industries, as well as our scientific minded city of Pittsburgh, part of which I have the honor to represent are among those for whom the ocean has a special significance.

For these reasons-and many others-I feel that the bill introduced by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fascell, and cosponsored by others, including myself, will give a realistic approach and substantial assistance to the national oceanographic program.

Mr. LENNON. The subcommittee thanks you for an excellent statement, Congressman.

We are delighted and honored to have next this morning, Dr. Harold Seidman, the Assistant Director for Management and Organization of the Bureau of the Budget.

After several false starts, Doctor, we finally have the honor of having you here.

Mr. SEIDMAN. I am delighted to be here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LENNON. If we may go off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LENNON. Back on the record.

Now, Doctor, will you proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. HAROLD SEIDMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET: ACCOMPANIED BY CLIFFORD L. BERG, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET

Mr. SEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I proceed with my formal statement, I thought it might be helpful to the committee to give some technical clarifications relating to Dr. Hollomon's testimony with respect to the reorganization plan.

Mr. LENNON. Dr. Hollomon, of the Department of Commerce? Mr. SEIDMAN. Yes, sir.

You recall he talked about the role of the Environmental Science Services Administration, and I wanted to point out that the President' message transmitting the Reorganization Plan No. 2, as in the case of all messages transmitting reorganization plans, has somewhat of a different legal status than the normal Presidential message.

The plan and the message have to be looked at as a whole; in fact, the message is printed together with the plan in the United States Code.

As Dr. Hollomon pointed out, the President's message says that the new Administration will provide a single national focus for our efforts to describe, understand, and predict the state of the oceans, the state of lower and upper atmosphere, and the size and shape of the earth. So, the approval of the reorganization plan also in effect is approval of this particular provision of the message which states as one of the roles of the Environmental Science Service Administration, to provide a single national focus for our efforts to describe, understand, and predict the state of the oceans.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Doctor. You know you and I discussed that the other day and I am very happy to have that explanation included as part of the hearing record.

Thank you, very much.

Mr. SEIDMAN. Now, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed with my statement.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee to discuss several pending bills designed to strengthen the Nation's efforts in the study and exploitation of the vast ocean resources of the world.

The measures before this committee reflect a growing recognition of the need to seek greater understanding of the oceans. As President Johnson stated when he transmitted to the Congress the Nation's proposed oceanographic program for fiscal year 1966:

But never until recently did man seek great understanding of the oceans, because he saw little necessity. There was always a new frontier, unexplored land, unexploited territory.

Now our view of the sea has had to undergo a drastic change. We have always considered them as barriers to invasion; we now must see them as links, not only between people, but to a vast new untapped resource.

The growing recognition of our need to improve our understanding of the oceans is reflected also by a significant increase in the funds we are devoting to oceanographic research and survey programs.

Obligations of Federal agencies for oceanography are estimate to increase from $62.1 million in 1961 to $141.6 million in 1966.

The bills now before the committee obviously represent differences of views as to means rather than ultimate objectives.

I will confine my remarks, therefore, to certain basic organizational issues raised by the proposed legislation. I will not describe existing Executive Office arrangements for planning a coordinated national program in oceanography, since this subject was covered by Dr. Donald Hornig, Director of the Office of Science and Technology, in his testimony before your committee.

Oceanography presents a difficult and complex but by no means unique problem in Government organization. Oceanography is not an end or purpose of Government in itself.

Indeed, at other witnesses have undoubtedly pointed out, oceanography is not a discrete scientific discipline, but is a composite of such basic sciences as marine biology, geology, physics, and chemistry.

Oceanographic programs embrace a host of diverse activities ranging from marine charting to fisheries development and ocean forecasting. Oceanographic activities are a necessary incident to, and cannot be divorced from, the basic missions of such agencies as the Navy and the Department of the Interior.

Except for the National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution, all of the present agencies concerned with oceanography conduct oceanographic activities in support of their basic operating missions.

In the foregoing respects, oceanography is similar to meteorology and water resources research in that it encompasses a variety of activities necessary for meeting an agency's immediate operational require

ments.

Given the diversity and varied purposes of the activities grouped under the general heading of oceanography, consolidation of all functions relating to oceanography and related sciences in a single agency, as would be provided by H.R. 921, is neither desirable nor feasible.

Establishment of a National Oceanographic Agency would run counter to the basic princple of executive branch organization stated

in section 2(a) (4) of the Reorganization Act of 1949, which directs that agencies and functions of the Government be grouped, coordinated and consolidated "as nearly as may be, according to major purposes." Any attempt to separate oceanographic functions from the missions which they now serve could cripple seriously a number of on-going programs or give rise to overlapping and duplication.

How do we draw a line between oceanography and the other functions assigned such agencies as the Coast Guard? As the Treasury Department points out, "Where does the oceanography aspect of, for example, ocean-station vessels begin and end?

H.R. 5884 and H.R. 7849, bills which would establish a Marine Exploration and Development Commission, also create problems of overlapping and duplication and have other undesirable organizational features.

The proposed agency would overlap and duplicate activities now being conducted on the Continental Shelf by a number of Federal agencies.

While the bills attempt to resolve this problem by providing that the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, and the Interior shall be members of the Commission, we have serious reservations about the ability of an agency organized along these lines either to administer effectively the programs undertaken directly by the Commission or to coordinate successfully related agency programs.

Finally, we believe it would be unsound to create a new agency concerned with development of natural resources in a particular geographic area, thereby complicating national planning for resource development and coordination of resource programs.

