. 13/2-

51-COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATIONS

GOVERNMEN 

Storage r--N1 TS

19 ivb

H

KANSAS STATe. UrsitV.EISITY KSU LIBRARIES A11900 952815 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 2924

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE COAST GUARD

FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT

AND CONSTRUCTION OF SHORE AND OFF-SHORE ESTABLISHMENTS, TO AUTHORIZE FOR THE COAST GUARD AN

END-YEAR STRENGTH FOR ACTIVE DUTY PERSONNEL, TO

AUTHORIZE FOR THE COAST GUARD AVERAGE MILITARY

STUDENT LOADS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

FEBRUARY 5, 1976

Serial No. 94-54

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

C1-1 ) WASHINGTON : 1976
;43

'PI A

ve 4

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, Chairman

JOHN 0. PASTORE, Rhode Island

VANCE HARTKE, Indiana

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

JOHN V. TUNNEY, California

ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Illinois

WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky

JOHN A. DURKIN, New Hampshire

MICHAEL PERTSCHUK, Chief Counsel

S. LYNN SUTCLIFFE, General Counsel

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Staff Counsel

MALCOLM M. B. STERRETT, Mi/Writy Counsel

PHILIP GRILL, Minority Staff Counsel

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan

HOWARD H., BAKER, JR., Tennessee

TED STEVENS, Alaska

J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland

LOWELL T. WEICKER, JR., Connecticut

JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE

RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana, Chairman

JOHN 0. PASTORE, Rhode Island

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

JOHN V. TUNNEY, California

J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan

TED STEVENS, Alaska
CONTENTS

Tag°

Opening statement by Senator Stevens 

Text of S. 2924 2

LIST OF WITNESSES

Slier, Adm. Owen W., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard; accompanied by

Admiral Scarborough; Admiral Perry; Captain Kozlovsky; and Captain

Costello 

(m)

4
N.
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATIONS

THURSDAY, 5 FEBRUARY, 1976

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

MERCHANT MARINE SUBCOMMITTEE,

Washington, D.0 .

The subcommittee met at 2:03 p.m. in room 5110, Dirksen Senate

Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Good afternoon, Admiral. We are happy to see

you here with your staff.

This afternoon, the Merchant Marine Subcommittee of the Senate

Committee on Commerce convenes to receive testimony on S. 2924.

This bill is the DOT's request for authorization of appropriations

for the Coast Guard for the procurement of vessels and aircraft, and

construction of shore and offshore establishments, and to authorize ceilings on Coast Guard active duty personnel and military students.

S. 2924 contains requests for both fiscal year 1977 and 1978. However, we will only consider the fiscal 1977 request today.

Because of provisions of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the Department originally submitted its

fiscal 1977 authorization request to the Congress last April. Today, we

have before us a revised request for the fiscal year which begins on

October 1, 1976.

Staff member assigned to this hearing: Richard J. Daschbach.

[The bill follows:]

(1)
COGRESS

2D SESSION

2

S. 2924

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEHR-um:y- 3,1976

Mr. STEVENS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce

A ILL

To authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for the procurement of vessels and aircraft and construction of shore

and off-shore establishments, to authorize for the Coast Guard

an end-year strength for active duty personnel, to authorize

for the Coast Guard average military student loads, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tires of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for

4 fiscal Years 1977 and 1978 for the use of the Coast Guard

5 as follows:

6

7 For procurement of vessels:

8 For, fiscal year 1977, $70,423,000;

9 For fiscal year 1978, $84,200,000.

II
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

.17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

2

AIRCRAFT

For procurement of aircraft:

For fiscal year 1977, $32,900,000;

For fiscal year 1978, $93,200,000.

CONSTRUCTION

For construction of shore and offshore establishments:

For fiscal year 1977, $22,575,000;

For fiscal year 1978, $22,600,000.

.S-Ec. 2. (a) For fiscal year 1977, the Coast Guard' iS

authorized an end strength for active duty personnel of

38,049. The ceiling provided for in this section shall not

include members of the Ready Reserve called to duty under

the authority of Public Law 92-479.

(b) For fiscal year 1978, the Coast Guard is authorized

an end strength for active duty personnel of 38,050. The

ceilings provided for in this section shall not include members of the Ready Reserve called to active duty under the

authority of Public Law 92-479.

SEC. 3. (a)" For fiscal year 1977, military training

student loads for the Coast Guard are authorized as follows:

( 1) recruit and special .training, 3,880 personyears;

(2) flight training, 92 person-years;

(3) professional training in military and civilian

institutions, 372 person-years; and
4

3

1 (4) officer aequisition training, 1,143 person-yeal%

2 (b) For fiscal year 1378, military training student

3 loans for the Coast Guard are authorized as follows:

4 (1) recruit and special training, 3,900 person5 years;

6 (2) flight training, 94 person-years;

7 (3) professional training in military and civilian

institutions, 375 person-years; and

9 (4) officer acquisition training, 1,150 person-years.

1.0 SEC. 4. Section 475 of title 14, -United States Code, is

n. amended as follows:

12 (a) by striking subsection (e) ;

13 (b) by relettering subsections (f) and (g) as (e)

14 and (f) , reSpectiv:.,iy; - and

15 (c) by striking in subsection (t), as reletterea

16 above, the reference to subsection (f) and inserting in

17 lieu thereof a reference to subsection (e) .

Senator STEVENS. Testifying on behalf of the Department and the

Coast Guard is the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Adm. Owen W. Siler.

Welcome to the committee, Admiral. We have your testimony. Please proceed in any way you wish.

