1056 
Mr. Retnecke. Without trying to talk to the specifics, many differ- 
ent Federal bills, laws, require certain State planning to comply or to 
qualify for Federal grants, and I think this is the motivation to re- 
quire States to develop their own master plans. They can come back 
to HUD and get the money to help them plan, but at least the plan 
is then launched and as soon as it is completed in a matter of 2 or 3 
or 4 years, then there will be a plan effectively to begin to generate 
eee enaien at both State and Federal as well as the private sector 
evels. 
I will look for some technical language. I don’t have it right now. 
(The information was not received by the time the hearing was 
sent to the printer. ) 
Mr. Mairiiarp. May I also say that I am glad you raised the point 
that there seems to be a desire to starve to death financially the installa- 
tion at Tiburon. You mentioned that some valuable work has been 
going on there. I am in the process of seeing that that is not starved to 
extinction at least. 
Mr. Rernecke. I wish you would because that laboratory serves not 
only California, but also Alaska. They have done some very significant 
practical work in the developing of manganese nodules off the shelf in 
Alaska so that it is not just truly State oriented. 
Mr. Mariurarp. [ thank you. ; 
I have two other committees. I will see you later in the day. 
Mr. Retnecxe. Thank you. 
Mr. Rocrrs. Mr. Leggett. 
Mr. Leceerr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
I am pleased to see that we have this totally bipartisan approach to 
oceanography in California. It doesn’t surprise me to see you come 
here and give this bipartisan contribution. The recommendations that 
you have expressed in a constructive way as to the bill before us is in 
a way the other side of the compromises that were made in order to 
get the current bill before this House. 
You point up the Nation and the sea in your testimony. I am sure 
you are familiar with that, and of course that points out all of the 
things that you have alluded to, recreation which is not in this bill, the 
water pollution which is not in this bill, the navigation from the Corps 
of Engineers which is not in this bill, and of course, ad infinitum. 
The point is that we are left in the bill then with four agencies, the 
Coast Guard which doesn’t really have as a primary objective the ex- 
ploration of the ocean bottom, the environment weather bureau which 
really has the air, I guess, as its primary element of review; then we 
have the Great Lakes Agency which is part of the Corps of Engineers 
which is rather.geographically limited, and then we have the Bureau 
of Sport Fisheries from the Department of the Interior. i 
I think those are the four agencies that are merged in this bill, We 
don’t include Commercial Fisheries from the Department of the Inte- 
rior, and of course what we end up with is the budgets from these agen- 
cies which is about $200 million, and I know a lot of us that have 
frolicked in the idea of a new oceanographic agency who have thought 
of $1 billion or $2 billion magnitude. 
I share your views, and I hope that we can get into fundamental 
ocean discovery and not limit ourselves to what we have done in the 
past, but really take on a new scope and have all of these agencies jell — 
