Admiral WHALEN. Sir, I think a little background would assist in clarifying this in your mind. When the transfer of functions was effected, 144 billets then in the Customs were transferred to Coast Guard, so the gentlemen that were carrying out this function at that time for the Customs are carrying it out now as Coast Guard employees. Now we are in the throes of, in certain areas, administrative organization. They will move in, say, to the district commander's office, and be attached to the Office of the Chief of Staff or the Office of Merchant Marine Safety. So to answer you as to what specific rank, sir, performs this one function in any one port, I will say as a general answer that the incumbent from Customs, a civilian billet, is the one that is the initial entree for this. Senator RIBICOFF. Let me ask you this. This transfer that you are proposing, what will this save in the matter of personnel and funds, taxpayers' funds? What do you anticipate will be saved? Admiral WHALEN. You are speaking, sir, of this particular reorganization plan? Senator RIBICOFF. Yes. Admiral WHALEN. As far as that itself is concerned, sir, administratively there is no saving to the Government. The saving is to the industry for one thing, increased convenience, and it will not have to pay the particular price that was here for the prior service. Mr. SEIDMAN. I think I had better qualify that. There will be a saving to the Government. This will not be people transferred, but at the present time it takes the time of approximately 1%1⁄2 to 2 manyears of time devoted to this function, together with the maintenance of duplicate records by the Maritime Administration and by the Coast Guard. That will be a saving. There will not be a saving, in fact, of people being transferred, but their time will be available to do other work, and certainly there will be a saving in the neighborhood of at least $10,000 to the Government I would estimate from this reorganization. Senator RIBICOFF. I note that the ship document functions, which have been performed over the years by the Bureau of Customs agents have been transferred by Treasury Department order to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. Have there been any complaints from either the shipowners or the Customs employees or the unions concerning this transfer? Admiral WHALEN. Sir, we have received quite a bit of correspondence. Most of it was of the interrogatory nature as to how the Coast Guard planned to handle this function. There were certain areas as to whether or not we could provide the same service, whether or not we were going to move it from certain ports, which would make it more inconvenient for the industry. This entire move was generated, began some time ago, when studies were made both of the Customs functions and the Coast Guard, and the recommendation was made at that time that certain of these functions should be transferred. At that time industry and others who were involved were contacted. The main request or premises that have been made in letters. received by the Secretary subsequent to this transfer were basically in the area of whether or not the Coast Guard could furnish the same function and the same service that they had been receiving in the past. There were objections raised. Also, we have contacted ourselves, sent out press releases, and we feel that by virtue of the communication that has been established with industry and with those that raise these points, that we have answered the questions to their satisfaction. This transfer was effected on the 24th day of February, and the information that we received-and we have maintained very close contact with our district commanders-is that the function is continuing, and they do not have any basic objections that have been raised. We are still in receipt of correspondence in the areas that I mentioned. Senator RIBICOFF. What do you estimate would be the savings of this procedure to shipowners in general? Mr. SEIDMAN. I can't precisely give a total amount, but we do know that if there is a delay in turnaround of a vessel for 2 or 3 days while they await approval of the surrender of ship documents, this can cost the vessel owner thousands of dollars. Now it would vary on the size of the vessel, its earning capacity, and other factors, so it would be very difficult to give any total estimate. But in individual cases, it could be very significant in terms of the shipowner. Senator RIBICOFF. In the hearings before the House committee mention was made of the fact that the specific statutory transfers involved in this plan were not made part of the Federal Register. The argument was that making them part of the Register would avoid any public misunderstanding. Have these statutory transfers subsequently been made part of the Federal Register? Admiral WHALEN. Yes, sir; they have. Federal Register document of the 22d of March contains the information signed by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, in which all of the statutes are listed, sir. Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection, that order of the Federal Register will be made part of this record. EXHIBIT 3 [Federal Register, Vol. 32, No. 55-Wednesday, March 22, 1967] NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY COAST GUARD [CGFR 67-16] CERTAIN FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY BUREAU OF CUSTOMS Notice of Continuation of Orders, Rules, Regulations, Policies, Procedures, Privileges, Waivers, and Other Actions Effective on February 24, 1967, the Coast Guard assumed responsibility for the performance of certain functions heretofore performed by the Bureau of Customs. These functions are those concerned with admeasurement; documentation; publication of the register of merchant vessels of the United States: registration of private signals, funnel marks and house flags; recording of vessel mortgages and conveyances; and port security. