\04

• C1512- KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

90-6/ z--- COAST GUARD APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION

COY ERNMEN

Storage KSU LIBRARIES 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETIETH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 3034, H.R. 15224

TO AUTrHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROCUREMENT OF

VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT AND CONSTRUCTION OF SHORE

AND OFFSHORE ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE COAST GUARD

APRIL 3, 1968

Serial No. 90-61

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

c e

'U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

92-886 WASHINGTON : 1968
.

At% .1%,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

WARREN G. MAGNITSON, Washington, Chairman

JOHN 0. PASTORE, Rhode Island

A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, Oklahoma

FRANK J. LAUSCHE, Ohio

E. L. BARTLETT, Alaska

VANCE HARTKE, Indiana

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland

RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

FREDERICK J. LORDAN, Staff Director

JAMES J. BARRY, Assistant Staff Director

MICHAEL PERTSCFIUK, General Counsel

SOHN N. NASSIKAS, Assistant General Counsel

STANLEY H. BARER, Staff Counsel

NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire

THRUSTON B. MORTON, Kentucky

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES

E. L. BARTLETT, Alaska, Chairman

WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington

JOHN 0. PASTORE, Rhode Island

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland

RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan

WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont

NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire
CONTENTS

Pawl Opening statement by the chairman 1

Text of bills:

S. 3034 1

H.R. 15224 3

Department of Transportation, letter of transmittal 5

Statement of—

Dean, Alan L., Assistant Secretary of Administration, Department of Transportation; accompanied by Robert Prestemon, Director of Budget, Department of Transportation 8

Smith, Adm. Willard J., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard; accom- panied by Adm. Paul E. Trimble, Adm. M. A. Whalen, Capt. E. D. Scheiderer, and Capt. J. P. Latimer 11

COAST GUARD APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1968

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate

Office Building, the Honorable E. L. Bartlett (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bartlett and Griffin.

OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

Senator BARTLETT. The committee will be in order.

The subcommittee is meeting this morning to consider S. 3034 and

H.R. 15224 bills to authorize appropriations for procurements of

vessels and aircraft and construction of shore and offshore establishments for the Coast Guard.

H.R. 15224, as introduced in the House of Representatives is

identical to the Senate measure, but the House committee amended

the bill to include two additional high-endurance cutters. That bill

passed the House with that amendment. Copies of the bills and the

letter of transmittal from the Secretary of Transportation and a

memorandum summarizing the various provisions of the bill will be

placed in the hearing record.

(The material referred to follows:)

[S. 3034, 90th Cong., second sess.]

A BILL To authorize appropriations for procurement of vessels and aircraft and construction of shore and

offshore establishments for the Coast Guard

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1969 for the use of the Coast Guard as follows:

VESSELS

For procurement, extension of service life, and increasing capability of vessels,

$38,904,000.

A. Procurement:

(1) one high-endurance cutter;

(2) one oceanographic cutter;

(3) one coastal buoy tender;

(4) one ferryboat; and

(5) one river tender and barge.

B. Increasing capability:

(1) install generators and air conditioning on five seagoing buoy tenders;

(2) improve habitability on two coastal buoy tenders;

(3) install air conditioning on one coastal buoy tender; and

(4) install balloon tracking radar on two high-endurance cutters and modify

balloon tracking radar installation on one high-endurance cutter.

Staff member assigned to this hearing: Stanley H. Barer.

(1)
2

C. Extension of service life:

(1) improve icebreakers; and

(2) increase fuel capacity and improve habitability on high-endurance

cutters.

AIRCRAFT

For procurement of aircraft, $14,636,000.

(1) nine medium-range helicopters.

CONSTRUCTION

For establishment or development of installations and facilities by acquisition, construction conversion, extension, or installation of permanent or temporary

public works, including the preparation of sites and furnishing of appurtenances,

utilities, and equipment for the following, $47,660,000.

(1) Depot, Greenville, Mississippi: Barracks, messing, and operations

building; garage; mooring facilities;

(2) Moorings, Natchez, Mississippi: Mooring facilities;

(3) Station, Siuslaw River, Florence, Oregon: Barracks, messing, operations, and administration building;

(4) Station, Hobucken, North Carolina: Barracks, messing, operations,

and administration building; convert existing building to garage and storage

building, improve facilities;

(5) Moorings, Juneau, Alaska: Enlarge existing building to provide additional space for electronic spares shipping and receiving area, office space and

other purposes;

(6) Station, Point Allerton, Hull, Massachusetts: Barracks, messing, operations, and administration building; garage and workshop building; mooring

facilities; helicopter pad;

(7) Station, Grays Harbor, Westport, Washington: Barracks, messing,

operations, and administration building;

(8) Station, Port Aransas, Texas: Repair and replace waterfront facilities;

(9) Loran Station, Cape San Bias, Gulf County, Florida: Barracks

building; convert existing building for messing and recreation spaces; enlarge

loran building, garage, and storage building;

(10 Station, Bayfield, Wisconsin: Barracks, messing, and operations

building, pier facilities;

(11) Air Station, Mobile, Alabama: Barracks, BOQ, and messing building;

training, recreational, and exchange facilities, hangar space conversion;

(12) Station, Cape Charles City, Virginia: Barracks, messing ,and operations building; mooring facilities, helicopter pad;

(13) Station, Annapolis, Maryland: Barracks, messing, and operations

building; mooring facilities;

(14) Western Long Island Sound Development:

(i) Station, New Haven, Connecticut: Barracks, messing, operations,

and administration building; mooring facilities;

(ii) Station Eatons Neck, New York: Recondition barracks, operations, and administration building; improve waterfront facilities; and

(iii) Station, Fort Totten New York: Recondition barracks, messing,

administration, and work-storage facilities;

(15) Base, Portsmouth, Virginia: Dredging, bulkheading, site development, utilities;

(16) Station, San Francisco, California: Barracks building, administration

building, subsistence building, waterfront facilities;

(17) Yard, Curtis Bay, Maryland: Modify buildings as necessary to provide for consolidation of metal trades;

(18) Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico: Barracks and messing facilities,

waterfront facilities renewal;

(19) Base, Honolulu, Hawaii: Dock construction;

(20) Base, Galveston, Texas: Sewage system;

(21) Base, New York, Governors Island, New York: Sewage system;

(22) Station, Portsmouth Harbor, Newcastle, New Hampshire: Mooring

facilities; garage and workshop buildings;

(23) Various locations: Aids to navigation projects including, where

necessary, planning and acquisition of sites;

(24) Arkansas River: Aids to navigation to complete marking of river;

(25) Various locations: Automation of manned light stations;

(26) Various locations: Replace lightships with very large buoys;
3

(27) Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virginia: Galley/mess building;

(28) Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virginia: Advanced engineman

school clas,sroom and laboratory building;

(29) Training Center, Cape May, New Jersey: Gymnasium and recreation

building;

(30) Training Center, Alameda California: Recruit barracks;

(31) Training Center, Cape May, New Jersey: Medical-dental building;

(32) Various locations: Public family quarters;

(33) Various locations: Advance planning, construction, design, architectural services, and acquisition of sites in connection with projects not otherwise authorized by law; and

(34) Various locations: Automatic fixed station oceanographic sensor

systems and monitor buoys.