STATEMENT OF ADM. OWEN W. SILER, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST

GUARD; ACCOMPANIED BY ADMIRAL SCARBOROUGH; ADMIRAL

PERRY; CAPTAIN KOZLOVSKY; AND CAPTAIN COSTELLO

Admiral SILER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am happy to appear before you today to present our request for the authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 1977. This year,

our request consists of three parts: acquisition and construction, military end-of-year strength, and military training.
5

In previous years, it had been customary to include an authorization for alteration of obstructive bridges. However, after careful

examination of provisions of section 8 of the Truman-Hobbs Act, we

have now concluded that the act provides continuing authorization

for this appropriation.

Therefore, this year our request does not contain any specific request

under this appropriation.

The 'acquisition, construction, and improvement authorization request, which is our capital investment account, includes major categories for the procurement of vessels and aircraft and for construction

of shore and offshore establishments as required by Public Law 88-45.

Improvements to existing facilities in these categories while requiring

the appropriation of funds do not require specific authorization.

For that reason, we are continuing this practice initiated last year

and are excluding those projects from our request.

Our request for fiscal year 1977 which totals $125,898,000 includes

$70,423,000 for the procurement of vessels, $32,900,000 for the procurement of aircraft, and $22,575,000 for the construction of shore and

offshore facilities.

We are seeking authorization of appropriations to begin replacement of some medium and high endurance cutters in fiscal year 1977.

The cutters being replaced were all constructed between 1936 and 1945.

Each has served our country long and well, but all are technologically

and operationally obsolete.

Further, they have all exceeded the normally accepted service life

for such ships. Their replacement will be a newly designed cutter

which incorporates time-proven and reliable hull and machinery concepts with the latest command control technologies. They will be

capable of full helicopter operations which are so essential if we are

to continue to meet the operational requirements mandated by law.

We are also requesting authorization for funds for the procurement

of additional vessels and small boats as the next phase of programs

which were begun in previous budgets. These include an additional

icebreaking harbor tug, an inland construction tender, and continuing

replacement and expansion of our small boat fleet.

The replacing of our aging and obsolete HU16E aircraft continues to be an important requirement. I would like to acquaint you

with the current status of that procurement since a significant change

in the timetable has occurred.

In an effort to insure maximum opportunity for competition in this

procurement and after procurement discussions had actually begun

with prospective contractors, I directed reopening of the first step in

the procurement process.

As a result of this action, we expect additional qualified contractors

will be encouraged to enter the process. At this time, we are hopeful

that this will occur and that the award of this essential procurement

can be made by September, 1976.

Our shore unit construction request contains several important initiatives which will replace existing outmoded and unsuitable facilities

and provide for needed new construction. The fiscal year 1977 phase

of the Loran C. National Implementation Plan will see us complete

the Gulf of Mexico, East Coast, and Gulf of Alaska transmitting

chains.

67-149 76 2
6

Approval of a replacement for our Search and Rescue Station at

Oregon Inlet, Rodanthe, North Carolina, and the classroom building

at our West Coast Training Center at Alameda, Calif., is included in

this request.

Authorization for the completion of New York's vessel traffic system and continuation of our family housing construction program are

also being requested.

The portion of the request which addressed personnel authorizations

is based on provisions of Public Law 92 132. In this portion of the

bill before the committee, we request authorization of an end-of-year

military strength of 38,049 which represents a small increase of 62

men over our 1976 transition quarter level.

To meet necessary training, 92 man-years of flight training, 3,880

man-years recruit and special training, 372 man-years of professional

training in civilian and military institutions, and 1,143 man-years of

officer acquisition training are also requested.

In accordance with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment

Control Act of 1974, our fiscal year 1978 estimates are $200 million

in the A.C. & I. account which is made up of $84,200,000 for vessels,

$93,200,000 for aircraft, and $22,600,000 for the construction of shore

and offshore establishments.

Our fiscal year 1978 personnel estimates are 38,050 in military endof-year strength, 94 man-years in flight training, 3,900 man-years in

recruit and special training, 375 man-years in professional training,

and 1,150 man-years in officer acquisition training.

You should also note that we have included a change to sec. 475 (e)

of title 14, United States Code

'

in sec. 4 of this bill. This change would

extend indefinitely the Secretary's authority to rent housing which

does not meet establishment standards to members of the Coast Guard.

This authority will otherwise expire on June 30, 1976.

The extension is necessary because we have not made the progress

originally planned in our housing program, and in some locations,

this inadequate housing remains the only real option they have. Termination of this authority will work an unnecessary hardship on them.

The changes proposed to subsections (f) and (g) merely redesignate

those subsections. We would like these changes to be enacted to insure

equitable treatment for our people until permanent replacement is

possible.

Mr. Chairman, the authorization bill before the committee incorporates our most urgent needs. Your favorable consideration of each

of them is requested:

My staff and I are ready to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

I have some questions which I am sure you realize were prepared

in regard to the funding requests contained in this bill. In each of

these funding categories in the personnel and training groups. I am informed that the revised fiscal 1977 request submitted to Congress this

week is below the level for fiscal 1977 that was submitted last April.

In fact, all but the aircraft procurement request is below even the

fiscal .1978 amount that was given us last April.

The committee, as you know, has been seriously concerned over the

question of whether the Coast Guard with its expanded mission responsibility is really equipped with both manpower and hardware to
7

do the job. Can you tell us for the record, Admiral, what is the reason

for the drop from the original fiscal 1977 request? Where are those

differences?

Admiral SILER. The original request, Mr. Chairman, was, of course,

a preliminary estimate not based on the full development of the

budget.

We had increases of a much more substantial nature in several programs which after we developed the full budget could not be included

within the final allowance.

Senator STEVENS. We had in construction I understand, $60 million

authorized in 1976. The original request for 1977 was $25 million. And

now it is down to $22.5, with an estimate for 1978 of only $22.6.

