245 



Unfortunately, the National Council on Marine Resources and 

 ]Marine Development does not provide such a precedent. It was estab- 

 lished as a coordinating unit for what were then w^idely disbursed 

 oceanographic activities. It played no role as an appellate authority. 

 Moreover, it had a fixed termination date. The National Coastal Ke- 

 sources Board has no such fixed termination date. 



As a matter of fact, the establishment of a Cabinet-level council 

 under the provisions of the Marine Resources and Engineering Devel- 

 opment Act of 1966, was a provision found in the Senate-passed meas- 

 ure, S. 944, but not in that bill as passed by the House of Representa- 

 tives. The report accompanying S. 944 (i.e.. House of Representatives 

 Report No. 1025, 89th Congress, 1st Session at p. 12) noted in part 

 the following : 



* * * Upon consideration of all the testimony your com- 

 mittee concluded that the views of the witnesses from the 

 executive departments, the Bureau of the Budget and the 

 Office of Science and Technology, in opposition to the estab- 

 lishment of such a Council, had much merit . (Emphasis 

 supplied) 



Moreover, in adopting the Senate provision for such a Cabinet -level 

 council the statement of the Managers on the Part of the House noted 

 concerning the conference report accompanying S. 944 (See Report 

 No. 1548, 89th Congress, 2 Session) the following : 



a* * * jj^ other words, the Council would be self -liquidat- 

 ing after the Commission, with a life of 18 months, complete 

 its study and submits its report. 



It may be recalled that a similar measure received a pocket veto by 

 the late President Kemiedy in October 1962 (i.e., S. 901, 8Tth Con- 

 gress) as was noted in a memorandum of September 17, 1965 to the 

 chairman of the Committee on Commerce from Mr. Edward "VVenk, 

 Jr., Chief, Science Policy Research Division, of the Library of Con- 

 gress, concerning that veto, "[tlhe substantive objection lay in pos- 

 sible proliferation of councils that would become unmanageable admin- 

 istratively, develop overlapping functions, and place miacceptable 

 demands on the time of Cabinet officers." 



It is my personal feeling that the same objections would lie against 

 the National Resources Board proposed to be established pursuant to 

 section 311 of S. 3507. More important, I find the precedent which 

 this provision could establish very disturbing. Certainly, there are 

 a multitude of other Federal grant programs, the recipients of which 

 would desire to have a similar "appellate Cabinet-level board'- to fur- 

 nish a forum for their grievances. 



3. ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES 



Finally, in the report accompanying S. 582 (Report No. 92-526) 

 the distinguished Senator from Oregon (Mr. Hatfield) filed indi- 

 vidual views which are worthy of repeating here with respect to S. 

 3507 ; namely the following : 



* ^ ■St: * if in i^ 



As a member of the Senate Committee on the Interior and 

 Insular Affairs, I remain concerned, however, about the 