SEC. 2. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1969 for

'payment lb bridge owners for the cost of alteration of railroad and public highway

bridges to permit free navigation of the navigable waters of the United States in

the amount of $5,800,000.

SEC. 3. During fiscal years 1969 through and including 1970, the Secretary of

the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating is authorized to lease

housing facilities at or near Coast Guard installations wherever located for assignment as public quarters to military personnel and their dependents, if any, without

rental charge upon a determination by the Secretary, or his designee, that there is

a lack of adequate housing facilities at or near such Coast Guard installations.

Such housing facilities may be leased on an individual or multiple-unit basis.

Expenditures for the rental of such housing facilities may not exceed the average

authorized for the Department of Defense.

[H.R. 15224; 90th Cong., 2d sess.]

AN ACT To authorize appropriations for procurement of vessels and aircraft and construction of shore and

offshore establishments for the Coast Guard

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1969 for the use of the Coast Guard as follows:

VESSELS

For procurement, extension of service life, and increasing capability of vessels,

$67,904,000.

A. Procurement:

• (1) three high-endurance cutters;

(2) one oceanographic cutter;

(3) one coastal buoy tender;

(4) one ferryboat; and

(5) one river tender and barge.

None of the vessels authorized herein shall be procured from other than ship-

:yards and facilities within the United States.

B. Increasing capability:

(1). install generators and air conditioning on five seagoing buoy tenders;

(2) improve habitability on two coastal buoy tenders;

(3) install air conditioning on one coastal buoy tender; and

(4) install balloon tracking radar on two high endurance cutters and modify

balloon tracking radar installation on one high endurance cutter.

C. Extension of service life:

(1) improve icebreakers; and

(2) increase fuel capacity and improve habitability on high endurance

cutters.

AIRCRAFT

For procurement of aircraft, $14,636,000.

(1) nine medium-range helicopters.

CONSTRUCTION

For establishment or development of installations and facilities by acquisition,

,construction, conversion, extension, or installation of permanent or temporary
4

public works, including the preparation of sites and furnishing of appurtenances,

utilities, and equipment for the following, $47,660,000.

(1) Depot, Greenville, Mississippi: Barracks, messing, and operations

building; garage; mooring facilities;

(2) Moorings, Natchez, Mississippi: Mooring facilities;

(3) Station, Siuslaw River, Florence, Oregon: Barracks, messing, operations, and administration building;

(4) Station, Hobucken, North Carolina: Barracks, messing, operations,

and administration building; convert existing building to garage and storage

building, improve facilities;

(5) Moorings, Juneau, Alaska: Enlarge existing building to provide

additional space for electronic spares shipping and receiving area, office

space, and other purposes;

(6) Station, Point Allerton, Hull, Massachusetts: Barracks, messing,

operations, and administration building; garage and workshop building;

mooring facilities; helicopter pad;

(7) Station, Grays Harbor, Westpoint, Washington: Barracks, messing,

operations, and administration building;

(8) Station, Port Aransas, Texas: Repair and replace waterfront facilities;

(9) Loran Station, Cape San Blas, Gulf County, Florida: Barracks

building; convert existing building for messing and recreation spaces; enlarge

loran building, garage and storage building;

(10) Station, Bayfield, Wisconsin: Barracks, messing, and operations

building, pier facilities;

(11) Air Station, Mobile, Alabama: Barracks, BOQ and messing building; training, recreational, and exchange facilities, hangar space conversion;

(12) Station, Cape Charles City, Virginia: Barracks, messing, and operations building; mooring facilities, helicopter pad;

(13) Station, Annapolis, Maryland: Barracks, messing, and operations

building; mooring facilities;

(14) Western Long Island Sound Development:

(i) Station, New Haven, Connecticut: Barracks, messing, operations,

administration building; mooring facilities;

(ii) Station, Eatons Neck, New York: Recondition barracks, operations, and administration building; improve waterfront facilities; and

(iii) Station, Fort Totten, New York: Recondition barracks, messing,

administration, and work-storage facilities;

(15) Base, Portsmouth, Virginia: Dredging, bulkheading, site development, utilities;

(16) Station, San Francisco, California: Barracks building, administration

building, subsistence building, waterfront facilities;

(17) Yard, Curtis Bay, Maryland: Modify buildings as necessary to provide for consolidation of metal trades;

(18) Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico: Barracks and messing facilities,

waterfront facilities renewal;

(19) Base, Honolulu, Hawaii: Dock construction;

(20) Base, Galveston, Texas: Sewage system;

(21) Base, New York, Governors Island, New York: Sewage system;

(22) Station, Portsmouth Harbor, Newcastle, New Hampshire: Mooring

facilities; garage and workshop buildings;

(23) Various locations: Aids to navigation projects including, where

necessary, planning and acquisition of sites;

(24) Arkansas River: Aids to navigation to complete marking of river;

(25) Various locations: Automation of manned light stations;

(26) Various locations: Replace lightships with very large buoys;

(27) Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virginia: Galley/mess building;

(28) Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virginia: Advanced Engineman

School classroom and laboratory building;

(29) Training Center, Cape May, New Jersey: Gymnasium and recreation

building;

(30) Training Center, Alameda, California: Recruit barracks;

(31) Training Center, Cape May, New Jersey: Medical-dental building;

(32) Various locations: Public family quarters;

(33) Various locations: Advance planning, construction, design, architectural services, and acquisition of sites in connection with projects not otherwise authorized by law; and

(34) Various locations: Automatic fixed station oceanographic sensor

systems and monitor buoys.
5

SEC. 2. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1969

for payment to bridge owners for the cost of alteration of railroad and public

highway bridges to permit free navigation of the navigable waters of the United

States in the amount of $5,800,000.

