883 
are making it and I think you have done it very effectively. I just 
happen to disagree with your reasoning and conclusion. 
Now, what we are trying to do and what we want to do is to put 
emphasis on the development of the seas which we have not had sufli- 
ciently as a national effort in this Nation. This is what we want to do, 
and what we are looking at is some organization to do that. 
Now, your Department was set up, as I recall, by governmental 
reorganization plan; was it not? Was it also under an act? 
Mr. Brees. It 1s under an act; yes, sir. 
Mr. Rocrrs. Proposed by the last administration ? 
Mr. Berces. That is right. 
Mr. Rocers. And I think Admiral Trimble worked on the task force 
in getting it organized and did a very good job. Now, the thrust of 
that was to try to emphasize transportation and yet we didn’t put all of 
the operating agencies as such under your jurisdiction. What we want 
to do now is to emphasize the development of resources of the sea. 
Now, we may put maritime functions under this agency, such as 
the ships that use the waters. Wouldn’t it be logical then to have Coast 
Guard, which has the responsibility of the safety of those ships, the 
commerce of the Nation, in other words, I think you can use this argu- 
ment anyway you want to make it, as to saying what you put together. 
But I think what we want to get across is that we want emphasis placed 
in the development of this area, and the Coast Guard, we think, is a 
logical constituent agency to be a part of this. 
A study made by a presidential commission thought so too, so that 
this is not just drummed up as a way to get a change brought about. 
It is for a purpose. Now, we anticipate that each Department that 
would be affected by having one of its constituent agencies removed 
into a new agency would normally oppose this. I would bet two to one 
Interior would oppose our changes and we expect to hear from them 
and we would expect them to oppose it. 
This is a normal function of Government to try to keep what is in 
one’s department and I know this is your job too. We do appreciate 
your testimony and your thinking and we will categorize it as coming 
from a department that has an agency that it does not want to lose. 
On that basis then, I think that this committee can make a judgment 
on how we should develop this independent agency to really put a focus 
on the development of the seas. 
But I think you have stated your Department’s views very well and 
very concisely. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Lennon. I will recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Schadeberg. 
Mr. Scrapreserc. Mr. Chairman, if not for the formal record but 
for my own information, I wonder if it is possible for the Coast Guard 
and for the Department of Transportation to provide a brief definition 
of the specific primary and secondary missions and responsibilities if 
possible. 
Mr. Breos. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Scuapevere. Is it right to have it in the record ? 
Mr. Lennon. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that there be provided 
for the record by the Department of Transportation, to be jointly 
signed with either Admiral Trimble or Admiral Smith or his designee, 
a letter setting forth in specifics and definitive terms the answer to the 