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the Commandant of the Coast Guard by Treasury Department Order No. 167-81, all orders, determinations, rules, regulations, directives, require ments, standards, statements of policy, notices, interpretations, procedures, documents, registers, licenses, enrollments, certifications, permits, privileges, exemptions, waivers, and all other actions which have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to become effective prior to February 24, 1967, under the provisions of law or regulation listed below are hereby adopted and affirmed and shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified, terminated, repealed, superseded, or set aside by appropriate authority: (1) Sections 2-4, 7, 8, 11-41, 43-47, 49-56, 58-63, 71-83k, 103, 105, 109, 151-163, 221, 227, 236-238, 251(a), 252-277, 278-280, 292, 320-328, 331-336, 404a, 496, 724, 725, 801, 802, 808, 838, 840, 881, 883, 883a, 883b, 883-1, 911-927, 941 (b) and (c), 981-984, 1011-1013 of Title 46, United States Code, insofar as they relate to the functions of admeasurement; documentation; publication of the register of merchant vessels of the United States; registration of private signals, funnel marks, and house flags; and recording of vessel mortgages, and conveyances; › (2) Section 1.1 of Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, insofar as it relates to ports where marine documents may be issued; (3) Parts 2 and 3 of Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, relating to measurement and documentation of vessels; (4) Part 23 of Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, insofar as it relates to the enforcement of the laws listed in item (1). (5) Section 191 of Title 50, United States Code insofar as it relates to port security functions recently administered by the Bureau of Customs, that are now combined with existing Coast Guard administered port security functions. Communications dealing with the functions of admeasurement should be addressed to the appropriate Officer in Charge, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Inspection; Coast Guard District Commander, or Commandant (MMT), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 1300 E Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20226. Communications dealing with the Registration of Stack Insignia or with the publication of the Merchant Vessel Register should be addressed to the Commandant (MVD), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 1300 E Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20226. Communications dealing with the function of vessel documentation should be addressed to the appropriate Officer in Charge, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Inspection; Coast Guard District_Commander, or Commandant (MVD), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 1300 E Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20226. Applications and other routine transactions made in person will continue to be handled at the same locations until further notice. List of Officers in Charge, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Inspection: 427 Commercial Street, Boston, Mass. 02100. 1 Post Office Box 108, Pearl Street Station, Portland, Maine 04112. 409 Federal Building, Providence, R.I. 02903. Post Office Box 391, Cairo, Ill. 62914. Room 8413, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Box 695, Dubuque, Iowa 52001. 328 Post Office and Federal Courthouse Building, Fifth Avenue and Ninth Street, Huntington, W. Va. 25701, 254 Francis Building, Fourth and Chestnut Streets, Louisville, Ky, 40202. : 856 Federal Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tenn. 38103. 670 U.S. Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Building, Room 1032, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219. Federal Building, 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Mo. 63103. Room 313, Federal Building, Albany, N. Y. 12207. Room 302, Post Office Building, New London, Conn. 06321. Customhouse, Philadelphia, Pa. 19106. Customhouse, Baltimore, Md. 21202. Federal Building, Room 200, Portsmouth, Va. 23705. Room 101-105, Customhouse, Wilmington, N.C. 28401. Room 625, Federal Building, 334 Meeting Street, Charleston, S.C. 29403. Room 210, 500 Zack Street, Post Office Box 3172, Tampa, Fla. 33601.. Room 232, Customhouse, Galveston, Tex., 77550. Room 440, Federal Building, 121 Ellicott Street, Buffalo, N.Y. 14203. 1055 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. Federal Building, Room 424, Detroit, Mich. 48226. Federal Building, Room 311, Duluth, Minn. 55802. Post Office Box 308, Ludington, Mich. 49431. Room 400, 135 West Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wis. 53203. Room 205, Federal Building, Oswego, N. Y. 13126. Municipal Building, St. Ignace, Mich. 49781. Federal Building, Room 5101, 234 Summit Street, Toledo, Ohio 43604. (Los Angeles-Long Beach) Center Building, 750 North Broad Avenue, Wilmington, Calif. 90744. Station B, Box 2029, San Francisco, Calif. 94126. Room 12A, Broadway Pier, San Diego, Calif. 