Where is the differential there? That is a 50 percent dropoff from

the actual 1976 budget. And now we come down even further as far

as this revised 1977 budget is concerned. What did you drop out?

Admiral SILER. Could we prepare that and submit it for the record

with an analysis of each of the items that you want, sir?

Senator STEVENS. I think that would be helpful. I am concerned

that the original aircraft procurement, for instance, for 1977 was $75

million, and you have revised it to $32.9. In 1976, we authorized $3,6

million. That seems to be a variance.

Admiral SILER. In our initial considerations on the aircraft, we were

thinking of procuring a higher number of aircraft, but since we have

not signed the contract yet, we ended up with a plan to buy one aircraft per month, starting at the time we expect the contract will be

signed and continuing until we can present our fiscal year 1978 request.

Senator STEVENS. It is just an authorization bill. We are not dealing

with billions; we are dealing with millions. But it is sure hard to add

some of these things when they come up. I don't know why we have to

be so conservative in the authorization for your vessel, aircraft, and

construction accounts. It would seem to me that it would be much better

to have a little leeway in there and actually appropriate less than the

authorization rather than to have us tied to the point where we have to

have floor amendments to actually carry out objectives that everybody

agrees with.

We would like to have that comparison if you will give it to us,

please.

Admiral SILER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. And what vessels have been dropped? Do you

have that?

Admiral SILER. We reduced from two harbor tugs to one.

• Senator STEVENS. You dropped from $110 to $70.4 million.

Admiral SILER. That, too, I would have to give an analysis because

those figures from a year aff,0 were quite preliminary. We would have

to cro back and analyze what we were looking at at that time.

[The following information was subsequently received for the

record :1
COMPARISON BETWEEN FISCAL YEAR 1977 AUTHORIZATION REQUEST IN FISCAL YEAR 1976 BUDGET AND

FISCAL YEAR 1977 AUTHORIZATION REQUEST IN FISCAL YEAR 1977 BUDGET

[In thousands of dollars]

Procurement of vessels:

160 ft inland construction tenders_ 

Harbor tugboats 

High/medium endurance cutters 

Boat replacement program 

95-ft patrol boats 

Subtotal, vessels 

Procurement of aircraft:

Medium range surveillance aircraft 

Short range recovery helicopter 

9, 300

18, 7C0

43, 800

18, 200

20, 000 

3, 725

6, 900

49, 000

10, 798

110, 000.- 70, 423

51, 000

5, 000 

32,9C0

Medium range recovery helicopter 10, ON 

Subtotal, aircraft 65, COO 32, 900

Construction of shore establishments:

Loran-C national implementation plan 7, 700 8, 833

Alameda recruit classroom building 2, 100 2, 117

Support Center, Portsmouth, phase IV 2,000 2,661

Oregon Inlet Station, N.0 1, 201 1,226

Public family quarters ' 7, 300 3, 754

Other facilities 4,700 296

New York Vessel Traffic Service, phase II 3, 700

Subtotal, shore 25, 000 22, 575

Grand total 200, OGO 125, 898

Senator STEVENS. With regard to the high and medium endurance

cutter replacement program, you intend to replace 13 of those over

5 years, is that right?

Admiral SILER. Yes, sir, that's right.

• Senator STEVENS. The cost for the first two was in the 1977 request

at $24.5 milion each. But over the next year, you project building the

remaining 11 at the same unit cost. Has that been averaged out Or don't

you expect any inflationary factors over the next 4 years?

Admiral SILER. We can't be sure what the inflationary level will

be and, therefore, our estimates do not include allowances for inflation.

Senator STEVENS. And I take it we will be able to revise each one

on an annual basis, but you don't build into your costs any kind of

inflation factor?

Admiral SILER. No, sir. We do not use inflation in our estimates.

Our direction is that we should not show it.

Senator STEVENS. Would you provide for the committee's use the

acquisition, construction, and improvement requests for fiscal /977

and 1978 that you submitted to the Department and the Department's

request for the same items to -OMB?

I think they are available to the committee under the new

procedures.

Admiral SILER. Yes, sir, as long as you request them.

[The following information was subsequently received for the

record:]
9

FISCAL YEARS 1977 AND 1978 ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, A ND IMPROVEMENT APPROPRIATION REQUEST

TO BE AUTHORIZED

[I n thousands of dollars]

USCG request DOT request President's

to DOT to OIMB budget

Fiscal year 1977:

Procurement of vessels 98,939 88,408 70,423

Procurement of aircraft 69,206 72,300 32,900

Construction of shore establishments 44,077 48,302 22,575

Total 212,221 209,010 125,898

Fiscal year 1978:

Procurement of vessels 134, 500 134, 500 84, 200

Procurement of aircraft 149, 136 149, 136 93, 200

Construction of shore establishments 36, 364 36,364 22, 600

Total 320, 000 320,000 200, 000

Senator STEVENS. I had an enjoyable time with you at the commissioning of the icebreaker, Admiral. What are your plans for more

icebreakers now ?

Admiral SILER. Our present plans are a little bit indefinite. We are

considering development of two different types of icebreakers—one

that might possibly replace the Westwind on the Great Lakes and

also be capable of operations in the polar regions, and one that would

only operate in the polar regions.

Each of these vessels is likely to be a smaller icebreaker than the

polar class. We are investigating and developing some conceptual

designs at the present time.

Senator STEVENS. You have one more polar class coming ?

Admiral SILER. Yes, sir the Polar Sea.

• Senator STEVENS. Have you given the committee any details of the

financial problems that are associated with the polar class construction ?

Admiral SILER. I am not sure that we have given you the details of

it. There are claims from Lockheed which are now being considered

by the Department of Transportation Contract Appeals Board at the

present time.

