273 
Mr. McCroskry. Who would you choose between the Corps of Engi- 
neers and the Federal Water Quality Administration ? 
Mr. Fasceuu. I think I would take the responsibilities of environ- 
ment away from the Corps of Engineers because there is an apparent 
conflict difficulty which the corps should not be burdened with. 
Mr. Roerrs. If the gentleman would yield, I think the present pro- 
posal is to have the Environmental Protection Agency or the agency 
that would administer these protections and have a council, as I un- 
derstand it, as an advisory group. So your EPA would go ahead and 
enforce these things and probably use the Coast Guard to carry out a 
lot of the enforcement. That was the thinking of the President. 
Mr. McCrosxey. Our consideration of this bill requires amendment 
of the 1899 Refuse Act because the Corps of Engineers is already 
charged with this responsibility, is it not? 
Mr. Fascetxi. I am not familiar with all of the ramifications of the 
present internal administrative discussions, if you want to call it that, 
with respect to enforcement of that particular act, its interpretation 
and its applicability. But I think if there is any question about it, it 
would not hurt this committee just to rewrite it. 
Mr. McCrosxry. May I ask my second question ? 
Mr. Fascertu. Yes. 
Mr. McCiosxey. With the gentleman’s long experience in this body 
dealing with this problem and viewing these new priorities with which 
we now attack this problem and the proliferation of agencies we al- 
ready have, what are your thoughts on the creation of a joint environ- 
mental committee of the Congress so that hopefully we would have 
one committee in Congress which exercised jurisdiction over bills of 
this kind ? . 
Mr. Fascetu. I have a visceral reaction to joint committees. I recog- 
nize the tremendous problem we have in the Congress with respect to 
our overlapping and fragmented jurisdiction. I do not know whether 
we could cure that by revising the committee system under other cat- 
egories. That is what we do when we create a joint committee to handle 
the scope or the overall problem. But a major part of such a concept 
is the Appropriations Committee. Where do they come in on a joint 
committee? How does one deal with the overall consideration of a spe- 
cific problem without including the appropriations? All of us have 
wrestled with this in the Congress; the fragmented approach on a 
subject matter in the authorization process—which is fully separated 
from the appropriation process; and overlapping jurisdiction of the 
Senate and House committees. I start out with a basic reluctance for 
joint committees. However, it seems to have worked well with the 
AKC. Maybe a joint environmental committee is the answer. 
Mr. McCrosxey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. DinceEtu. Mr. Keith. 
My. Kerri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
As you know, I have been an early advocate of a marine sanctuary 
concept. The letter from Secretary Glasgow talking about H.R. 19359 
refers to ocean dumping as well as an obvious reference to the coastal 
areas which have concerned our colleagues and which really is a 
matter of discussion in the hearing today. 
Inasmuch as it relates to ocean dumping, I hope that whatever 
action this committee takes, Mr. Chairman will recognize the relevancy 
