the Armed Services Committee has to raise any suggested authorization, because what the Secretary of Defense says is the law and gospel, notwithstanding the Commander in Chief.

It does concern me that we all are so interested in the Coast Guard, and we know its worldwide roles, and missions. We know its potential. We know that since it was put in the Department of Transportation, Admiral, your roles and missions are going to be ultimately increased, your obligations and responsibilities, and yet, we are circumscribing the total image of it by a reduction in funds.

We can never hope to carry out the long-range implementation program on an annual basis, if we lose ground, as your testimony indicates, slippage, slippage, slippage.

I don't know what to do about it, unless you will help us, unless you will stand up before the Appropriations Committee and insist that we raise these figures again this year.

I am going to insist on it. I have one vote, but I am going to lobby with my friends on this committee, and the full committee, and even go to the full Appropriations Committee and subcommittee, and say, "If the gentleman of the Coast Guard come to you and are mute, that does not mean that they feel that way. For God's sake, give them what they need, even though they are not in position to say what they need."

These figures that you have brought here in this revised tabulation clearly demonstrates that the need is there, gentlemen.

I don't believe that even though you are where you are, and in the position that you are, that you would gain anything but the respect and esteem of the President, or the Commander in Chief, if you want to so designate him, now.

He does not know, the Bureau of the Budget does not know the roles and missions of the Coast Guard.

What is $103 million out of $143 billion?

You gentlemen have to sell this to the committee. I am just reasoning across the table with you.

Mr. BETTS. Mr. Congressman, could I add something for the record? I think it may help clear up an earlier statement by Congressman Watkins.

The preview budget estimates go forward from the Coast Guard without any budgetary restraints or constraints. Immediately after the preview goes forward to the Bureau of the Budget, there are budgetary restraints added.

In other words, a tentative allowance figure is given the Department by the Budget Bureau, so that when the figures are presented to the Burget Bureau in the official budget on September 30, they have to be within a figure which has been prescribed by the Budget Bureau for the Treasury.

This is the point that Mr. Davis was making. Last fall the Treasury asked for $175 million in increases for 1968. The President's budget permitted us to go forward with only an increase of $46 million, of which one-third was allocated to the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard chose, for operational reasons, to put the increase of $15 million in appropriations other than A.C. & Í. Therefore, it was their choice within the total framework to go forward at the $107 million level for A.C. & I.

I just want to make it clear that there were restraints at the time the Treasury submitted its budget to the Budget Bureau.

Mr. LENNON. I appreciate that, sir. Unfortunately, I have to recognize that.

Mr. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?

I don't think we ought to carry this on too much further. These men have heard a lot of what we have said before.

I am sure they recall my analogy last year of the six bicycles which might be lined up next to Mr. McNamara's six Cadillacs.

When we give $60 billion to Defense, $2 billion to poverty, and $6 billion to education, and billions to other Federal programs, and they seem to be able to steamroll these funds through, and we try to give you fellows another $20 million-some-odd to do a half-way adequate job, and we don't get anywhere, the thing that disturbs me, and I think disturbs the members of this committee, is that we don't want to fall into an apathetic state, here, on this committee, and we don't want you to.

We want to help you get this thing up where it ought to be. I know that you are under certain restraints from on top, and I know that you feel that you cannot go in and buck the administration when you go before us, or the Appropriations Committee, but somehow, we have go sell this story, and we need your help, some way.

to

Mr. LENNON (presiding). I wonder if counsel has any questions. Mr. ZINCKE. Mr. Chairman.

Admiral, you recall that the Counsel General of Canada presented to IMCO last fall a model of one of their two new weather ships.

Do you have any information concerning a comparison between those and our large cutters?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, we have kept abreast of the design and the construction of the two Canadian vessels that they are going to use for oceanographic purposes, and also to occupy the ocean station which they man in the Pacific.

This vessel is, tonnagewise, a much larger vessel than the ship that we are building in the high endurance cutter class.

It has some of the same basic purposes as our ship, but it departs widely in other areas.

Our vessel has a military readiness capability to operate with the Navy. The Canadians have built no military readiness capability into their ship.

It is much larger, and will provide undoubtedly a better platform for certain types of oceanographic work, but our cutter also has the capability of doing oceanographic work, and the capability to do rescue work.

I think the Canadians emphasize very, very strongly oceanographic capability, where we have put an emphasis on military capability and on search and rescue capability.

Both ships have built into them all the equipment and capability they need to occupy an ocean station, and to obtain the necessary meteorological data.

The Canadian ship, tonnagewise, is almost twice as large. She is longer, but on the other hand, she does not have the speed or some of the characteristics that our ship has.