Senator STEVENS. I wouldn't want to jeopardize your negotiating

position in any way, but I do think the committee ought to be informed

of the problems because it looks to me like there is going to be a cost

overrun in the polar class. I think we Ought to know about that in

advance so that there aren't any surprises to the members of the

committee.

Admiral SILER. We can give you the complete status of it at the

present time.

[The following information was. subsequently received for the

record :3

1. There are four LSCC appeals from adverse Contracting Officers' decisions

on claims pending before the DOT Contract Appeals Board. Two eases have

been heard. Two cases are yet to be scheduled for hearing. The cases are summarized as follows:

(a) Claim for price increase for WAGB-10 due to 1972 amendment to the

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The claim, in the

amount of $386,000, is based upon' increased insurance premiums paid due to the

increased benefits and extension of coverage required by the amendment. The

Government's position is that there is no clause in the contract under which

the Board can grant the relief requested.
10

(b) LSOC has appealed from the Government's decision establishing the price

for WAGB-11 pursuant to the terms of the agreement under which the Coast

Guard contracted for the second icebreaker. The contractor claims that the

cost should be $66,168,517. The price has been established at $51,294,194 which

is below the ceiling price of $53,750,000 established by agreement of the parties.

LSCC has asked the Contract Appeals Board to set aside the ceiling price as

an unreasonable price. The case is at the briefing stage.

(c) LSCC has submitted a claim for $2.1 million based upon unanticipated

difficulty in welding low carbon quenched and tempered steel required by the

icebreaker contract. The claim relates to construction of WAGB-10. The Government's position is that the contract performance requirements are clear and it

is not responsible for LSCC's failure to recognize those requirements in its bid.

The case has not been scheduled for hearing.

(d) LSCC is claiming some $300,000 for cleaning and reconditioning WAGB-10

propulsion machinery and other machinery and equipment which became contaminated during sandblasting and other production operations. The claim is

being made under the self-insurance clause of the contract on the basis that the

'damage f was accidental. The Government's defense is that the contract contains

specific requirements for preserving machinery and equipment in a condition

ready for use. The damage occurred over a long period of time and the contractor was warned about improper protection and maintenance. The case has

not been scheduled for hearing.

2. LSCC's attorneys have advised that the contractor will submit a claim

to the DOT Contract Adjustment Board under Public Law 85-804 based upon

mistake in bidding on WAGB-10. The claim will be $5—$10 million. The attorneys

also advise that a claim for WAGB-10 ship outfitting interferences will be

submitted. That claim, which will be related in some manner to the welding

claim and the mistake claim, will be $3—$6 million.

3. Other smaller claims are presently being considered by the Contracting

Officer. Most are insurance claims. The Contracting Officer anticipates that

some of the incomplete work and warranty work on WAGB-10 may be the

subject of contract disputes.

Senator STEVENS. Has any Member of Congress or anyone importuned you to acquire these other icebreakers from foreign sources?

Admiral SILER. Yes. sir. We have had several letters asking us why

we didn't obtain Finnish icebreakers. We have also had a series of

letters from the Ambassador to Finland asking why we didn't go

ahead and obtain Finnish icebreakers.

The point of these letters has been that we should buy Finnish icebreakers for the Great Lakes. Our concern is, first, that we must show

that there is a real need for additional icebreaking on the Great Lakes.

Our feeling is that we are able to provide the icebreaking service

that is necessary .at the present time, particularly considering the

amount Of interest that there seems to be in having the ice broken at

the present time.

We are, in this budget, asking for replacement of the 110-foot icebreaking tugs that we have on the Great Lakes. The first of these tugs

would be assigned to the Great Lakes with greater icebreaking capabilities arid improved habitability for the crew as well. These 110-foot

vessels are getting along in age. We will have more icebreaking capability On the Great Lakes with what we are requesting in this budget.

We don't see that we need to have more icebreaking capability' than

we have at the present time. If we need to have more icebreakingcapability there, we are not sure that it is in the national interest to have

the vessels built foreign. This would have to be a determination made

other than in the Coast Cruard.

- Senator -STEvENs. 1 am sure this committee would welcome the opportunity to help you make that determination. You know our points

of view about that.
1'l

But the request that is here is based upon U.S. construction of the

icebreaker tug?

Admiral SILER. We would presume so; yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. You are subject to the Buy American Act, aren't

you?

Admiral SILER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. But you are not subject to the Jones Act?

Admiral SILER. Not for this; no, sir. A foreign yard could bid on

that.

Senator STEVENS. Subject to a 5-percent procurement differential

still?

Admiral SILER. Generally 6 percent in the Buy American Act;

depending on the location, where the particular yards are located, it

can be as high as 12 percent if certain other factors are applicable.

In the case of the polar class icebreakers, it was directed in the

appropriations' language that they be built in American yards.

Senator STEVENS. Maybe we should add a little provision on this.

What item is the tug in?

Admiral SILER. This is in both the authorization and the appropriation this year as well.

Page AC-17 in our little pamphlet.

Senator STEVENS. Have you already started procurement on one?

Admiral SILER. No, sir, not the procurement. We have funds authorized and appropriated for one. This is a second one.

Senator STEVENS. We will talk that over with the committee and

see what the decision is in the balance of the committee.

I am sure you are familiar with our battle on the 200-mile bill and

the major responsibility that will be placed with the Coast Guard

when the enforcement date is reached. We want to make certain that

the Coast Guard is gearing up for this enforcement effort.

In the 1975 fiscal year authorization bill for the Coast Guard, this

committee authorized a 6-month, $200,000 study of all feasible methods

of enforcing extended fisheries jurisdiction. I am informed that study

was not undertaken because funds were not appropriated.

Is that right, you didn't undertake it at all?

Admiral SILER. No, sir, we did undertake a study to the extent we

could with the funds we had. We have just about completed that

study at the present time.

