Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. We consider these as being directly in support of marine transportation activities, and this is why we relate them to transportation programs.

Senator COTTON. And that 74 percent is exactly what the Stratton Commission reported on that matter?

Admiral SMITH. They reported 70 percent. But I say this is a reasonably accurate reflection.

Senator COTTON. Another part of that was the 4 percent for merchant marine inspection and safety so as to add up to 74 percent.

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. This includes these various functions, the search and rescues, the aids to navigation, the merchant marine, and the law enforcement functions.

Senator COTTON. Still vague in my mind is what is referred to as military?

Admiral SMITH. We identify within our budget as nearly as we can that part of our budget that we devoted toward purely retaining our military capability. This is people that are required to man the armament on our ships, the antisubmarine warfare equipment, the sonar, the guns, the training that is directly related to maintaining military efficiency-these are the things that are included in that part of the budget.

Senator COTTON. Because of lack of appropriations or because of policy, you are abolishing or dispensing with a portion of the Coast Guard Reserve.

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Senator COTTON. Not the Regular Reserve, but the Selected Reserve.

What is the meaning of Selected Reserve?

Admiral SMITH. The Selected Reserve is that part of our total Reserve Force which is required to participate in a regular training program, either a weekly drilling or a certain number of weeks of active duty for training each year. They have a military obligation to do this. This forms the major part of our Ready Reserve. There are other Ready Reserve components who are available for mobilization outside the Selected Reserve. But the Selected Reserve includes all those people who are required to participate in active duty for training and they meet the earliest mobilization requirements.

Senator COTTON. Now, the Regular Reserves are largely composed of personnel that either have had service in the Coast Guard or who have had training so they don't need further training, is that right? Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. They have completed the military obligation so they are not required to participate in any further training. Some of these Reserve people voluntarily have been participating in the Selected Reserve program as far as their training is concerned.

But the balance between our Selected Reserves and our total Ready Reserve is made up from people who have had experience in the Coast Guard and still have an obligation in case of mobilization.

Senator COTTON. Do you have the actual figures or a rough estimate of what proportion of all the Reserve components is being contemplated to be discontinuted?

Admiral SMITH. Our present authorized strength of our Selected Reserve is 17,500. The Appropriations Committee this year further reduced that to figure of 15,000 at the end of this fiscal year.

Our total Ready Reserve Force is at about 24,000. So, the difference here is in the neighborhood, using Appropriations Committee figures, of 9,000, the difference between 15,000 and 24,000.

Senator COTTON. I guess I am poor on figures. I never made any "A's" in mathematics. I am trying to find out the proportion of all the Reserves that are expected to be discontinued. Putting the Selected and the Ready Reserves together, are you discontinuing all of the Selected Reserves?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. These are to be phased out by the end of the next fiscal year.

Senator COTTON. And that would be what percentage of the combination of the two?

Admiral SMITH. I haven't made the calculation. It would be 15/24. Senator, I will speak just to our Ready Reserve.

Senator COTTON. It is more than half that is going to be taken out? Admiral SMITH. It will be more than half of our Ready Reserve. Senator COTTON. You have two groups. You have your Selected Reserves and you have your Ready Reserves.

Admiral SMITH. I didn't make myself clear, Senator. The Selected Reserve is a part of the total Ready Reserve group.

Senator COTTON. So, when you phase out all of the Selected Reserve, you are taking somewhat more than half of your Reserve?

Admiral SMITH. Our Ready Reserve.

Senator COTTON. Is that going to have any serious impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the Coast Guard?

Admiral SMITH. Not directly; no, sir. The single important effect this has is the effect of reducing our ready response, our quick response in the event of mobilization. This is what we are talking about.

Senator COTTON. Yes. But if we stop spending this money on these Selected Reserves, who periodically go on duty for training, then if the time came when there was an emergency and you needed them, wouldn't your responsiveness be affected?

Admiral SMITH. We keep bringing new young men into this program, Senator. I think we have tried to keep a young organization: that is, after a man has completed a certain amount of obligation, he is removed from the rolls of the Selected Reserve.