Mr. ZINCKE. They are replacing two vessels that are newer than most of our weather ships. Is that not true?

Admiral SMITH. As I recall, Mr. Zincke, the two ships they were using on the west coast, and I went aboard them while I was out there a few years ago, are about the same vintage as our AVP's. They were built about the same time.

Mr. ZINCKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. To keep the record crystal clear, I want to now cite from Report No. 412, which accompanied H.R. 14266, the bill for the Treasury, Post Office, and Executive Office Appropriation Bill of 1967, and reading from page 7 thereof, with reference to the action of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and I read:

The Committee recommends appropriation of the full budget request of $103,000,000 which is a reduction below fiscal year 1966 of $12,510,000.

This appropriation funds the capital acquisition and improvements program for the Coast Guard and is subject to annual legislative authorization. The bill that has just been enacted increased the authorization of the capital account to $126.079,000, an increase of $23,079,000 over the amount recommended by the Administration.

Now, I want to emphasize this:

"Subsequent to the hearings"-meaning the hearings before the Subcommittee on Appropriations

the Committee received a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury strongly urging the Committee not to appropriate more funds than were requested in the budget.

Now let me discuss that just a minute.

Now, are you suggesting today advice that the President, or the Commander in Chief, instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to write the Committee on Appropriations strongly urging them not to appropriate more funds than were requested in the budget?

Mr. DAVIS. I would not say that the President specifically directed it. However, Secretary Fowler, of course, realized the guidelines that had been set by the President, and was doing his part to hold them in this Coast Guard item.

I am informed the Budget and Accounting Act (31 U.S.C. 11, 13, 14, and 15) requires the President to submit an annual Executive budget. This act also prohibits any officer or employee from requesting an increase in any item in the President's budget unless at the request of either House of Congress. In administering this law, the Bureau of the Budget has prescribed procedures to be followed in the executive branch in supporting the amounts in the President's budget.

Mr. LENNON. I think the onus should not fall on the Coast Guard. I think it should fall where it right fully belongs.

I don't know what the responsibility of the legislative branch of the Government is, as distinguished between the executive and the judicial, but it does seem to me that as I read the Constitution, particularly article I, section 8, thereof, not to mention just a few of the sections, that as to the legislative responsibility, both in authorization and appropriation, as I read the Constitution, and as it was taught to me by what I thought was a very fine constitutional lawyer, that it is the responsibility of the legislative to authorize and to appropriate.

Now, when the Secretary, even at a Cabinet level, can take it on himself, even at the urging of the executive, to urge a committee not to appropriate more funds than were requested in the budget, keeping

in mind that the Coast Guard said it needed five additional highendurance cutters, and you demonstrated clearly the need, when you come back again this year and ask for them, and ask for five this year, and get cut to one, I just thought the record ought to be complete with that.

Let the record show that unanimous consent was granted to insert the comparative table in the record following my request of Mr. Betts, the budget officer, for a comparative analysis for acqusition, construction, and improvements for fiscal 1968.

Counsel has advised me that the chairman of the subcommittee of the full committee would appreciate the attendance of Admiral Smith and Secretary Davis and Admiral Smith's staff when the full committee meets on this subject matter again.

You will be notified, and it will be worked out at a time for your convenience.

Let the record show that unanimous consent has been obtained to insert in the record a statement concerning the missions and roles of the Coast Guard as related to various facets of oceanography_prepared by Capt. James A. Hodgman, U.S. Coast Guard, Special Projects Officer on Oceanography for the Chief of Staff, U.S. Coast Guard. (The material requested follows:)

COAST GUARD MISSION AND ROLES IN MARINE SCIENCES

Nineteen sixty-seven marks the one hundredth year of Coast Guard participation in oceanography. For in 1867 the cutter Lincoln sailed for the newly acquired territory of Alaska to carry out scientific investigations of currents. soundings and marine life. The cutters Corwin, Bear, Northland and many others continued this tradition of scientific exploration during the next half century.

However it was in 1914 that classical oceangraphy became operational in the Coast Guard when, as a result of the Titanic disaster, the Coast Guard established the International Ice Patrol Service-with the mandate not only to operate an assistance and warning service but also to study and observe ice and current conditions in the North Atlantic.

Ice patrol scientists have developed survey methods into a sophisticated routine that produces dependable current charts, and have pioneered techniques such as conductivity bridges for salinity determinations and portable shipboard computers for rapid data processing and dynamic topographical chart production at sea. Improved operating methods have paralleled technological advances. As a result ice patrol operations which were first carried out by a force of cutters are now conducted by a single oceanographic research ship and long range aircraft equipped with advanced detection equipment and scientific instruments. Satellite photography was first used in 1966 to delineate ice field boundaries. To further exploit this new sensor system the Coast Guard is a member of the Spacecraft Oceanography Committee and plans to participate in the earth resources satellite program now in the research and development stages.

