As Dr. Max Blumer, senior scientist at Wood's Hole, notes:

The marine food web is so involved and the biochemical processes necessary for the survival of every species are so complex that it is virtually impossible to foresee which species might be damaged by a certain persistent chemical. The award of the Nobel Prize to the discoverer of the insecticide DDT illustrates our ignorance in this area. Lacking sufficient foresight we need to be much more cautious in the use of persistent chemicals lest we disrupt inadvertently processes in the sea upon which our survival may depend.

Accordingly, section 5B (a) of my bill requires that the person wishing to dump sustain a burden of proof that the materials that are dumped will not endanger the natural environment of these waters and will meet any additional requirements as the Administrator of the EPA deems necessary for the orderly regulation of such authority.

I feel that placing the burden of proof on the dumper is an important part of this legislation. It is time that those who wish to dispose of refuse material be required to consider the ecological consequences of their actions.

The public must not be asked to assume the risk of environmental damage because there has been insufficient time to study the problem thoroughly.

The Federal Government should not have to do all the work in this one area. Dumping is a privilege-not a right. The right involved here is the right of every American to a decent environment. This is neither a new nor particularly startling concept.

I have introduced a constitutional amendment (H.J. Res. 522) to accomplish this end. The right to a decent environment is as basic as the right to life and liberty, for without a decent environment we can have neither.

Therefore, it is the obligation of the people and the Government to protect the environment as the Government.

Burden of proof does not require the person wishing to dump to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the materials will be harmless. Rather, burden of proof requires a preponderance of evidence which demonstrates that the dumper can abide by the standards.

In addition, this legislation takes into account the fact that in some locations materials can be dumped without harm to the waters. whereas the same materials would be harmful to other areas.

I have always felt that a unilateral prohibition against dumping was both unjust and unrealistic. Ocean currents in some areas will disperse most refuse material to the point where it does no harm. In other locations, however, the materials may stagnate.

H.R. 805 also provides that different amounts of the same type of refuse may be dumped in different locations. Each dumping site and material has its own particular characteristics and these must be taken into account, as they will have to be by the person wishing to dump. There are, of course, certain materials, such as mercury, which would not be dumped at all.

The standards set by the Administrator of the EPA and the burden of proof required by the dumper would effectively prohibit any dumping of such materials. Therefore, this section provides a flexible approach to the problem of dumping into the coastal waters.

Section 5B (c) of H.R. 805 provides that the standard established by the Administrator of the EPA shall be adopted and applied to all Federal and State authorities which have the right to issue authorizations to discharge or deposit material into these waters.

In his role as standardmaker, the Administrator would find it possible to establish longer term goals for reducing ocean pollution, as well as issuing standards for the immediate guidance of regulatory bodies.

I should point out that these provisions do not require every permit application to cross the Administrator's desk. My bill allows the retention of the present regulatory structure, subject to new standards established by the administator. Since these standards will be designated to prevent all environmental damage, it is not essential that the Administrator consult formally with the Secretary of every department, and with every State board.

3. Stringent enforcement:

Section 5B (d) requires that the standards apply to all parts of the Federal and State governments and all persons who have authorization from the State or its agency to deposit or discharge such materials into these waters.

Section 5B (e) permits the States to establish and enforce standards covering these activities within their jurisdiction only on the condition that the State standards are stricter than the Federal standards and that the States provide adequate procedures for enforcement. I believe this section is important because, as we have seen in the case of automobile pollution, many States have wished to enact stricter regulations than the Federal ones but have been unable to do so because Federal laws require that the Federal standards apply.

The Garmatz bill sets no minimum requirements for the States or territories. Although section 7(e) states that Federal standards could not preempt the requirements or liabilities imposed by States or territories, the State or territory could set a much less strict standard than the Federal Government's.

The oceans are interstate bodies of water. The currents carry pollution from one State seacoast to another. It is not fair to require strong standards of one State when another would be allowed to set weak ones. I therefore, recommend that the wording of sections 5B (d) and 5B (e) of H.R. 805 be incorporated into this bill.

Section 5B (f) of H.R. 805 provides that every State and Federal instrumentality and every person applying for authorization to discharge or otherwise dispose of any material into these waters maintain records, make reports, and provide whatever additional information the Administrator of the EPA needs to determine that the standards are being complied with. The Administrator may also, upon request, have access to these records.

Thus, we require that dumpers continually sustain a burden of proof that their activities are harmless. The Administrator may revoke a permit if the dumper fails to do so. Due process of law requires that a person whose permit is revoked is subsequently entitled to a hearing, but I feel that section 5(f) of Congressman Garmatz's bill, providing for formal hearings, before a permit may be revoked is unwise. No one has an inalienable right to dump wastes into the oceans.

Denying the Administrator decisive power over permits forces the public to bear much of the risks of non-compliance by dumpers.

Section 5B (g) of H.R. 805 provides that the Distric: courts of the United States have jurisdiction to restrain violations of this act. The courts have subpena power and failure to obey the subpena may be punishable by a charge of contempt of court.

I endorse Section 6 (a), (b), and (d) of the Garmatz bill which provides for both criminal and civil penalties with the District courts having jurisdiction to grant relief as the equities of the case require. I would like to see the District courts having subpena power. 4. Punishment:

Section 5B (h) of H.R. 805 provides that each violation of these standards shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 nor less than $5,000. This means that each time refuse is dumped in violation of these standards, the violator is liable for this fine. In many cases, several dumpings or discharges occur per day and each instance is a violation punishable by the fine.

Mr. Garmatz's bill would provide for a civil penalty of $50,000 for each violation and a criminal penalty of "not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."

