173 



Mr. Weldon. Thank you for your statement. I thank each of you 

 for your excellent statements and comments and your testimony. 



It is very infrequently that we have a panel of witnesses appear 

 before a committee of the House of Representatives at the very 

 same time that the issue that they are here to testify about is on 

 the House floor, so you have a unique opportunity here to directly 

 impact at least four votes here in the Congress on this issue. I do 

 not think we have voted on this yet. 



We have heard the pro and con here and we have heard reserva- 

 tions about the capability. We have the capability, but perhaps the 

 technology relative to the bags, and we are talking about from 

 what I understand on the appropriations conference report the pat- 

 ented tethered technology delivery system that you mentioned, 

 which I understand has been rejected by the Navy. 



So the question that we have to decide for ourselves today I am 

 going to put to each of you, and that is. should we be spending 

 NO,/^'s money on this issue. 



Frank, would you give us an update? Has there been a vote yet? 



Mr. Pallone. Do you want me to tell you? 



Mr. Weldon. Has it been resolved yet? I will yield to the gen- 

 tleman from New Jersey to give us the latest update. We are not 

 putting you on the spot until we hear what he has to say, so you 

 can think about your answer. 



Mr. Pallone. This really says a lot about the process, unfortu- 

 nately, and the way things operate around here in terms of certain 

 special interests, if you will, getting their way. But essentially, due 

 to the work of Congressman Saxton and also Congressman 

 Torkildsen from Massachusetts and myself, we had a dialogue on 

 the House floor during the general debate on the conference report, 

 which is occurring right now, with Mr. Livingston. 



And Mr. Livingston, of course, said that this research project 

 would not result in any ocean dumping actually taking place, 

 which, of course, I contest. But leaving that aside, he agreed basi- 

 cally that no action would be taken with regard to the research 

 project until our subcommittee, meaning the Fisheries, Wildlife and 

 Ocean Subcommittee, reported a bill authorizing it. 



As you know, Mr. Burton has introduced a bill that is essentially 

 the same as what is in the conference report, so that is certainly 

 a positive development because it would mean, at least in theory, 

 that nothing would move forward until our subcommittee took ac- 

 tion on the authorizing bill. That is at least the way I understood 

 it, and maybe Mr. Saxton can confirm that when he comes back. 



But I am still concerned, because the suggestion was being made, 

 Mr. Chairman, by Mr. Livingston that this was not going to result 

 in any ocean dumping. Of course, my position all along has been 

 that the research project itself is essentially an open-ended oppor- 

 tunity to conduct various forms of ocean dumping and that is the 

 reason why both the Commerce Department, when they did their 

 study, and the Naval Research Lab, when they did their study, 

 suggested that this not be done. 



If I could just read this and then I will leave you all alone here, 

 and I read this on the floor, in the letter that came to the chairman 

 of our Resources Committee, Mr. Young, July 28 this year, the 

 General Counsel of the Department of Commerce says that, "The 