92101. Room 202, Lincoln Building, 208 Southwest Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oreg. 79204. 618 Second Avenue, Seattle, Wash, 98104. 610 Fort Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. Post Office Box 1286, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. Dated: March 15, 1967. W. J. SMITH, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, [F.R. Doc. 67-3101; Filed, Mar. 21, 1967; 8:46 a.m.] Senator RIBICOFF. Now, I understand that this particular reorganization plan had been under consideration for about 5 years. Is that the case? Mr. SEIDMAN. It was not under consideration, to my knowledge, for 5 years. It may have been in the Department of Commerce. Our normal practice, each year we circularize each of the departments for their recommendations for Presidential actions under the Reorganization Act, and as I recall it, this proposal came to the Bureau of the Budget about 2 years ago, and action was deferred on it until the legislation on the Department of Transportation was enacted. So the delay was a result of the consideration of the other legislation. It was on our reorganization list a year ago, but I don't recall that it goes back as far as 5 years, although there were studies underway in the Maritime Administration in the Department at an earlier time. Senator RIBICOFF. I am at a loss to understand this. At the beginning of every year the Bureau of the Budget starts off with great ambitions and great optimism about many reorganization plans, and then with each passing month they peter out and not much happens. Your Department is in the key position of understanding the duplications that are there in the Government, what has to be done for economy and efficiency and for better service. Why are there so few reorganization plans sent up to Congress, in view of the continuing complications of the Federal Government? Mr. SEIDMAN. This is a difficult question to answer. One, obviously, matters do become highly controversial. There are strong interests involved in every reorganization, even ones which would appear on the surface to be relatively minor. As was seen, I think, recently in the proposal for a Department of Business and Labor, concerns were expressed by some of the groups, particularly organized labor, who would have been affected by this, this was a very major reorganization proposal, and the President, therefore, felt that he should refer it to the Committee on LaborManagement Policy for further study. Timing may also be affected by the number of proposals pending before the Government Operations Committee. This was one reason why this plan was not sent forward last year. There was some feeling with all of the matters that were then pending, and because of the stringent requirements of the Reorganization Act, the reporting out and acting on the reorganization proposal, the committee felt that they should dispose of some other major items first before we sent this one forward. It is for all of these reasons, and, of course, the reorganization plan procedure isn't the only method by which the President seeks to obtain administrative reforms and improvements. This goes on through his cost-reduction program, through internal administrative actions in departments where they have the authority, and through legislation in many instances. So to look at the total reorganization program and the total action of the President to approve the efficiency of the executive branch of the Government, you have to look not only at the reorganization plans per se, but the other actions that the President has been taking. Senator RIBICOFF. If you believe a reorganization program is sound and necessary, why avoid them just because they are controversial? If you believe in them and the executive branch believes in them, and you send them up, then isn't the responsibility of Congress to undertake hearings, and the responsibility of the legislative process, and the public opinion to decide whether a plan should not be adopted? This is what surprises me, the relative timidity of the Bureau of the Budget is trying to straighten out the complex Federal Government that we have. Mr. SEIDMAN. Well, from what I read in the papers, it doesn't sound as if we are timid, because on the contrary, they often say we are trying to move too fast in too many areas. But I should not leave the impression that proposals are not sent forward because they are controversial, but I think it is desirable to get a major degree of support for reorganization before it is sent up, and to the extent you can, to come to a reasonable reconciliation of the differences. These may be very honest differences. It is not that people are just against it because they don't like change. They have some very real concern, and particularly on the part of those in the community who may be affected by the reorganization. Senator RIBICOFF. Do you think the time has come to take a look at the executive branch as a whole through a Commission appointed by the President on a broad national level, similar to what the Hoover Commission achieved, or the Brownell Commission? Mr. SEIDMAN. There are certainly a number of studies that are going on at the present time, which are looking at various critical areas of the organization of the executive branch of the Government, particularly in the area of intergovernmental relations. With so many of our new programs, the problems go beyond the organization of the executive branch of the Government. This is the new dimension we |