SEC. 3. During fiscal years 1969 through and including 1970, the Secretary of

the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating is authorized to lease

housing facilities at or near Coast Guard installations wherever located for

assignment as public quarters to military personnel and their dependents, if any,

without rental charge upon a determination by the Secretary, or his designee,

that there is a lack of adequate housing facilities at or near such Coast Guard

installations. Such housing facilities may be leased on an individual or multiple

unit basis. Expenditures for the rental of such housing facilities may not exceed

the average authorized for the Department of Defense.

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,

Washington, D.C. February 6, 1968.

Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY,

President, of the Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: There is transmitted herewith a draft of a bill, "To

authorize appropriations for procurement of vessels and aircraft and construction

of shore and offshore establishments for the Coast Guard."

This proposal is submitted under the requirements of Public Law 88-45 which

provides that no funds can be appropriated to or for the use of the Coast Guard for

the procurement of vessels or aircraft or the construction of shore or offshore

establishments unless the appropriation of such funds is authorized by legislation.

This proposal includes, as it has previously, all items of acquisition, construction,

and improvement programs for the Coast Guard to be undertaken in fiscal year

1969 even though the provisions of Public Law 88-45 appear to require authorization only for major facilities and construction. Inclusion of all items avoids the

necessity for arbitrary separation of these programs into two parts with only one

portion requiring authorization.

Not all items, particularly those involving construction, are itemized. Those

involving aids to navigation, public family quarters, and advanced planning

projects contain so many different particulars that their inclusion would have

unduly lengthened the bill. As in the previous althorization Act, a separate

section has been included for authorization of appropriations for payments to

bridge owners for the replacement of bridges found to be presently obstructing

free navigation on the navigable waters of the United States.

There has also been included an additional section continuing for the next two

fiscal years the authority to lease housing facilities first included in Public Law

89-381. It had been anticipated that permanent authority would have been

enacted prior to this time. However, the legislative proposal embodying this

item is still being processed for submission to Congress. Since the Coast Guard is

using this authority, its continuation until permanent legislation is enacted would

be desirable.

In order to permit this authority to be used at overseas locations where similar

problems regarding the adequacy and availability of housing exist, the language

has been changed so as to permit the exercise of this authority at locations other

than the United States and Puerto Rico. The limitation of the average authorized

for the Department of Defense would still apply, however.

There is attached a memorandum listing in summary form the procurement

and construction programs for which appropriations would be authorized by the

proposed bill. In further support of the legislation, the cognizant legislative

committees will be furnished detailed information with respect to each program

for which fund authorization is being requested in a form identical to that which

will be submitted in explanation and justification of the budget request. Additionally, the Department will be prepared to submit any other data that the

committees or their staffs may require.

It would be appreciated if you would lay this proposal before the Senate. A

similar proposal has been submitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

92-886-68 2
•

6

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that enactment of this legislation would',

be consistent with the Administration's objectives.

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 1969 U.S. COAST GUARD PROGRAM FOR PROCURE--

MENT OF VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SHORE AND.

ALAN S. BOYD.

OFFSHORE ESTABLISHMENTS

VESSELS

For procurement, extension of service life, and increasing capability

of vessels:

A. Procurement:

(1) 1 high-endurance cutter $14,500,000

(2) 1 oceanographic cutter 14, 500,000

(3) 1 coastal buoy tender 2, 500,000

(4) 1 ferryboat 150,000

(5) 1 river tender and barge (see items below for construction of depot and moorings) 829,000,

B. Increasing capability:

(1) Install generators and air conditioning on 5 seagoing

buoy tenders 475,000

(2) Improve habitability on 2 coastal buoy tenders_ _ _ 160,000

(3) Install air conditioning on 1 coastal buoy tender_ _ 30,000

(4) Install 2 balloon tracking radars on high-endurance

cutters and modfy 1 balloon tracking radar

installation 500,000

C. Extension of service life:

(1) Improve icebreakers 4,260,000

(2) Increase fuel capacity and improve habitability

on high-endurance cutters 1,000,000,

Total, vessels 38,904,000,

AIRCRAFT

For the procurement of aircraft: (1) 9 medium range helicopters 14,636,000

CONSTRUCTION

For establishment or development of installations and facilities by

acquisition, construction, conversion, extension, or installation

of permanent or temporary public works, including the preparation of sites and furnishing of appurtenances, utilities, and

equipment for the following:

(1) Depot, Greenville, Miss.: Barracks, messing, and operations building; garage; mooring facilities (see Vessels,

item A(5) for associated tender and barge) 165,000

(2) Moorings, Natchez, Miss.: Mooring facilities (see Vessels,

item A(5) for associated tender and barge) 128,000

(3) Station, Suislaw River, Florence, Oreg.: Barracks, messing,

operations, and administration building 307,000

(4) Station, Hobucken, N.C.: Barracks, messing, operations,

and administration building; convert existing building

to garage and storage building, improve facilities 470,000

(5) Moorings, Juneau, Alaska: Enlarge existing building to

to provide adaitional space for electronic spaces,

shipping and receiving area, office space, and other

purposes 213,000

(6) Station, Point Allerton, Hull, Mass.: Barracks, messing,

operations, and administration building; garage and

workshop building; mooring facilities; helicopter pad 604,000

(7) Station, Grays Harbor, Westport, Wash.: Barracks,

messing, operations, and administration building 450,000

(8) Station, Port Aransas, Tex.: Repair and replace waterfront facilities 361,000
7

(9) Loran station, Cape San Bias, Gulf County, Fla.: Barracks

building; convert existing building for messing and

recreation spaces; enlarge loran building, garage and

storage building $267,000

(10) Station, Bayfield, Wis.: Barracks, messing, and operations

building, pier facilities 326,000

(11) Air station, Mobile, Ala.: Barracks, BOQ and messing

building; training, recreational, and exchange facilities,

hangar space conversion 2,223,000

(12) Station, Cape Charles City, Va.: Barracks messing, and

operations building; mooring facilities, helicopter pad_ _ 700,000

(13) Station, Annapolis, Md.: Barracks, messing, and operations building; mooring facilities 612,000

(14) Western Long Island Sound development 

(i) Station, New Haven, Conn.: Barracks, messing,

and administration building; mooring facilities.

