There are those who fear this course of action; who fear that the wrong person would be appointed, and nothing would get done. That argument misses the point. The point is that we should rely on the wisdom of our governing systems, not the capability or good will of individuals. If there is clear responsibility, Congress and interested publics will have a pressure point. In the present confused state of affairs, no point of accountability can be found. It is easy to understand why the executive branch likes it that way.

Before I leave the subject of coordination and strategic approaches, I must, with all appropriate respect, poke a stick into the cage of the Congressional Tiger. Your house, Mr. Chairman, is not in order.

This hearing could have legitimately been held by perhaps as many as fifteen committees or subcommittees in the House. The confusing web of jurisdictions and authorities, the lack of coordination between substantive and appropriating committees, and the lack of consistant oversight makes the Congressional Tiger a paper tiger.

If Congress is serious about the issue, consider reorganizing responsibilities in this area so that there is a clear lead responsibility in the House and Senate as well as in the Executive. Perhaps a select committee with preemptory legislative power would be worth considering. I do not pretend to have a solution to this problem, but we must recognize it as a problem before we can find one. It is no more impractical to suggest that we should address this problem than it is to believe that Congress will be truly effective on this issue until one is found.

know

Until then, I urge you to be consistant and persistant.

I quickly learned during my tenure in Washington what all bureaucrats that the Congressional attention span is very short. Although the

chairs of this subcommittee have a tradition of being exceptions in this regard, you are in a minority.

My view of the appropriate relationship between the legislative and executive is one of close cocperation, with the executive - because of its

inherent strengths and responsibilities slightly more responsible for leading in development of policy. But what happens when an administration refuses to lead? In that case, Congress should speak with a clear and consistant voice, and it must persevere. One or two hearings a year are not enough perhaps one a month might be. If the Congressional Tiger cannot reorganize and lead, it can at least roar. Essential resources are critically threatened, our response is inadequate, and we are running out of time.

Please roar, Mr. Chairman. Let that roar become a litany as loud and as persistant and as consistant as the pounding surf. And while the verses of that litany may change from time to time, let its refrain be steady, tolling the time left to save the precious places. Let it be "fifteen years...fifteen years...fourteen years...thirteen years...."

I am honored and grateful for this opportunity to testify.

David F. Hales, Samuel Trask Dana Professor and Director, Wildland Management Center, School of Natural Resources, the University of Michigan, is former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. From 1977-1980, he supervised all international activities of the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. During this time he chaired the activities on Protection of Flora and Fauna under the US-USSR Environmental Protection Agreement, and negotiated the preliminary agreement on flora and fauna protection with the People's Republic of China. The only American to have served as President of the World Heritage Committee, he is active in international conservation via affiliation with the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, and the programs of the Wildland Center.

I appreciate the invitation to appear before this Subcommittee to discuss the international responsibilities and programs of the Department of the Interior.

As a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, and more recently as Senior Vice President of World Wildlife Fund, I have been privileged during the past 15 years to have had the opportunity to negotiate a number of international wildlife treaties and conservation agreements on behalf of the United States and to work with other nations and non-governmental organizations in implementing these agreements and many other international conservation programs.

World Wildlife Fund, the world's largest, privately funded, conservation organization is dedicated to protecting and maintaining the living natural resources upon which the human race depends. Toward this end we help fund the work of scientists, wildlife specialists and park managers throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia. In the course of this work we are continually guided and advised by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and its global network of scientists and resource specialists. IUCN helps us establish regional conservation priorities, provides technical assistance, and serves as a vital communications link

between government agencies, NGO's and international development agencies.

I will limit my comments today to the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the two Interior Department bureaus whose international responsibilities and activities involve the conservation of nature, often in close cooperation with WWF and IUCN. Over the years their international affairs staffs have performed admirably and have accomplished much despite inadequate funds and despite, in recent years, a woeful lack of support and leadership from senior officials in the Department.

It was highly fitting that the House and Senate

Appropriation Committees in their conference report of November 1983 should note that "the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service have a well-deserved reputation for many years of effective work" and should urge that "the administration and the appropriate congressional committees give serious consideration to expansion of the international operations of

both (Services)".

I am delighted to see this Subcommittee take an active interest in these international operations. For too long these programs have been treated as stepchildren by their bureaus; for too long the international staffs have had to scrounge for funds and fight for recognition within their Services.

Legislation is