Senator COTTON. Do you really approve or disapprove of this elimination of the Selected Reserve?

Admiral SMITH. Senator, we would like to study this matter a little further. What we are doing right now is making a careful evaluation of what impact this has on our ability to respond to those duties which fall upon our shoulders in the event of a mobilization.

So, it is a little hard for us to tell you right now just exactly what impact this would have on this particular responsibility, and this is the one that we have to consider.

Senator COTTON. Have you testified before the Appropriations Committee on this matter?

Admiral SMITH. We have not had our appropriations hearings yet, Senator. They come next week.

Senator COTTON. Is the decision to phase out the Reserves final? Admiral SMITH. The decision has been made. It is included in the President's budget and in our budget.

Senator COTTON. And, because it is in the President's budget, the decision has been made in your opinion?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator COTTON. Not because of any action of the Appropriations Committee?

Admiral SMITH. No, sir; not because of action of the Appropriations Committee.

Senator COTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't mean to take so much time.

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Senator.

Admiral, what is the extent of participation in the data buoy program of the Coast Guard briefly, and the status of it?

Admiral SMITH. To go back for just a moment, Senator, you may recall a few years ago, I think it was 1967, there were a number of agencies who were moving in the direction of developing a data buoy system. The Navy had an on-going program, ESSA was working in this field, and I believe there were one or two other agencies who were working in this field, and after some suggestions in the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, they recommended that the management and the development of this system be turned over to the Coast Guard.

The first rather small steps were made in concern with the departments doing the funding It has become a part of our budget, with a gradually increasing appropriation for this purpose.

This year we have about $14 million in the budget to continue on with the program. We think we are making good progress, and we hope to have an array of usable buoys in the water by 1974-75.

Senator HOLLINGS. Will they be limited within the Continental Shelf limitations around our coast or around the world?

Admiral SMITH. They would not have to be limited. They would not have to be limited to the Continental Shelf, because it is possible now with the use of deep moorings to place these buoys in various parts of the ocean.

Senator HOLLINGS. Does the Coast Guard contemplate putting them worldwide in all the oceans?

Admiral SMITH. We haven't arrived that far in our considerations. Our first objective is to get some arrays off our own coast for our own purposes.

Senator HOLLINGS. What about our data buoy technology as compared to the Soviet, considering the Arabian Sea endeavor of the Soviet? Do you have any reports on that and its excellence in comparison to ours?

Admiral SMITH. No, sir; I do not. We have had some discussions with representatives of the Soviets on the ocean data acquisition system, but to the best of my knowledge, I don't believe our people have had any real insight to their technical development, at least we have not in the Coast Guard.

Senator HOLLINGS. What institutional or academic research is presently being funded by the Coast Guard?

Admiral SMITH. Senator, I don't believe we have any institutional research as such. We do use some of the institutional research activities for special projects.

Senator HOLLINGS. But the Coast Guard doen't find any of them? Admiral SMITH. No, sir.

Senator HOLLINGS. You are not a part of the industrial-military complex phenomenon that is running around the field?

Admiral SMITH. No, sir. We haven't gotten started with industry. Senator HOLLINGS. Senator Cotton was stressing his concern and his admiration for the Coast Guard and our strong support of it, which I echo. He expressed concern that you would get swallowed up. I have a similar type of concern that you will be ignored, and what concerns me is that when you start in 1912 with oceanographic research and end up 60 years later with three refitted ships, broken down vessels. You start last year with an oceanographic research vessel, you find out it costs too much and you junk that idea and say here is one that has caught afire and let's paint it over. You have an Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology and you don't have a single laboratory within the Coast Guard. You get a budget that starts off with $190 million which is cut to $100 million, and the Secretary says he got around to you in June, these are the kinds of things that concern

us.

Once again your testimony is that you would prefer that the Coast Guard remain in the Department of Transportation and not be in the oceanic agency, is that correct?