(ii) Station, Eatons Neck, N.Y.: Recondition barracks, operations, and administration building; improve

waterfront facilities.

(iii) Station, Fort Totten, N.Y.: Recondition barracks, messing, administration, and work-storage

facilities.

2, 146,000

(15) Base, Portsmouth, Va.: Dredging, bulk heading, site development, utilities 3, 250,000

(16) Station, San Francisco, Calif.: Barracks building, administration building, subsistence building, waterfront front

facilities 3,039,000

(17) Yard, Curtis Bay, Md.: Modify buildings as necessary to

provide for consolidation of mental trades 1,420,000

(18) Station, San Juan, P.R.: Barracks, and messing facilities,

waterfront facilities renewal 1, 300,000

(19) Base, Honolulu, Hawaii: Dock construction 860,000

(20) Base, Galveston, Tex.: Sewage system 100,000

(21) Base, New York, Governors Island, N.Y.: Sewage system_ 2, 500,000

(22) Station, Portsmouth Harbor, Newcastle, N.H.: Mooring

facilities; garage and workshop buildings 1, 047,000

(23) Various locations: Aids to navigation projects including,

where necessary, planning and acquisition of sites 2, 400,000

(24) Arkansas River: Aids to navigation to complete marking

of river 125,000

(25) Various locations: Automation of manned light stations 591,000

(26) Various locations: Replace lightships with very large

buoys 1, 000,000

(27) Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Va.: Galley-mess

building 1, 005,000

(28) Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Va.: Advanced

engineman school classroom and laboratory building_ _ 369,000

(29) Training Center, Cape May, N.J.: Gymnasium and recreation building 2,697,000

(30) Training Center, Alameda, Calif.: Recruit barracks_ _ _ _ 1, 400,000

(31) Training Center, Cape May, N.J.: Medical-dental

building 2, 100,000

(32) Various locations: Public family quarters 8, 000,000

(33) Various locations: Advance planning, construction, design, architectural services, and acquisition of sites in

connection with projects not otherwise authorized by

law 4,035,000

(34) Various locations: Automatic fixed station oceanographic

sensor systems and monitor buoys 1, 450,000

Total, construction 47,660,000

Sec. 2. Alteration of bridges:

(1) Berwick Bay Bridge (near Morgan City, La.) 3, 270,000

(2) Calumet River railroad bridges (near Chicago, Ill.) 2,530,000

Total, bridges 5, 800,000
8

Senator BARTLETT. The first witness will be the Commandant

of the Coast Guard, Admiral Smith. And it might be that Assistant

Secretary Dean would prefer to be the leadoff witness.

At your pleasure, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF ALAN L. DEAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT PRESTEMON, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Senator BARTLETT. Just for the sake of the record, would you have

the gentlemen at the witness table identify themselves?

Mr. DEAN. I am Alan L. Dean, the Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Transportation.

To my right is Mr. Robert Prestemon, who is the Director of

Budget for the Department of Transportation.

Admiral Smith, Commandant of the Coast Guard is to my immediate left, then Captain Scheiderer and finally Rear Adm. Mark Whalen,

the Chief of Staff of the Coast Guard.

Senator BARTLETT. And on your far right?

Mr. DEAN. Excuse me. That gentleman is Vice Adm. Paul Trimble,

the Assistant Commandant of the Coast Guard.

I have a very short statement, Mr. Chairman.

I am sensitive in coming today, as the representative of the Secretary, that this is the first time that the Office of the Secretary of

Transportation has appeared before this committee on behalf of the

bill to authorize appropriations for Coast Guard construction and

procurement. I regard this as a great honor.

I read with interest last year as Assistant Secretary True Davis of

the Department of the Treasury commented on the forthcoming

reorganization which would place the Coast Guard within the Department of Transportation. This reorganization has come to pass.

It might be helpful for the committee if I were to spend a word or

two on the Department of Transportation, itself, and how the Coast

Guard fits into that Department.

First, let me stress that the Department was formed with the

active participation of the Coast Guard and its able officials. Admiral

Trimble, who is here today, in fact chaired the task force which on

behalf of Secretary Boyd and the administration developed the plans

for the organization and operation of the Department.

From the very beginning the Coast Guard was recognized for what

it is and must be: One of the most essential elements of the Department

of Transportation. From the very beginning the Commandant and

his staff have been important advisers to the Secretary of Transportation as we have attempted to get this Department underway.

Let me mention that the Department of Transportation is somewhat

differently organized than Treasury. We have five operating administrations which carry out the many programs entrusted to the Department, and which involve more than $6 billion in annual funds and

nearly 100,000 civilian and military personnel.

The Coast Guard, along with FAA, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, and the St. Lawrence Seaway

Development Corporation, is one of those five operating agencies.
9

As the head of an operating administration, the Commandant reports

directly to the Secretary rather than through an Assistant Secretary,

as was the case previously. The Commandant, within the Department

of Transportation, is one of the immediate advisers of the Secretary.

This is important because it emphasizes the role of the Coast Guard

in our Department and the part which it played in the formulation of

the budget for 1969, which is, of course, reflected in part by the authorization bill before you today.

Furthermore, the Department envisages the Coast Guard as having

a growing and increasingly vital role. With the establishment of the

Department, several new functions were lodged in the Coast Guard.

As you know, just prior to the removal of the Coast Guard from

Treasury, certain customs functions relating to documentation and

admeasurement of vessels were transferred to the Coast Guard.

With the organization of the Department, the Great Lakes Pilotage

Administration functions were placed in the Coast Guard. Certain

additional responsibilities relating to the removal of obstructive

bridges and impediments to navigation were placed in the Coast

Guard.

Furthermore, we are envisaging a strengthened research and development program which is reflected in the President's budget,

more emphasis on small boat safety and, as soon as fiscal circumstances warrant, we plan to move ahead vigorously with the modernization programs relating to vessels and aircraft.

We appreciate the concern expressed by the House committee on

the rate of cutter replacement. We share that concern, but we also

are aware of the general pressure on the Federal budget today. We

believe that desirable as these cutters may be, we cannot under the

circumstances endorse the funding in 1969 of the two additional

high-speed cutters as provided in the House-passed bill. The original

administration authorization bill, which reflects the levels contemplated by the President's budget will, we believe, provide for significant

progress in modernizing the Coast Guard's plant and facilities.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, we certainly hope the day will not be

far distant when we can put that cutter construction program on the

replacement schedule originally contemplated.