I heartily endorse these higher fines and would amend my bill to include them. In my amendment, however, I would set a minimum fine in criminal penalties of $25,000, retaining the maximum $50,000. I would also increase the jail sentence to 5 years for repeated convictions. The minimum fine is a stiff one-but the destruction of our environment is a deadly serious matter. Stiff minimum fines would be a deterrent from the beginning.

I would also like to see amended the language of section 6(c) of H.R. 4723 which states, "For the purpose of imposing civil penalties and criminal fines under this section, each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate offense."

I realize that the differences between Chairman Garmatz's bill and mine are very great. This testimony has emphasized those differences but I want to say that there are many portions of H.R. 4723 which I applaud and support. We basically agree on the need for an end to ocean pollution, and this fundamental agreement is what is required for effective legislation.

I would hope that the committee will seriously consider making the change I have suggested in my testimony.

All forms of ocean pollution must be covered-including municipal and industrial effluents and oil. Without a coordinated and comprehensive program, we are never going to be able to regulate cleaner

oceans.

The Federal Government must make standards which are applicable to the States-otherwise chaotic enforcement will ensue, and we could continue to have serious pollution problems throughout the country.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, our standard must be no pollution. We have already done irreparable damage to our waters through ignorance and laziness. We must develop alternate means of waste disposal and we need a far greater Federal investment in municipal and industrial waste treatment.

Everyone has the responsibility for saving our oceans and coastal waters. The dumper has an obligation to all of us to demonstrate that his material is not harmful. The Government has an equal responsibility to set and enforce standards for dumping.

We need a strong law--a clear law-a comprehensive law to halt the degradation of our oceans and coastal environment. I urge the committee to report out a bill of this nature. We in Congress bear a primary responsibility for a decent environment. We have failed thus far to act to save our oceans and coastal waters.

We must act now.

Mr. DINGELL. The same unanimous request is made with regard to the statement of our colleague, Cornelius Gallagher.

STATEMENT OF HON. CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to testify this afternoon before your distinguished commiteee on legislation to control the dumping of waste materials into our oceans. For far too long, we have looked to the oceans as an inexhaustible source for the disposal of side effects of man's technological abundance and urbanization. I contend, as have the many Members of the Congress who have appeared before you, that it is no longer possible.

The problem of ocean dumping is one in which I am particularly interested for two specific reasons: (1), in May 1969, the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which I chaired at the time, held what is widely regarded as the first hearing on the dumping of any substance into the ocean; and (2), there are 250 major dumping areas nationwide; 15 of these areas are located off the coast of my home State of New Jersey. Two of these 15 areas have been closed to shellfish harvesting due to the impact of the dumpings.

The major feature of the bills I have cosponsored is that before any discharge can take place in any ocean an approval must be obtained from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. This may seem like a somewhat small step to take when so many in our land are speaking the language of doomsdaymanship and are freely predicting ecocatastrophies, but I think this is vital.

Let me illustrate the essential nature of fixing responsibility in the Federal Government for assessing the dangers of each ocean dump by describing what we learned during our Foreign Affairs Subcommittee consideration of plans to dump obsolete poison gas into the

oceans.

This plan vitally affected the mandated responsibilities of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of the Interior. Each of these Federal Agencies had a particular responsibility in the transportation of the trainloads of poison gas across our Nation and in the disposition of the poison gas in the oceans.

Yet, the only time representatives of these Agencies ever gathered in the same room to discuss their mutual problem was in the hearing

room of the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements.

This was after 12 similar shipments had already taken place. Not only was the Congress in the dark, but the affected Federal Agencies had not been informed, either.

It may be of special interest to subcommittees of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee that the only citizens who were informed of the movement of this lethal gas were recreational boaters who were warned to stay clear as the disposal ships were towed to sea. Residents of the crowded urban areas which trains moved through were not informed, and this includes a city in my 13th District of New Jersey, Elizabeth. Fortunately, many changes have been made in national policy since our subcommittee took its pioneering actions, but I do believe that a significant weakness in Federal structure was disclosed.

That is why it is absolutely essential that one man and one agency be firmly fixed with the ultimate responsibility in this area. One staff should evaluate competing interests and competing proposals, and one decisionmaking apparatus should be the focus of evaluation and review, and when necessary, of the wrath of those who disagree with the final decision.

I, therefore, feel that no matter what the final form of the many bills you are debating during these hearings may take, retention of centralized control is essential. In this way we can prevent what we discovered in May 1969; policy by default and pollution by indifference.

I appreciate the opportunity to make this brief statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would close by stating that the environmental issue is now closing in on each of us.

It is closing in a symbolic sense, as the operational arm of man's concern with the welfare of his fellow man. It is also closing in a physical sense, by forcing us to realize that no man is an environmental island, complete unto himself. The dangers of ocean dumping must be dealt with before the accumulated sludge fills up the oceans and there are no islands and probably no men, at all.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair observes that the Sierra Club has called advising the committee that it will not be possible for the scheduled witnesses on behalf of the Sierra Club to be present. For that reason, the same order is made with regard to that and a like order from the Chair with regard to a statement from distinguished Mr. Louis Clapper, Conservation Director of National Wildlife Federation, and you will see to it that is also inserted in the record.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF EUGENE V. COAN, THE SIERRA CLUB

We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on the question of dumping into the ocean and the Great Lakes, for this has become a matter of growing concern to us. Of all our many environmental problems, this one appears to hold some especially grave dangers.

We have reached the time when we can no longer consider the ocean and the Great Lakes to be a dumping grounds of last resort. We can no longer indiscriminately place our waste materials in the sea and assume that they will not return to haunt us again. For as large and powerful is the sea, it is surprisingly fragile. It is also of growing importance to us. Given time, the fresh water of the world can cleanse itself, but the sea cannot. Once we put our chemicals and trash into