1057 
together and build some enthusiasm and programs which can inter- 
relate with the great States of California and North Carolina that 
want to do things in ocean development and discovery. 
Mr. Rernexke. I might say, Congressman Leggett, that we recognize 
the difference between the bill before us and the bills that were pre- 
sented earlier this year. Rather than trying to capture totally all of 
the agencies that you mention that are not included in the present bill, 
in this testimony we are recommending a liaison preferably, even of a 
contract type, to be sure that it is there, but a strong liaison between 
these other departments and agencies that were not specifically in- 
cluded in the present bill. 
But I feel it is very essential that all of those agencies be well rep- 
resented and well tied-in by whatever means and if the political prac- 
ticality is such that we just can’t do it at this time, then at least we 
should have a contractual relationship that will guarantee the services 
and the advice and technology that is known by these other agencies 
and by that I think we can then accomplish the objective that we are 
really looking for. 
Mr. Leecerr. I think your testimony is outstanding. Rather than 
just coming before the committee rubberstamping what we have laid 
down as a kind of a pilot bill, you have given us some constructive 
thoughts, and I think it is going to be very helpful. Thank you very 
much. 
Mr. Rocers. I share those thoughts, and I think it might be interest- 
ing to note that I know Chairman Lennon has two drafts of proposals 
for coastal zone operation that can be incorporated in the bill. I do, 
and I am sure other members know that too well. I think the points 
you have made are excellent. 
Mr. Dellenback. 
Mr. Detienpack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
I intended, Governor, not to join in the love feast and to say some- 
thing irreverent, but I suppose it would break the mood of the 
morning. On the bipartisan basis I will resist my temptation. 
Your contribution was material to the House when you were a 
member and not only to this committee but to the subcommittee. I think 
that that which was probably a sound decision from a standpoint of 
the people of California and your own personal standpoint, to leave 
this body and take your present position, was one that some of us from 
a selfish standpoint regreted because California’s gain was our loss. 
Relative to your testimony this morning, do I find running through 
it the clear feeling that here is a great challenge which faces us which 
is not being met by present practice ? 
Mr. Rernecke. Very definitely. No question about that. 
Mr. Detiensack. This is clearly what I culled from the testimony, | 
and I wanted to make this point clear because some of the witnesses 
who have appeared before us have talked in terms of what appears to 
me to be facelifting of the present situation. 
They sort of say, “Well, we are getting along pretty well. We are 
doing these things now.” And I read your testimony as—without be- 
ing unduly critical of any specific agency at the present time—saying 
that the massive challenge which we face is just not being met ade- 
quately by that which is being done at the present time. This is cor- 
rect, is it? 