I would be happy to answer any questions which you or the members

of the committee might have. .At such time as those questions are

answered, with your consent, I would like to leave the rest of the hearing to the Commandant and his staff.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Secretary.

And of course we will gladly grant you permission to leave. There will

be a few questions first.

Do you have in mind the figures involved in the request made by the

Coast Guard for vessel construction to the Department of Transportation for fiscal 1969?

Mr. DEAN. Mr. Chairman, I have those figures at hand.

I might say first that the total request of the Coast Guard to the

Department of Transportation was reviewed at the Secretary's level,

taking into account the overall requirements of the Department and

the general guidance we were receiving from the administration.

Subsequently, the departmental request went to the Bureau of the

Budget for review where, of course, the entire needs of the executive
10

branch were considered and certain other adjustments, as normally

happens with departmental estimates, were made.

Now, with respect to vessels, the Coast Guard requested of the

Department $117,144,000. The Department itself requested $56,044,-

000. The President's budget includes $38,904,000 for this purpose.

And the authorization bill, of course, reflects approximately this

amount.

Senator BARTLETT. The budget figure?

Mr. DEAN. That is iorrect.

Senator Bartlett. How much money is added to the bill by reason

of the House committee's action, and the House action in granting the

Coast Guard authorization for two additional high-endurance cutters?

Mr. DEAN. $29 million, Mr Chairman, was added by the House for

the purpose of increasing the number of high-endurance cutters in

the authorization bill from one to three.

Senator BARTLETT. I won't ask you any of the technical details on

that. And the Coast Guard's request was slashed approximately

from $117 to $56 million within the Department?

Mr. DEAN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BARTLETT. Then the Bureau of the Budget reduced that

further to $38 million?

Mr. DEAN. Closer to $39 million.

Senator BARTLETT. What is contemplated by way of construction

with that $38 or $39 million?

Mr. DEAN. The program for construction involves, as the major

items, one high-endurance cutter, one oceanographic cutter, a replacement for a coastal buoy tender, and also within that amount significant expenditures for extending the service life of existing vessels and

to improve the capability of existing vessels.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

As immediate adviser to the Secretary of Transportation, does the

Commandant of the. Coast Guard sit on his left-hand side, or his

right-hand side?

Mr. DEAN. We have a very informal Department, Mr. Chairman,

but on every Monday morning the Commandant and the other advisers sit around the table with the Secretary for a general review of

the week's problems of the Department. I guess the Commandant

normally takes a position somewhat to the right of the Secretary.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, when I saw this authorization request. I

thought it had been prepared within the Department of the Treasury.

Frankly, we had hoped for better and bigger things with this shift.

Mr. DEAN. Mr. Chairman, let me say this: No one is more disappointed than the Secretary of Transportation that he is unable to

come before this committee or before the appropriations committees

with the kind of funding—particularly for the cutter replacement program, which the planning of the Coast Guard called for and which they

think is a sound and essential undertaking. But as the chairman

knows, and as the action on the floor of the Senate yesterday indicated,

these are very difficult times to move forward on the so-called controllable items, such as the construction of new facilities and replacements.

And the Secretary, as a principal official of the executive branch, had

to take that into account.
11

Senator BARTLETT. This is true, but it is likewise true, is it not,

that the smaller the figure presented to the Appropriations Committee, the less likelihood there is that you will come out with even

that?

Mr. DEAN. We understand that, yes.

Senator BARTLETT. I guess that is perhaps why the House com.-

Taittee acted as it did.

What happened to the nuclear icebreaker program?

Mr. DEAN. I think it would be well for the Commandant to go into

*greater detail on this, but within the Department's councils, it was

felt that at this stage the Polar Mission and the subsequent design

features of the icebreaker had not reached a sufficient point of definition to go in this year for an additional icebreaker.

The Commandant can go into detail on the reasons that underpin

that conclusion, which is one the Coast Guard shares with the

'Secretary.

Senator BARTLETT. Did the $117 million include any money for

this program?

Mr. DEAN. No; at no stage in this fiscal year's deliberations, did

we have an icebreaker.

Senator BARTLETT. I have no further questions.

Mr. DEAN. Excuse me. Let me correct the record on that, Mr.

Chairman.

The initial $117 million did have the icebreaker. It disappeared at

a very early stage, but it was in the initial submission.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

Go in peace, and we hope when you return next year, you will be

asking for far, far more money for an authorization.

Mr. DEAN. We share that hope, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF ADM. WILLARD J. SMITH, COMMANDANT, U.S.

COAST GUARD, ACCOMPANIED BY ADM. PAUL E. TRIMBLE,

ADM. Ms A. WHALEN, CAPT. E. D. SCHEIDERER, AND CAPT.

J. P. LATIMER

Senator BARTLETT. Admiral Smith, whenever you are ready.

Admiral SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have a rather lengthy statement,

but I have a brief of the statement which will save us a little time,

if you prefer, and I could enter the full statement in the record.

Senator BARTLETT. I informed you informally before the hearing

started that some high priority business will make it necessary to

_recess or adjourn this hearing at 11:30. But that is over an hour

away.

Why don't you start out with the longer statement, and then we

will see how the time situation is.

Admiral SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome this

opportunity to discuss our capital improvement program with you.

This is my first appearance before you under the sponsorship of the

Department of Transportation.

The Coast Guard has enjoyed a very active and challenging first

year in the new Department. Under the aggressive leadership of Sec-
12

retary Boyd and his staff, we have been encouraged in our efforts to

develop initiatives in the fields of maritime safety and the marine

sciences while still performing our historical statutory duties. In

addition we are continuing to support the U.S. effort in the Vietnam conflict. Let me briefly discuss some of these activities with you.

Since I last appeared before this committee, the Navy has requested

and we have provided five high-endurance cutters for deployment

with Operation Market Time to interdict the sea supply routes of the

Vietcong off the coast of Vietnam. You will recall we previously

furnished 26 patrol craft along with explosive loading teams and an

electronic long-range aids to navigation system. It now appears that

these requirements will continue for the duration of the conflict

requiring the rotation of five major vessels approximately every

8 months. This deployment has placed a heavy operating load on our

remaining high endurance cutter fleet, increasing the annual days

away from homeport by about 18 percent. With the addition of this

squadron to the Navy forces operating off the coast of Vietnam, we

now have over 1,350 personnel in the Southeast Asia theater. Again

our military preparedness capability is highlighted and continues our

long tradition of prompt response in contingency situations.