As in the case with other scientific and technological programs which necessarily cut across agency lines, we need to develop satisfactory means for coordinating, not consolidating, the diverse and separate programs administered by a number of Federal agencies which relate to the general field of oceanography.

This fact is recognized by H.R. 2218, H.R. 5654, and H.R. 6457, all of which seek to strengthen and improve existing arrangements for coordinating oceanographic programs.

We continue to believe strongly that the desired objectives could be accomplished most effectively by the enactment of H.R. 2218. This bill properly assigns to the President, as Chief Executive, responsibility for defining national goals with respect to oceanography, surveying all significant oceanographic activities, developing a comprehensive program of oceanographic activities to be conducted or supported by Federal agencies, designating and fixing responsibility for the direction of oceanographic activties and resolving differences arising among Federal agencies with respect to oceanographic activities.

The President is authorized by the bill to utilize such advisory resources as he may deem necessary, including an Advisory Committee on Oceanography drawn from outside the Government.

The President would be required to report annually to the Congress as to the general status of oceanography, progress in research and development, financial plans, including proposed appropriations, current and future plans, and requests for such legislation as may be

necessary.

Enactment of H.R. 2218 would give appropriate recognition and emphasis to the growing importance of oceanography. The bill establishes congressional policies and intent with respect to oceanography and assigns clear-cut responsibilities to the President for carrying out these policies and reporting on plans and progress to the Congress. Under the provisions of H.R. 2218, however, the President retains essential flexibility to develop those administrative and organizational arrangements which he believes will assist him most effectively in carrying out the responsibilities assigned to him by the Congress, and in accomplishing the purposes of the act.

The need for flexibility in establishing coordinating arrangements was stressed by President Johnson in his message transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1965 to the Congress.

Reorganization Plan No. 4 abolished nine statutory boards, councils, and interagency committees and transferred their functions either to the President or a designated official.

The President emphasized that we must have

the capacity for fast flexible response to changing needs imposed by changing circumstances.

He noted further that:

As Government grows more complex and programs increasingly cut across agency lines, we must exercise special care to prevent the continuance of obsolete interagency committees and other coordinating devices which waste time and delay action and the undue proliferation of new committees.

Mr. Chairman, I might add that in developing Reorganization Plan No. 4, we found that some of these bodies which have been created by the statute never met because they were not suited to executive branch needs and organization. I think this illustrates the difficulty we have with a number of bills before this committee.

Others such as the National Housing Council have not met since 1961, so the creation of a statutory interagency committee does not necessarily achieve the objective if it is not suited to the arrangements which are required within the executive branch.

Mr. LENNON. I do not mean to have you digress from your statement, but if it is a statutory committee, created by a statute, and it did not meet, then it is clearly the fault of the executive that the statutory committee did not meet; is that not true?

Mr. SEIDMAN. No.

Mr. LENNON. Why not?

Mr. SEIDMAN. I would not agree, Mr. Chairman. It did not meet because

Mr. LENNON. There was no need for it.

Mr. SEIDMAN. No useful purpose to be served by the committee meeting.

Mr. LENNON. Even though they may sign a bill into law, then, the executive makes the determination that it will flaunt the will of the Congress in creating the statutory committee which the President signed into law by failing to carry out the responsibilities in administering the law.

What function does the executive have except to administer the law which is passed by the Congress which the President signs?

I resent this implication that once the President affixes his signature to a bill that through the Bureau of the Budget or any other agency of

the Federal Government, from the President's Office on down, that they just simply ignore it.

But rather than to offend the Congress by vetoing the bill, they sign the bill and just pay no attention to the implementation of that legislation.

That is just what you said in your statement, that the National Housing Commission was created by law, but the President did not carry out his obligation to see that they met.

I think that is an indictment of the Executive, not of the Congress. Mr. SEIDMAN. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I should explain further. In creating these bodies and in providing for these interagency committees, the Congress was assigned to them by law for only advisory

functions.

There was no requirement in the law stating that there must be meetings.

Mr. LENNON. Well then, the executive ought to come back and say, now, this legislation has outused its practical purposes. We recommend that it be repealed. Do not repeal it by an indirect act of the executive agency. I agree with you, sir, Doctor, that if there is a world of laws on our books that are not being implemented they ought to be repealed, they ought not to be ignored.

That is the way I feel.

Mr. SEIDMAN. This is exactly what the President did, Mr. Chairman, when he sent the reorganization plan to the Congress, and I am sure that you are not suggesting that pro forma meetings be held by bodies when they no longer have any useful business to transact. This would seem to me to be a waste of the time of officials and the waste of the Government's funds.

Mr. LENNON. But you are offering that as an explanation, the fact that did not meet is the reason why the President proposed Reorganization Plan No. 4.

I was saying when the usefulness of a Commission created by a statute has ceased, then legislation ought to be recommended by the executive branch of the Government to repeal that unnecessary legis

lation.

Of course, you say that is what is done by actually effecting a repeal by the adoption of the reorganization plan, is that correct? Mr. SEIDMAN. That is correct.

Mr. LENNON. I apologize for breaking in. You go right ahead with your statement.

Mr. SEIDMAN. H.R. 5654 and H.R. 6457 differ from H.R. 2218 mainly in limiting the President's flexibility in establishing and maintaining necessary coordinating arrangements.

Both bills would establish statutory interagency committees—contrary to the doctorine underlying Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1965 which was concurred in by the Congress.

H.R. 5654 would establish a National Oceanographic Council in the Executive Office of the President, and H.R. 6457 would establish a National Oceanographic Council in the Office of Science and Technology.

For the reasons cited in the President's message on Reorganization Plan No. 4, we are opposed to the establishment of such statutory interagency committees.