Senator STEVENS. Are there any other Federal agencies involved

in that study?

Admiral SILER. Yes, sir. We have been working with the Navy,

NASA, et cetera, to look at that. And NOAA, naturally.

Senator STEVENS. We have extended the enforcement date until

July 1, 1977. Will your study be completed before that time?

Admiral SILER. Yes, sir; it should be completed shortly.

Senator STEVENS. Do you need any additional funds to complete

that study?

Admiral SILER. I don't believe so; no, sir.

Senator 'STEVENS. Have your people examined the bill that was

passed by the Senate to determine whether there are any impediments

to your enforcement program contained in that bill? Are there any

suggestions you have as we go to conference concerning that bill?

Admiral SILER. I don't believe there are any impediments to our

enforcement in the law at the present time.
12

Senator STEVENS. I want to specifically request you, Admiral, on

behalf of the chairman—I think he and I are the two spokesmen for

this committee on this bill—to provide us with any comments that

you have concerning that bill as a service to us. If there is anything

in that bill that is not consistent with our objectives as far as the ease

of enforcement and the transitional period toward enforcement are

concerned, we would like to give your suggestions full consideration

and confidence.

The bill is not completed, obviously. We are going to make several

changes so we would like to have the opportunity to review your

comments.

What about the hardware and personnel to enforce this new limit

on July 1, 1977? Have you reviewed your requirements in light of

that data?

Admiral SILER. We have looked at our requirements and recosted

the earlier estimates that we had provided. We still believe that our

approach is a valid one. We would expect to increase patrols in the

active fisheries areas, the places primarily where the fishing vessels are

now, with additional random surveillance provided in the remaining

areas that are involved.

We still believe that our numbers are about right, that is the number

of ships, number of aircraft, and the number of Coast Guard personnel.

The cost of providing them, naturally, is increasing as times goes on.

One problem that we have is that fact that of the ships that we have

in storage at the present time, we have only two that we feel that we

can bring out at almost any time. The remaininfr four are of World

War II construction, with turboelectric drive. A great deal of the

machinery in them is no longer manufactured. That will make it impracticable to bring them out of storage and to reactivate, them. If the

implementation date is after approximately the first of August of this

year, we plan to dispose of them.

• If that is the case, then we will have only two high endurance cutters

that we can activate readily. We would expect that we can find one or

two other Coast Guard ships, buoy tenders perhaps, that we might be

able to use in the random patrols. But we are going to be short of ships

unless we can find surplus ships in the DOD inventory, the NOAA

inventory, of some place like that.

Finding the aircraft is also going to be a problem. It is going to be

more expensive as time goes on. If we go out and add these on our

contract, that's one possibility. But there is a time delay associated'

with that.

Senator STEVENS. Well, we would like to have a report and would be

willing to set a timeframe for its receipt that you think is reasonable.

But I think the committee must know whether or not there will be

hardware requirements that would have long leadtime that we ought

to get to this year.

And on that, again, I would apppreciate if you would give to the committee your estimate of what additional resources in terms of

equipment and personnel would be needed to assume the enforcement

obligation that would be imposed upon you on July 1, 1977, by the

current draft of the bill.

It would seem to me that that report should outline the vessels, air- craft, and personnel that are available now for fisheries enforcement

duty. It should also point out where those vessels, aircraft and person-
13

nel are presently stationed, and what their mission is. The report

should further comment on what changes would have to be made to

accommodate the 200-mile limit, including what additions would be

necessary to vessels, aircraft, or personnel to assume the responsibilities

envisioned by the bill.

I don't think we can possibly have credibility to our 200-mile bill

unless we also move toward establishing the procurement that you need

to enforce the bill. Our deadline for submitting the budget estimate is

March 15 in the Senate. So I think, although I suggest that the timeframe could be your own, we ought to have the report by no later than

March 1 in order to be effective.

Admiral SILER. I think we can provide that, sir. There will be some

substantial time delays in getting ships from the time that they are

authorized and funded. Just to bring the ships out of mothballs that

we have at the present time would take close to a year. Construction

of new ships would take about 3 years after they are funded.

[The following information was subsequently received for the

record:]

ENFORCEMENT OF 200-MILE ECONOMIC/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ZONE

A. GENERAL

The enforcement scheme described below is still in the planning stage. A firm

resource request by the Administration will be made on the basis of the enacted

version of the legislation. It involves two separate but complementary concepts.

Primary patrol operations will be conducted in the "Active Fishing Areas" where

commercial fishing is occurring within 200 miles of the U.S. coast. In addition,

less frequent and less intensive random patrols to the limit of domestic jurisdiction will be employed for the purpose of detecting changes in fishing fleet operations, illicit fisheries support activity, etc. Together these two concepts compromise

the 200-mile "Planned Approach."

B. INCREASE IN AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY

Well established active fishing areas exist now off the U.S. (e.g., New England/

Mid-Atlantic, Northwest Pacific, etc.). The chartlet below depicts the Alaska area.

Note the 200-mile line which marks the increased areas of responsibility under

the proposed law.

45'

USSR

4E7

• ›,

coo,

el

--•it -it 

n1ASKR

,% •

. (*APR

.•11.. 

txr rist tz'w ne ito• /sr As° 141 /35.*

63-

•

500

45.
14

Area of U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction (present vs. 200-mile zone) :

(a) 200-mile economic/resource management zone: square nautical miles 2,222,000

(b) Present (baseline to 12NM±Continental Shelf) : square

nautical miles 545,400

(c) Additional area of jurisdiction: square nautical miles • 1,676,600

C. IMPACT OF NEW JURISDICTION

The tables below show the current level of performance and the expected

increased level of effort which would result from adoption of the "Planned

Approach."