We had hoped to appear before you this year with our initial recommendations for replacement of our icebreakers. However, as we examine the U.S. position in the polar regions in greater depth, recognizing that we are building vessels for specialized operation beyond

the year 2,000, we find that identifying the many requirements and

their precise natures is a most complex task.

Previously we had hoped that the icebreaker design work could

follow closely the cataloging of requirements, but both efforts have

slowed in view of the complexity of the requirements problem. This is

under further study by a Coast Guard task group now and something

more definitive will be available by next year. In fact, the Department, assisted by us, just held a long range polar objectives conference

with other government agencies and interested groups to examine the

economic and scientific requirements for transportation in the polar

regions. In the meantime, a design expertise has been developed for

expeditious application to the various vessel requirements now being

identified.

The major shift in our program emphasis this past year occurred in

the area of marine science. We have for years allocated some of the

operational employment of our facilities to the collection of oceanographic data, but for the most part this has been of a fairly routine

and limited nature. In addition to oceanographic data collected by

all of our ocean station vessels, the Coast Guard currently operates

three vessels whose primary mission is oceanography, and we have

again included one replacement oceanographic vessel in this authorization request.

Last year a national data buoy systems study contract under Coast

Guard management was completed which indicated the feasibility

of collecting oceanographic and meteorological data by buoys from

ocean areas and along our coast. I have established a project staff

to direct the recommended research and development of hardware

and support facilities required to implement this system. I feel the

Coast Guard is uniquely qualified to manage such a system as it

develops by virtue of our long experience with similar hardware in tho

aids-to-navigation field.
13

We have also conducted preliminary studies into several other areas

of marine science and marine safety, including but not limited to:

(1) the Coast Guard's role in inspection, certification, and search and

rescue for nonmilitary submersibles which are increasing in number,

(2) a continental shelf maritime safety program, (3) a national plan

for navigation for standardized devel )pment of nationwide electronic

aids, (4) a revision of the national search-and-rescue plan, (5) the control and abatement of water pollution by oil and chemicals, and (6)

new approaches in the field of recreational boating safety. Each of

these areas of intensified development is in the national interest and

will subsequently require the addition of improved facilities in the

Coast Guard inventory and specially trained personnel to operate

them.

This year's request provides authorization for projects totaling

$107 million, which is approximately the same total requested last

year. This means that we have held our capital request to an absolute

minimum consistent with the President's policy to limit programs to

most urgently needed requirements. In order to keep within the funding limitations and continue modest expansion in several areas where

growth and workload continue to increase, we must necessarily stretch

out our replacement plans for coverage facilities.

VESSELS

The vessel request before you amounts to $38,904,000 and incluies

some new construction, a small amount for increasing capability of

existing vessels and some funding to extend the service life of vesseli

which must be operated somewhat longer than previously scheduled.

Thus we can continue to carry out currently planned programs and

functions while living with the stretched-out replacement program.

Only one-378-foothigh-endurance cutter is included in our authorization request again this year. This will provide 11 of these vessels since

the replacement program commenced in 1962. While not moving quite

as well as we had hoped, we have been able to meet all of our commitments involving high endurance cutters includingff the increased

operational employment cited as the result of the deployments to

Southeast Asia. We have been able to do this through the unceasing

efforts of our dedicated operating personnel and the resourcefulness

of our engineering and other support personnel although operating

margins reserved for unforeseen casualties are slender indeed.

Reports thus far indicate that the USCGC Hamilton, the first of

the 378-foot class cutters, is a very fine ship highly capable of carrying

out her planned missions. In fact, she and the USCGC Dallas have

now joined .our operational fleet. Two others of this class, USCGC

Mellon and USCGC Chase, have also been delivered and are undergoing preliminary shakedown training and operations preparatory to

joining the Coast Guard fleet.

As 1 noted earlier, we are again requesting authority to construct

an oceanographic cutter. It will replace the existing 180-foot buoy

tender which has been modified for limited oceanographic work and

now supports international ice patrol research. This committee recognized the need for such a vessel last year and authorized its

construction. The Appropria lions Committee disallowed the use of
14

funds for that purpose, directing instead the construction of an

additional high endurance cutter.

We now have a greater need than before for an oceanographic vessel

to conduct multidiscipline oceanographic research from fringe ice to

the tropics in support of projects approved in the national oceanographic program. The National Council of Marine Resources and

Engineering Development also supports our request for a modern

oceanographic cutter, knowing of the Nation's needs for many such

vessels. Additionally, the President reaffirmed his interest in the field

of marine science in his state of the Union message when he said:

This year, I shall propose that we launch, with other nations, an exploration of

the ocean depths to tap its wealth, and its energy, and its abundance.

As a result of a buoy tender utilization study we recently coin

pleted, it was determined that a modern buoy tender and a buoy boat

suitable for aids to navigation work in the Norfolk, Va.—Chesapeake

Bay, Maryland area could do the work previously accomplished by

two 30-year-old tenders. Accordingly, we are requesting authorization for one new coastal buoy tender which will have a crew of 35 men

as compared to the total of 56 men aboard the two tenders being

replaced.

In order to avoid new construction or costly renovation we plan to

acquire a diesel electric ferryboat, used but in very good condition,

to replace a smaller 38-year-old steam-powered ferryboat which provides vehicle and passenger transportation between Governors

Island and lower Manhattan Island. The ferryboat will be purchased

from the city of New York, and will give us three vessels with the

same type propulsion which affords ease and economy of maintenance

and operation.

Under new construction we are requesting one river tender and

barge for use on the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge, La.

and Natchez, Miss. A small manned depot at Greenville and an unmanned mooring at Natchez are also required to enable us to complete the assumption of lower Mississippi River buoy maintenance.

To increase the capability of existing vessels, we plan to procure

and install larger auxiliary generators on five seagoing buoy tenders.

Since these vessels operate continually in warm climates, air conditioning for living spaces will be installed at the same time. In another

project, rehabilitation of living spaces will be carried out on two

coastal tenders.

Continuing a project that the committee approved in each of the

past 2 years we are requesting authority for installation of three more

balloon tracking radar equipments on high endurance cutters. You

will recall that the International Civil Aviation Organization and the

Department of Defense now require meteorological data up to 100,000

feet, and this can only be obtained by the use of these installations

on our ocean station vessels.