Admiral SMITH. Senator, that is correct. I feel very firmly that the proper place for the Coast Guard is in the Department of Transportation. I don't

Senator HOLLINGS. Is this true generally of all of your officers? Do you know of anybody in the Coast Guard that wants to get into an oceanic agency? All of your officers and men as far as conversations, policy discussions and everything else that you have engaged in, they are all enthused and they like the Department of Transportation and they think they have finally found their niche and that is where they want to stay?

Admiral SMITH. I am sure I can't speak for every individual officer in the Coast Guard because I am sure as in any organization we have some diverse views.

Senator HOLLINGS. That is obvious.

Admiral SMITH. However, in my trip to our district offices, and I have visted most of them in the past year, since the Stratton Commission Report came out, I must say one of the greatest concerns expressed to me by our officers in the field from our district commanders down through the various grades was misgivings about the possibility of the Coast Guard being transferred to this organization. I don't know whether they were well prepared to reason this out or whether it was just the fear of change, but I must say there were strong feelings directed toward our remaining in the Department of Transportation. Senator HOLLINGS. What was the misgiving premised upon? Admiral SMITH. I think they recognized, I hope at least that they recognized, as I do, that with our mission and operating responsi bilities that the Department of Transportation is the proper part of the Federal Government for our location.

Senator HOLLINGS. I guess we tend too quickly in the Congress to label, but as between a cop and a sailor, I can't see the captain of the Port of Charleston being piped aboard with a burglar alarm. That sort of decreases my morale.

But I understand your testimony.

I thank you, Admiral Smith, you, Admiral Trimble, Secretary Beggs and Mr. Prestemon for coming up and being with us today. Do you wish to add anything further?

Admiral SMITH. I would like to add one little item.

When the Secretary mentioned the other day that he had these important problems when he took over duties as Secretary and hadn't gotten to the Coast Guard until June, I think what he was trying to say is that when he took over office he had two very serious programs facing him that really demanded his immediate and undivided attention. I don't think he was implying at all that he had neglected or denied the Coast Guard. I had access to him all the time. I think what he was saying was that our programs were running well enough that he didn't have to devote a great deal of close attention to solving the problems of the Coast Guard.

Senator HOLLINGS. Of course, we in Congress concerned with an oceanic program realize it is not being run well enough. As a nation we still do not have an oceanic program. There are still opportunities upon opportunities in the oceanic field, and it is not coordinated and there is no direction to it, and that is what is wrong. It is not a question of the Coast Guard being defunct or being inefficient, it is just a question of the Coast Guard missing a glorious opportunity for a coordinated effort with the other 21 agencies and departments so that we, somewhat like NASA in space, in oceanic science and atmospheric endeavor can work together and adopt a program and give it direction and give it dynamism, and that is not being done.

The Congress long before I had gotten here had spoken about this with many a research program. In 1965, again in 1967, and in this legislation, this 2 years study, and you get the heads of the foundation, you get the Under Secretary of the Navy, Charles Baird, you get the best of brains and disciplines, and they all band together and they come out with a unanimous finding. And they go at length how they didn't jump to conclusions; they go at length about their concern for the Coast Guard because they didn't want to disrupt the good part that is going on-you don't want in order to adopt a new program to tear down the good.

Yet, all I can get is a suspicion, or a misgiving, or "I am happy where I am," but they don't give me these percentages that are wrong, they don't go to any part of the report and find the report wrong, they just say "We likes it where we is" and we are just going to stay there; and we are in transportation, and every other word is transportation, transportation, transportation, and I can't get you in the water or get you in the water in oceanic programs, get you research programs, and get you moving in that particular direction.

There is, for example, no civilian research endeavor in marine science, there is no civilian agency in the Government leading in marine affairs, and with your equipment and everything, helicopters and all, it could easily dovetail and fill this gap to help us keep apace with the Soviets and keep apace with our economy mostly in peacetime

endeavors.

Secretary Beggs?

Mr. BEGGS. If I can add another dimension here. When you queried me before on the question of maritime and marine experience, I indicated that I have little direct experience in the civilian maritime field.