Coast Guard missions of search and rescue, oceanography, law enforcement, aids to navigation, merchant marine safety, icebreaking, ocean station operations and military readiness all combine to make it the major agency providing services to maritime interests-be they fishing, scientific, merchant marine, government agencies such as Navy, ESSA, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and Customs, or the boating public. To meet its responsibilities the Coast Guard utilizes its over 40,000 military and civilian personnel to operate some 325 ships, 750 shore stations, 160 aircraft, 2390 boats and 24,000 buoys-often using its facilities for more than one mission for maximum effectiveness at minimum cost.

Prior to 1961 the Coast Guard's primary statutory mission in oceanography was ice patrol. But due to the inherent capability of its personnel and facilities, a sizeable cooperative oceanographic program evolved to meet the requirements of other agencies. In 1961 Congress, recognizing the Coast Guard potential, passed legislation stating the Coast Guard "shall conduct such oceanographic re

search... and collect and analyze such oceanographic data, in cooperation with other agencies of the Government, or not, as may be in the national interest". The Coast Guard responded to this Congressional direction by developing a plan which (1) addressed priority programs identified by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography and individual government agencies, (2) made maximum use of knowledge and experience gained in ice patrol and cooperative oceanographic endeavors, and (3) made effective use of existing Coast Guard multi-mission ships, aircraft, and shore stations.

As a result the Coast Guard is now engaged in a major program to measure and evaluate variations of the ocean parameters leading (1) to longer term development of a dynamic model of the ocean for use in long range prediction of fish migration and ice and sonar conditions, and (2) to immediate operational use for short term predictions in the same areas. This program is directly responsive to requirements of user agencies, particularly Navy and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. It utilizes the full time services of two oceanographic research ships and one oceanographic buoy tender, and the part time services of 8 icebreakers, 31 high endurance cutters, selected aircraft, offshore structures, and lightships-all appropriately outfitted for oceanographic investigations. Program direction and quality control are provided by the Coast Guard Oceanographic Unit.

The Coast Guard cooperates with other agencies through the major programs already discussed. It also uses its facilities and personnel whenever requested and feasible for limited support of oceanographic activities of other agencies. These cooperative efforts have not been costed or documented as a Coast Guard contribution to the national oceanographic program due to their limited size, but they currently total over 40 projects on the Great Lakes, estuaries and oceans and involve such diverse programs as radioactive fallout; wave, surf and tide measurements; plankton sampling; buoy servicing; current measurements using floating bottles; and underwater panels measuring marine growth. Agencies involved include Navy, Weather Bureau, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Corps of Engineers, Atomic Energy Commission, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Geological Survey, Lakes Survey, and several institutions under contract to the government.

Under the broader category of marine sciences, the Coast Guard conducts sizeable research and development programs to support its search and rescue, aids to navigation, icebreaking and merchant marine safety operations. New areas of investigation include underwater search and rescue, techniques for greatly increasing the accuracy of existing Coast Guard Loran A and radio beacon systems, and development of suitable criteria for certification of civil submersibles, including new requests for legislation. Coast Guard missions reach on, over and within the seas; they are interrelated; they often use the same facilities for cost effective operations; and they use common support systems. The complementing marine science activities are similarly interwoven.

In keeping with our growing involvement in oceanography and in response to the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966, we have made major strides in our marine science program during the past year. Through appropriated funds a major new oceanographic research ship and a new class of icebreakers are being designed. By reallocation from other mission areas and without an increase in appropriations, two ships have been assigned to full time oceanography from other mission areas. The Marine Sciences program has been expanded and elevated to Division status within our administrative organization. We are putting advanced oceanographic instrumentation on a new offshore structure and a large navigational buoy. Our cutters are furthering United States policy by participating in three major international oceanographic programs— Inventigation of the Eastern Tropical Pacific, Cooperative Study of the Kurishio, and the oceanographic program of the International Commission on Northwest Atlantic Fisheries.

Of particular note this year is the national ocean data buoy systems study which is being managed by the Coast Guard at the request of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. The study will compile and analyze maritime oceanographic and meteorological data requirements; survey the state of the art in data buoy systems; conduct a cost utility analysis to determine which data requirements can most economically be met by data buoy systems and which systems have the best promise for cost-effective acquisition of data; and finally, develop a step-by-step plan for the research, development and implementation of national oceanographic and meteorological buoy systems.