The need to extend the service life of the existing polar icebreakers

has been touched upon. I will not dwell on it longer, except to call

attention to our request for additional funding to complete this rehabilitation program begun several years back since it will be some

time before replacement of icebreakers is accomplished.

We are also, requesting completion of the program to rehabilitate

the old 327-foot high-endurance cutters. This committee authorized

accomplishment of this program for all six cutters of this class last
15

year, but it was subsequently found necessary to reallocate a portion

of the funds to make up the requirements for the fiscal year 1968

378-foot high-endurance cutter construction project.

As noted earlier, the Appropriations Committee directed construction of one additional high-endurance cutter instead of the less costly

oceanographic cutter but did not provide the additional necessary

funding. Incidentally, the funds for this cutter have been placed in

reserve for the rest of this year to assist in holding down costs and

expenditures in the current tight fiscal situation, and also to give us

the option of requesting bids for more than one cutter at the same

time in fiscal year 1969 if that approach appears likely to result in the

lowest overall cost to the Government.

AVIATION

The aviation plan review, begun prior to entering the Department

of Transportation, has been essentially completed. Although additional questions were thereby raised, and these are currently under

further study, the authorization request reflects approval of the first

year's plan under the study. In consequence we are requesting nine

more medium-range twin-turbine (HH-3F) helicopters for $14,636,000

to replace the aging medium-range search aircraft (HU-16E). As a

result of this year's acquisitions, there will still be 32 of these old

aircraft remaining in our inventory.

SHORE PLANT

I would now like to turn to the needs of the shore plant. Authorization amounting to $47,660,000 in fiscal year 1969 is requested to

satisfy the most urgent of these needs ranging from repair and replacement of aging facilities to construction of new operational and support

units; provisions for family housing through our construction and

leased housing programs; installation of navigation aids; financial

support of alterations to bridges obstructing navigation, and support

of the national efforts in oceanography.

Authorization is requested for substantial modernization and replacement at five of our small multipurpose stations. These projects

are at Siuslaw River, Florence, Oreg. ; Hobucken, N.C.; Grays Harbor,

Westport, Wash.; Port Aransas, Tex. • and Eatons Neck, N.Y. In two

other locations, Point Allerton, 'Lill, Mass., and Bayfield, Wis.,

complete stations are being rebuilt at new sites where they can be

more responsive to their missions.

We are requesting construction of a single building complex to

adequately house the required barracks-BOQ, galley/mess, and recreation facilities at our air station in Mobile, Ala. Existing spaces are

unsatisfactory for these purposes and inadequate to support the

planned increase of personnel which will result from the establishment

of the icebreaker-helicopter detachment at this station.

This request also includes authorization for establishment and

construction of new permanent multipurpose stations at Cape Charles

City, Va.; Annapolis, Md.; Fort Totten, N.Y.; and New Haven,

Conn. The Annapolis station will replace a houseboat unit that has

served the area since 1963. The new stations at Fort Totten and New

Haven along with the coustruction at Eastons Neck station are a

coordinated development primarily for meeting the search, rescue,
16

and boating safety demands of the intensively used Western Long

Island Sound.

Projects for improvements at the loran station, Cape San Bias,

Gulf County, Fla., and the Moorings, Juneau, Alaska, represent the

balance of the reqest for small operational units.

As with the projects planned for the smaller units, the major

emphasis at the support bases is replacement and modernization of

facilities. At Portsmouth, Va., we are requesting authorization to

start construction of a new base to supplant the old, deteriorated,

inadequate facilities at Berkley and Portsmouth, Va. The work in

fiscal 1969 is the first phase of a multiyear project.

Authorization is also requested to construct barracks, subsistence,

administration, and mooring facilities at station, San Francisco,

Calif.; consolidate metal trades industrial activities at our yard,

Curtis Bay, Md.; construct piers at base, Honolulu, Hawaii; sewage

disposal facilities at base, Galveston, Tex., and Governors Island,

N.Y.; replace mooring facilities at station, Portsmouth Harbor, New

Castle, N.H.; and improve facilities at San Juan, Puerto Rico.

In addition to the vessel construction for aids to navigation mentioned earlier, this request includes the annual program for miscellaneous urgent and selected aids to navigation; the completion of

marking the Arkansas River where improved by the Corps of Engineers; the continuation of programs for automation of light stations;

and the replacement of lightships with large unmanned navigational

buoys.

All that I have discussed would be of little use without adequately

trained personnel to operate the equipments or use the facilities.

Consequently, we are requesting authorization to bring our training

plant into closer alinement with the rest of the service by constructing

an enlisted men's galley/mess building and an advanced engineman

school building at the Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Va.; a,

gymnasium-recreational facility and a medical-dental facility at Trainincr

6

Center, Cape May, N.J.; and a 500-man recruit training barracks

at Training Center, Alameda, Calif.

It will be noted that no specific projects are included this year for

the Academy. In 1969 we are proceeding with design and site acquisition for several projects tentatively programed for 1970.

Last year we planned to construct a large block of family housing

at Governors Island. Subsequently, we were able to join with the Navy

in large projects at Treasure Island, Calif., and Boston, Mass.

'

with

the fiscal year 1968 funds to the economic advantage of the Coast

Guard. We are now ready to proceed with the Governors Island project which will provile about 150 apartments for enlisted personnel.

The balance of the project funds will be used for smaller projects of

family housing at various stations.

As in past years, authorization for survey and design at various

facilities is requested. This permits advance planning, design, procurement of architectural services and site acquisition for projects which

will be included in following years. Through this means we are able

to move ahead without undue delay particularly when large and

complex projects are authorized and funded.

Continuing with the Coast Guard's capability to contribute to the

national oceanographic picture is a line item to procure and install

sensor systems at some of our offshore light structures. The data col-
17

lected by these sensor systems indicate wave heights, temperature,

salinity and current, and will be available to and used by many Federal

agencies in research projects such as forecasting, pollution control,

and fisheries.

OBSTRUCTIVE BRIDGES

Last year we assumed responsibility from the Corps of Engineers

for the alteration of obstructive bridges over navigable waters. As

you recall the fiscal year 1968 authorization was $3.8 million. This

year's request of $5.8 million includes phased funding requirements

for three of the 16 projects commenced by the Corps of Engineers.

Approximately $47 million will be required in future years to complete

projects previously declared obstructive to navigation by the Corps

of Engineers.