Nomenclature:

WHEC—High endurance cutter,

WMEC—Medium endurance cutter,

LRS—Long range search aircraft,

MRS—Medium range search aircraft.

Active Additional

fishing zone Total

Presently areas coverage 200-mile

programed requirement requirement requirement

WHEC (days) 1,065 1,065 1 828 1,893

WM EC (days) 1,551 1,551 1,551

t.RS (hours) 2, 101 5, 113 2, 106 7, 219

MRS (hours) 1,880 3,353 962 4,315

Total vessels (days) 2, 616 2, 616 1 828 3, 444

Total aircraft (hours) 3,981 8, 466 3, 0E8 11, 534

1 Associated with WHEC operations are an additional 5 helicopters.

To give further dimension to the changes which will occur if additional

resources are provided, the following illustrates the situation in one enforceTnent area:

ALASKA FISHERIES

Current With

level of requested

effort resources

Average number of ships on patrol per month 

Average number of surveillance flights per week 

2.5 4

5.0 12

D. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

At the same time the enforcement scheme was devised, implementation plans

were also developed. Those plans called for the following additional resources:

6 long-range search aircraft (LRS) ; 4 medium-range search aircraft (MRS) ;

10 short-range helicopters (SRR) ; 6 high endurance cutters (WHEC) ; and

1,829 new military personnel. In August 1974 when the plan was developed, the

cost of acquiring, manning, and operating these resources was estimated to be

$110.3 million. Because of the tentative nature of the new legislation when this

estimate was made and provided to House Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Committee in response to the chairman's request, little effort was made to differentiate between interim response requirements and permanent enforcement

program needs. However, the problems of responding in a timely manner with

a reasonable effort were recognized. To partially forelay against vessel needs,

6 overaged decommissioned WHECs which had been scheduled for disposal,

were retained. Although the need was known, no provisions were made for

interim response aircraft. In October 1975, the cost estimates for this unrefined

plan were updated in response to letter requests from Senator John Sparkman

and Senator Mike Gravel. The revised cost estimate in FY 76 dollars was $143.5

million.

As enactment became a very real possibility, a more detailed refinement of

interim and permanent resource needs was made. Based on that refinement

it is now apparent that only 2 of the 6 stored WHECs will be suitable for recommissioning. However, to partially offset this change, it will be possible to
15

substitute 2 offshore buoy tenders (NVLB) which had been scheduled for decommissioning in FY 1976 and 1977. There are no other readily available ship

resources. Therefore, the remaining shipdays will have to be provided by

-scheduling our people and operating the remaining vessels beyond the standards

we ordinarily use until new construction can eliminate the deficit. Based on a

preliminary survey of stored DOD aircraft, it appears feasible to temporarily

withdraw retired Air Force fixed wing aircraft to meet interim LRS and MRS

needs. The last five spare Coast Guard SRR helicopters are now in the process

,of being reactivated to meet existing flight hour shortages. These aircraft will

be used to meet enforcement needs. However, no suitable stored helicopters are

available to meet the remaining 5-helicopter deficit. Thus, like the WHEC

situation, the 5-helicopter shortage will have to be provided, at least in the

interim, by temporarily overworking our people and overscheduling remaining

SRRs.

Based on this latest refinement the following revised funding schedule has

been developed. Note that immediate funding requirements will exist for the

reactivation and operation of interim resources (category A below) as well as

the procurement of permanent replacement resources where contracting for

those new resources can be carried our promptly (Category B below). Several

permanent replacements for interim resources cannot be contracted for on short

notice. Those requirements are shown separately and would be requested in later

budgets (Category C below).

[In thousands of dollars]

Procurement

cost

Activation

cost

Operating

cost

Tota

cost

.A, Reactivate interim resources: 1

WHEC (2) 

WLB (refit) (2) 

LRS (6) 

MRS (4) 

$2, 374

1, 500

3, 000

1,080

$7, 520

2, 160

11, 516

2,890

$9, 894

3, 660

14, 516

3,970

Start up cost 10, 440 10,440

Subtotal 0 18, 394 24, 086 42, 480

'B, Procure new resources:2

WHEC (2) 49, 000 49, 000

LRS (6) 51, 600 51, 600

Subtotal 100, 600 0 0 100,600

Additional new resources requirements: 3

WHEC (4) 98, 000 98, 000

MRS (4) 22, 000 22,000

SRR (5) 8,500 2,080 10, 580

Subtotal 128, 500 0 2, 080 130, 580

Total 273, 660

1 Total personnel requirement is 863 military and 6 civilians, Costs are included in operating category,

2 Funding of categories A and B requirements will be needed in the fiscal year preceding the effective date of the new

jurisdiction,

3 Funding of category C requirements should be addressed in the budgets following the effective date of the legislation,

With funding of category C, the original plan requirements of 6 each WHEC; 6 each LRS; 4 each MRS; and 10 each SRR

will have been met,

Senator STEVENS. Have you had any conferences with the Navy to

determine whether there could be any short-term loans or alternative

vessel and aircraft procurement schemes so far as this new responsibility is concerned?

Admiral SILER. Yes, we have had some discussions with them and

looked at some of the vessels they have. They are not very readily

available and not too well adapted to this mission.

The ones that we have heard about, we think that we can do at least

as well with Coast Guard ships and the delays would be about the

same.

Senator STEVENS. I hope to live long enough to see to it that we

design our ships for peacetime use and convert them to wartime rather

67-149---76 3
16

than design them for wartime and make them not utilizable in terms

of peacetime, Admiral.

Admiral SILER. We think our 270-footer is a good peacetime ship.

with a good wartime adaptability.

Senator STEVENS. Maybe both of us will be here long enough to seethat accomplished. I think it is a good goal.

