751 
In the conflict-of-interest provisions, we are surprised to see identical restrictions 
on both Commission and Committee members. This helps assure that only persons 
with no knowledge of the subject matter will be appointed to the Committee. We 
recommend deleting the second (“consultant”) conflict provision where Committee 
members are concerned. Since, as we read the language, parties other than Federal 
Government employees and sewerage agency employees could sit on the Commission 
and the Advisory Committee, there is an element of possible unfairness. We believe 
employees or consultants of our agencies should be treated on the same basis as 
other interested groups: either all potentially interested parties should be excluded 
or included. Either approach would produce parity, but our preferred position would 
be to permit participation by qualified people. 
We note, although you have not asked us, that the provision that Commissioners 
serve ‘until replaced,’ even beyond the end of their terms, has been dropped from 
the draft language. We believe such a provision should be included in order to avoid 
the problem of late replacement appointments. 
Question 9. Do you feel that the creation of an independent Commission would 
create another layer of bureaucracy for your agencies? 
Answer. No. We think such an oversight group is absolutely necessary in order to 
bring some order, and cost-effectiveness, to the ocean dumping research (and “moni- 
toring’) programs at both EPA and NOAA. 
Question 10. You have indicated that you would not support a research budget of 
not more than $2 million for the Commission. Would you support increasing this 
amount if a number of additional coastal municipalities receive permits for ocean 
dumping in the future? 
Answer. No. This is not a problem that yields to throwing money at it. There are 
only a finite number of competent researchers available in this field, and more 
money will just produce a scramble by less-qualified investigators, and a dilution of 
the overall quality of the research effort. 
Question 11. Why do you feel that 8 to 10 years is sufficient time for the Commis- 
sion to do its work—is it because you feel there will be no need for further research 
or monitoring activities? 
Answer. We believe that there must be a “sunset” provision terminating the Com- 
mission’s existence after a reasonable time—enough time to do a thorough job, how- 
ever. We do not want to see an empire created, and we are only too well aware of 
the propensity for federal programs to acquire a life of their own, long after their 
original task is finished.-If the Commission’s work is unfinished at the end of its 
existence, nothing stops Congress from extending it, and the fee, on a year-to-year 
basis or for whatever period it chooses. We do, of course, expect that monitoring will 
continue beyond the lifetime of the Commission, but in the light of the additional 
knowledge to be gained by Commission-sponsored studies, this monitoring can be ef- 
fectively performed through compliance monitoring and NOAA’s continuing Title II 
responsibilities. 
[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] 
© 
