NATURAL RESOURCES AND Till ENVIRONMENT 959 



subcommittee. At times, there was a question of which was worse, the 

 administrative and legislative confusion or the ocean pollution. It was 

 a major challenge which fortunately enlisted the talents of those who 

 were determined to find a solution rather than to continue the fruitless 

 infighting. 



The central thrust of the subcommittee effort was to insure that 

 there was a lead agency which could provide coordination, develop a 

 5-year plan, set priorities and then furnish the leadership to move 

 toward the goals established. At the full committee markup on Sep- 

 tember 20, 19"", Spensley explained that a Senate bill would be used 

 as a markup vehicle so that when it was sent back to the Senate it 

 would minimize the jurisdictional problem on that side of the Capitol. 



Between the fall of 1977 and the following February, a compromise 

 was worked out with the Merchant Marine Committee. Agreement 

 was reached to join in supporting a new substitute bill which was 

 brought up for debate on February 28, 1978. 



SETTING PRIORITIES 



The legislation designated NOAA, as the lead agency, to prepare 

 a 5-year plan in conjunction with the Office of Science and Technology 

 Policy. The plan included an assessment of programs, and a setting of 

 priorities. Brown told the House: 



Since the plan must be revised biennially, it will also force the Administrator 

 and other Federal officials to keep abreast of developing technology in the fields of 

 ocean pollution and marine resource utilization. 



The initial annual pricetag was $5 million, much of which was to 

 be used for grants to institutions with expertise in marine environ- 

 mental matters. Forsythe, as a member of both the Science and Mer- 

 chant Marine Committees, praised the legislation as representing a 

 "strong and fully supportable compromise between the interests of the 

 two committees." Wydler, representing the coastal area of southern 

 Long Island especially concerned with the effects of ocean pollution, 

 particularly' noted the two phases of the bill which set priorities and 

 made available the results of the R. & D. He mentioned that too often 

 in the past research had been carried out because of parochial interests 

 "or because a particular scientist was a master of grantsmanship." 

 In a colloquy with Brown, Wydler also established the relationship 

 of the ocean pollution R. & D. with the previously passed ocean- 

 dumping legislation, particularly as it applied to the New York bight 

 area. 



In his concluding remarks to the House, Brown said that the bill 

 represented an effort "to deal with the kind of problem that is be- 



- 