I am informed you have some memorandum of understanding with

other agencies regarding the Bartlett Act. I have seen the Navy memorandum in the past. But I haven't seen any with NOAA, the StateDepartment, or Justice, or any State agencies. Do you have such agreements, memoranda of understanding?

I know I have seen the Navy one, but I don't know whether it has

ever been printed. But I have seen it.

Admiral SILER. Yes, we have one with the Navy. We have agreements with the other agencies and make regular contacts with them. I

am not sure that we have formalizedSenator STEVENS. I am talking about the 12-mile zone.

Admiral SILER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Do formal memoranda pertaining to the 12-mile

limit exist between the Coast Guard and State agencies, the State

Department, NOAA, or Justice?

Admiral SILER. Yes

'

there are agreements and understandings and

procedures that have been set up so that we have regular liaison with

the State Department and the National Marine Fisheries Serviceworks very closely with us on this.

Senator STEVENS. First, let me ask you will those agreements remain

in effect if the 200-mile limit comes into being?

Admiral SILER. I would think so. Most of our plans for activityunder the 200-mile fisheries concept have been worked out as an extension of our present arrangements.

While moving in this direction, we have also moved toward international agreements. We are frequently a party to the arrangements

that are made with foreign countries.

Senator STEVENS. Again, we don't mean to complicate your relationships at all, but the committee would like to have copies of any memoranda of understanding with any Federal or State agencies concerning enforcement of the Bartlett Act. Those documents would help

us determine whether any of those arrangements would in any way be

impacted by the 200-mile zone and whether we need to have any

changes in our legislation in order to protect your role with regard

to other agencies.

Unless you have some violent objection, we would like to have them.

We would not publish them in the record without your concurrence,

but if they are publishable, we would like to do that so as we go to the

standard jurisdiction concept everybody will know what these relationships are.

Admiral SILER. I think most of these agencies involved other than

State agencies have a statutory responsibility to proceed in this direction in any event. The DOD agencies did not have and, therefore, we

needed a formal agreement.

I think we can give you citations that will show exactly what our

arrangements are.
17

[The following information was subsequently received for the

record:]

MARCH 13, 1974.

INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, AND THE U . S. COAST

GUARD

ARTICLE I—GENERAL INFORMATION

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Coast Guard

(USCG) share responsibility for the enforcement of Federal statutes and international agreements related to living marine resources. ("Fishing" and "fisheries"

in this agreement refer to living marine resources.) Observation of domestic

and foreign fishing operations off United States coasts is carried out to monitor

compliance with laws and international agreements; deter potential violators;

take enforcement action when permitted; and generate information concerning

the development, deployment, and effort of fishing. This information is used

by the NMFS and the USCG in addressing enforcement issues, the NMFS in

formulating conservation policies, and the Department of State in negotiating

international agreements. Cooperative efforts concern, with minor exceptions,

the use of USCG facilities and crews with NMFS personnel providing expertise

on fishing activities.

ARTICLE II—REFERENCES AND AUTHORITIES

Agreements between NMFS and the USCG are entered into under authority

of, among others, 14 U.S.C. 141 and 16 U.S.C. 742e.

ARTICLE III—PURPOSE

The parties have entered into this Agreement to promote the effective utilization of personnel and facilities through a cooperative effort and for the following

specific purposes:

1. to define the nature and extent of the services, systems, and facilities each

agency will provide; and

2. to provide for the timely interchange of information to permit proper planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation.

ARTICLE IV—RESPON SIBILITIES OF AGENCIES

A. The NMFS and the USCG will work in close cooperation and support each

other with respect to living marine resources and related national interests

with respect to the territorial waters, the Contiguouss Fisheries Zone, the

Continental Shelf, international fisheries agreement areas, and other special

interest areas of the high seas by:

1. Enforcing international agreements and Federal laws related to the protection or conservation of living marine resources or the conduct of fishing operations; and

2. Observing domestic and foreign fishing operations.

B. It is anticipated that much of the planning and execution of the joint

operational enforcement and surveillance effort will be accomplished at the USGC

District or Area and NMFS Regional levels.

C. In general, within the limits of its budgetary and personnel capabilities, the

NMFS will:

1. Provide personnel to USCG units assigned to patrols where the protection

and conservation of living marine resources and related national interests are

primary functions. The NMFS personnel so assigned shall be available to: advise

the unit commander, accompany boarding parties inspecting domestic and foreign

fishing vessels for compliance with Federal laws and international agreements

relating to living marine resources, and assist in training Coast Guard personnel

in technical matters related to fisheries enforcement and observation.

2. Be responsible for the collation and dissemination of data relating to the

activities of domestic and foreign fishing vessels. (USCG will be included in

distribution.)

3. Provide or permit the use of such other NMFS personnel and facilities as

may be agreed upon from time to time.
18

D. In general, the USCG will:

1. Provide the personnel and facilities necessary for effective at sea enforcement and observation.

2. With due regard for its other missions, attempt to meet all NMFS requests

for cutter and aircraft patrols, including rapid response to unusual operational

requirements.

3. Facilitate the use of vessels, aircraft, and personnel, on fisheries patrols,

for fisheries research, provide that any necessary 'additional equipment and

personnel are furnished on NMFS, and provided further that such research will

not degrade the effectiveness of the patrol.

4. Provide or permit the use of such other USCG personnel and facilities as

may be agreed upon from time to time.

ARTICLE V—BUDGETARY RESPONSIBILITIES

Each agency will fund all costs it incurs under this agreement. Additional

agreements that involve fund reimbursement in connection with specific activities

may be entered into before the activity is undertaken.

ARTICLE VI—PLANNING

A. The USCG will plan for effective fisheries patrol facilities.

B. The NMFS will keep the USCG informed on a continuing basis as to both.

the detailed and long range plans, related to the joint effort, which may affect

the Coast Guard's personnel and facility requirements. This advice will include.

the entire fisheries patrol effort whether or not NMFS personnel are assigned.

