States, we had to develop a system of estuarine areas in which certain management practices could be developed that would lead to their preservation and maximum use.

I think that, although the seaward areas are mentioned in H.R. 25, and there are places where some study will have to be extended seaward in order to fully understand and fully study the estuary, the main thrust of the legislation is preliminary to the development of a national system of estuaries.

I think what our colleague has in mind here in H.R. 11584 is a concept for the development of conservation practices in offshore areas, which he calls marine sanctuaries, areas which, perhaps, have multiple uses; areas where the commercial fisheries come together with mineral deposits; areas where shipping could have an adverse effect because of bilge pumping, oil leaks and the like, into the natural environment; areas that are known as rich fishing grounds on the edges of the Continental Shelf.

I might have disagreed with Mr. Dingell's position that we should try to incorporate this concept into H.R. 25, but the point was well made that we were dealing with an effort which would lead to a system of estuaries.

So I feel that even though there may be some language in this legislation which duplicates language in H.R. 25, the main thrust of this is clear. And if we can enact such legislation as proposed by Mr. Keith, we will have a beginning toward the development of conservation practices at sea, which we do not have, and which I think, long term, are necessary for this civilization.

Mr. LENNON. I thank the gentleman for his comment. It is going to be interesting to get the comments of the Department of Interior, which, in its letter, does say almost flatly that this is a duplication of what is authorized and mandated in H.R. 25, and also under the study to be made by the Commission.

I am going to be very interested to hear their comments.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the subcommittee, but there has been extensive discussion about matters that came before my subcommittee. If I could, very briefly, I would like to make a few comments.

Mr. LENNON. You are welcome to.

Mr. DINGELL. I have been greatly interested in H.R. 11584, which was introduced by Mr. Keith and by other Members of the Congress. I would like to begin by saying that as author of H.R. 25 and as one who worked for a number of years to secure passage of that legislation. by the House, I don't believe that there is anything which makes H.R. 25 and the legislation before this subcommittee completely incompatible.

It was my intention, Mr. Chairman, that H.R. 25 would be limited to areas adjacent to the coastline itself, and not cover the more seaward

areas.

I can well recognize the wisdom of Mr. Keith in this bill and in the proposal that he has put forward. I well recognize that original draft legislation almost invariably has defects and overlaps with regard to other legislation, and other circumstances, that must necessarily be resolved by the committee.

H.R. 25 went through a number of drafts. It was the topic of a number of discussions and a tremendous amount of work before it finally secured the support it needed to pass the House. I am satisfied that if this committee will follow its past practice and I refer to the fine job you as chairman did for the provisions of the bill establishing some order in the oceanographic programs of this country-H.R. 11584, or legislation similar to it, could become law and could be a very, very valuable adjunct to the conservation practices of this Nation, by establishing, as my good friend from Maryland, Mr. Morton, has indicated, conservation in our offshore areas.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has indicated in his statement that it may lead to the wise control of the use of seismic methods for research.

Perhaps it could be a useful stride forward in controlling pollution of the sea by oil drilling. Conceivably, it could be a wise use in terms of times and places and manner of mineral exploration.

I can see over the years, Mr. Chairman, that H.R. 11584 would afford enormous benefits to our society, our Nation, to wise conservation practices, preservation, and wider use and perhaps better use, perhaps even more abundant use of offshore minerals and fishery sources.

So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the subcommittee will give sympathetic thought to this bill, and under your very able and very wise leadership will take steps to try to mesh H.R. 11584 with other legislation and try to use this as another step forward in improving and perfecting our conservation practices in offshore areas. I can see that there is a real need for portions of this bill, and I do believe that it does not conflict with H.R. 25, which was limited to inshore areas.

We hope that this kind of legislation can come forward in this subcommittee, and that it can serve as a great milestone in the field of conservation of our offshore areas.

I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I appreciate the privilege of making these comments.

Mr. LENNON. We appreciate your comments, Mr. Dingell. We know of your intense interest in legislation of this nature.

I raised these questions, hopefully, to precipitate what we are getting now. It is better to meet this thing now than it is to meet it hereafter, because we in Congress, when you are talking about authorization of even the money in this bill, $1 million for a 2-year study—well, we will wait and see.

Mr. SCHADEBERG. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to add my congratulations to Mr. Keith on his interest in this bill.

Mr. POLLOCK. I would like to add my compliments on the efforts of Mr. Keith. I would like to say that I favor the objectives of the various bills. I am a little concerned with some of the machinery you apply here.

I am concerned about the enormous amount of responsibility and power that we continually turn over to the Secretary. In this case if he determines to make a study, then under all these bills, I believe, all oil exploration automatically stops. This bothers me very much.

In your statement, I think you very wisely indicated that industrial and mining development can go hand-in-hand, and yet that doesn't seem to be the thrust of the legislation, to go hand-in-hand with, of course, the fishing and recreation and conservation measures.

I am certainly no expert in the field, but it seems to me the technology, science and technology, has advanced to a point where I think the oil industry uses very little in the way of explosives in the way of seismic work.

In each case, it is mandated at the time he makes the study that there should be a cut-off of all renewal of leases or authorizing any new ones, and this seems to me to put the two industries right in conflict. This doesn't seem to be necessary.

I think the way he could do it would be to perhaps circumscribe this sufficiently to say that there will be no explosives in this area, or there will be none during this certain period of the year when there is a concentration of fish, and so forth.

But to take one industry and say, "You cannot operate now until I make this study," and then hopefully the study will be done in 2 years, as the legislation contemplates that it seems to me is not justified.

Another point that bothers me is that it seems if you put a time. limitation on the Secretary, the limitation ought to begin to run at the time the money is appropriated for the legislation, not at the time it is authorized. Conceivably you could have an authorization that would run for 2 years, but not have any money appropriated for it for 2 years or 3 years, and the time would have already run out. This is a basic incompatibilty.

What I am saying is that I think you are headed in the right direction, but I am concerned about the pieces of legislation as I read them, because I am not sure they are accomplishing what you intend, at least in the best way to do this.

I hate to see the Secretary committed to having to cut off any leases. Mr. KEITH. Thank you. I appreciate that.

First of all, I want to read for you, because it makes a comment that is right down your alley:

"Search for oil. Miles of dead fish sighted by Chatham boats." This is dated September 13, a year and a half ago.

It says that at 3 p.m., and so on and so forth, a fisherman was startled by an explosion and a waterspout nearly 70 feet in the air. The location was at a spot known as the "Mussels," northeast of Nantucket flagship.

Mr. POLLOCK. You are getting pretty close to home.

Mr. KEITH. And thousands of fish were lost in that incident. We have accomplished one of our main objectives however. We found that there was very poor liaison between the Bureau of Commerical Fisheries and the fishermen, and the Geophysical Survey companies that were plying their trade in our coastal waters.

So at least now that there is communication and they have, as you pointed out, become much more sophisticated in their techniques with which they seek for oil.

Mr. POLLOCK. My point, Mr. Keith, is that I think these industries can work compatibly. As I read each of these bills and the others, it says, "The Secretary shall not issue or renew."

Mr. KEITH. It also says "Nation's tidelands, Outer Continental Shelf, seaward areas.'

And, by the way, on seaward areas, it probably should have said "shoreward," because you are outside working inward. And in H.R. 25, it properly said "seaward," because you are working offshore.