When possible, the following notice and justification will be given:

1. Prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, the NMFS will verify requirements for that year and the following fiscal year and advise the USCG of

facilities and services it expects will be needed for the five-year period beginning

two years later.

2. This advice will substantiate the need for resources and include the.

anticipated benefits and the effectiveness if those resources are provided.

C. The USCG will, in turn, keep the NMFS similarly informed as to additional

requirements and the outlook for USCG facilities available for use in the joint

effort.

ARTICLE VII—PUBLIC AFFAIRS-NEWS RELEASES

Each agency will keep the other advised of all public affairs matters including news releases and major speeches that concern both agencies. News releases

of national interest will be coordinated between the appropriate public affairs

personnel in Washington, D.C., and released simultaneously whenever possible.

Releases of local or regional interest will be coordinated and released jointly

at the USCG District or Area Headquarters and the Regional NMFS Office,

with copies sent to the Washington Public Affairs Offices. Each agency will

exercise its own discretion in responding to inquiries with factual information

on its own actions.

ARTICLE VIII—SUBSIDIARY AGREEMENTS

Local working agreements may be developed by USCG District or Area

Commanders and NMFS Regional Directors. Copies of such working agreements

will be forwarded to the Commandant, USCG and the Director, NMFS.

ARTICLE IX—AMENDMENTS

This Agreement may be amended from time to time as may be mutually

agreeable to the parties thereto.

ARTICLE X—TERMINATION

This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 60 days advance

written notice thereof to the other party.

CHESTER R. BENDER,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.

ROBERT M. WHITE,

Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
4

19

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ( DOD ) AND

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) CONCERNING POLICY REGARDING DOD

ASSISTANCE IN SUPPORT OF COAST GUARD FISHERIES ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS

Current procedures within the NMCC provide for timely and effective assistance to be rendered to all U.S. Government agencies, including the USCG, in

critical situations requiring commitment of DOD forces. Direct communications

between the USCG and the NMCC is considered appropriate and necessary if a

critical situation occurs in the future and the USCG desires the assistance of

DOD forces. If such a situation occurs and assistance is desired, the request

should be made via existing communications links between the USCG Flag Plot

and the NMCC. In all fisheries enforcement cases, NMCC processing of such requests will include a requirement that the NMCC receive approval from either

the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense or their civilian designee

prior to the commitment of DOD units or forces.

Upon receiving approval, the NMCC will direct DOD aircraft and ships to

provide assistance. In accordance with the 'approving authority's instruction, the

NMCC will specify the geographic limitations to be observed by DOD aircraft and

ships used in a surveillance or pursuit role.

DOD personnel may not, however, participate in the actual apprehension of

violators of U.S. fisheries laws nor may DOD aircraft or ships be used as weapons

platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected violators

unless specifically directed to perform these missions by the Secretary of Defense

or Deputy Secretary of Defense.

In routine situations, when the USCG desires the assistance of DOD forces in

the enforcement of U.S. fisheries laws, requests will be made through departmental channels.

This will constitute an 'agreement between our two Departments in conformance

with the requirements of P.L. 91-514 (16 U.S.C. 1083).

It is recognized that Fisheries Enforcement Operations are only one facet of

U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement operations which may lead to emergency

requests for DOD assistance. Assistance when needed is authorized under Title

14 U.S.C. 141. Implementation of procedures herein for fisheries enforcement provides a line of communications which can also be used to request emergency

assistance in other law enforcement matters, such as, but not limited to: pollution

control, port security, smuggling, or hi-jacking of ships.

CLAUDE S. BRINEGAR,

Secretary of Transportation.

W. P. CLEMENTS., Jr.,

Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Senator STEVENS. One of the provisions of the bill that creates the

200-mile zone envisions regional management councils which would

be guided to a great extent by existing State law where possible. We

at one time contemplated an amendment that would require the utilization by the management councils of the enforcement agencies of

the 'States adjacent to the 200-mile zone with regard to domestic fishermen and, on the other hand, would have required them to utilize the

Coast Guard in any relationship to any foreign vessel.

We decided not t& complicate your life in that regard by putting

it directly into law. But that is our intent and it was stated on the

floor. The direct day-to-day relationship in terms of management of

resources, including enforcement, ought to come from the State fish

and game agencies. However, none of those State agencies would

have any direct relationship to foreign fishing vessels. In our opinion

that should come only through the Coast Guard and not through

people who are not trained in international aspects of law enforcement.

We want to examine those memoranda to see if there is anything

that we have overlooked as we proceed with this bill. Is that agreeable with you, that we look them over and get your guidance to make

certain that we are not complicating the enforcement procedures?
20

Admiral SILER. I don't think we have any such agreements with

State agencies at the present time. But we will look into this and see

if it can be developed and how it would be done.

Senator STEVENS. It may be the wrong way to put it, but we don't

see any reason why we should make a Federal case out of an isolated

fisheries violation that could be handled, in terms of local domestic

fishermen, by the local agencies involved.

On the other hand, we don't want local fisheries agencies steaming

up and trying to board some foreign vessel. There has got to be some

commonsense applications. They have to be spelled out, I think, by

agreements and memoranda so that everybody understands their role.

Admiral SILER. It may be the National Marine Fisheries Service

has some such agreements as well. We will have to look into that

aspect, too.

Senator STEVENS. We will print in the record the summary of the

request. Do you have any suggestions for any changes in the legislation as it has been introduced, Admiral?

Admiral SILER. No sir, I think we have a good proposal here.

Senator STEVENS. 

No,

thank you very much.

Admiral SILER. Thank you, sir.

'Senator STEVENS. I hope we can get it done in time to meet the

limits of the new Budget Act.

[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

0