Mr. Chairman, we feel we have molded a viable package for the

Coast Guard's fiscal year 1969 -capital investment request. We thank

you for the opportunity to present our program. My staff and I will

be pleased to develop further such areas as you may desire.

Senator BARTLETT. Very well, Admiral. I will put one question to

you and then ask Senator Griffin if he desires to ask further questions.

Then I have several questions after Senator Griffin has concluded.

I only want to ask you this now: At the insistence of Senator

Griffin who was far from pleased with the library at the Coast Guard

Academy, the committee last year in its report on the authorization

bill incorporated this paragraph and I quote:

Members of the Committee inspecting the Academy as members of the board

of visitors found the library facilities to be clearly inadequate. The Committee

believes that the Coast Guard sliould undertake immediate steps to enlarge the

Academy's library facilities and strongly recommends that it proceed at the

earliest possible date with the planning and design of this high priority project..

What happened, Admiral Smith?

Admiral SMITH. Mr. Chairman, we are actually going ahead with

that project. But the first thing we have to do is find a site for this

library.

On our present site, the land we own at the Academy, there is not a

suitable area. This year we are going to go ahead with acquisition of

some additional property just north of the Academy, we hope, and

the Academy library is very much in our minds.

I don't think that we would save any time by requesting the funds

this year, because it is going to take us the better part of the year to

obtain the necessary land to go on with our Academy program.

Senator BARTLETT. And you have the money for that?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir; we have the money for the site acquisition.

It is in the 1969 request.

Senator BARTLETT. Senator Griffin?

Senator GRIFFIN. The site acquisition and planning funds?

Admiral SMITH. We are prepared to go ahead with the site acquisition and the design of the library.

Senator GRIFFIN. Let me ask a couple of questions here.

As I understand it, the initial Coast Guard request of the Department of Transportation included an icebreaker, but this was dropped

in the request to the Bureau of the Budget.

What assurances, if any, has the Department of Transportation

given to the Coast Guard that approval will be given for an icebreaker

in next year's authorization?
18

Admiral SMITH. Senator, we have no assurance that we will have

an icebreaker in next year's authorization. But I think that we will be

prepared by next year to know exactly what type of a ship we would

like to have.

I would like to go back for a moment and mention this Polar

Conference that we sponsored not long ago. When we examined this

icebreaker question generally, we were originally interested in building

an icebreaker that would be doing most of the things that we use

them for now, which is a combination of logistic support in the Arctic

and a limited amount of oceanographic work. But when we were faced

with the magnitude of the investment required to replace the icebreaker that we have, we thought we should try to get a better forecast

of what the Nation's requirements were in the Arctic over the next

several years. And this we feel would be directly connected with the

development of the Arctic as far as its natural resources are concerned,

and as far as its total transportation system is concerned.

So we are trying to relate this type of planning to the design of a

vessel that would be able to contribute to the Nation's needs in the

years ahead in the Arctic and the Antarctic.

Senator GRIFFIN. Admiral, the Coast Guard request approved

by the Department of Transportation for construction facilities and

improvements was in excess of $68 million. The House gave you $47

million.

Could you tell us what was contained in the $21 million that you

did not get?

Admiral SMITH. Senator, I can't quite identify the figures that you

are referring to.

Senator GRIFFIN. Well, it appears to us from the information we

have that the difference between the request of the Coast Guard to

the Department of Transportation and the amount approved by the

Bureau of the Budget, in the category of other facilities and improvements, that that difference is about $15 million. It dropped

from $68,196,000 to $53,460,000.

There are three categories, as I understand it, vessel construction,

aircraft acquisition, and other facilities and improvements. We are

talking here about other facilities and improvements and construction. Then the figure in the House bill drops down to $47 million

as I understand it.

Admiral SMITH. Senator, I understand your question now.

The amount that is included in the authorization request that was

passed by the House was the amount that was requested by the Coast

Guard that was in the President's budget. We can identify 

Senator GRIFFIN. I see.

That $47 million, other items need to be added to that?

Admiral SMITH. Yes.

Now we can identify the difference between that and the amount

that was submitted by the Department.

Is that what you are asking for?

Senator GRIFFIN, Yes.

Admiral SMITH. Do you want to do this item by item, as to which

items fell out?

Senator GRIFFIN. Yes.

Senator BARTLETT. Are these the items that fell out within the

Department of Transportation itself?
19

Admiral SMITH. No sir; these would be the Bureau of the Budget.

I will ask Captain gcheiderer to answer that.

Captain SCHEIDERER. Sir; I believe you want the difference between

what we originally requested in the preview estimate and what

finally developed in the Bureau of the Budget request, the President's

budget.

Senator GRIFFIN. Yes; let's concentrate on that. I had thought

there was also a fall off as between the Bureau of the Budget figure

and what the House included in their authorization bill.

So let's concentrate on the falloff between your request to the

Department and what happened in the Bureau of the Budget.

Captain SCHEIDERER. All right, sir.

Going down the list, in Washington, D.C., we requested a radio

station barracks for $943,000, initially. That is not in the current

budget.

We had requested an expansion of a Coast Guard station at

Tilghman,. Md. for $973,000. That is not currently in the budget.

Crisfield, Md., a new station, was requested for $699,000. That is

not now in the budget.

Senator GRIFFIN. Is that a rescue-type operation?

Captain SCHEIDERER. Yes, sir.

'

it would be a regular Coast Guard

rescue station, with several boats.

Then at Port Canaveral, Fla., we had requested $651,000 to expand

a rescue station there. That is not now in.

Alpena, Mich., for $602,000, a station was requested. That is not in.

Santa Cruz, Calif., a new station for $350,000, is not now in.

Fort Myers Beach, Fla.

'

we concentrated replacing a houseboat

there with a permanent facility for $961,000. That dropped.

Key Largo, Fla., we proposed a new station there for $868,000.

That is out.

At Auke Bay, Alaska, a new station was proposed initially for

$575,000. That is out.

Senator BARTLETT. What was that for?

Captain SCHEIDERER. That was a rescue station, sir. They are

currently using boats from an adjoining vicinity.

Senator BARTLETT. It is absolutely ridiculous to cut that out.

Captain SCHEIDERER. Well, sir 

Senator BARTLETT. No comment needed.

Captain SCHEIDERER. Yes, sir.

Tybee Island, Ga., a station, a rescue station to replace a light

station, for $525,000.

We requested a new station at Dauphin Island, Ala., for $600,000.

We requested a new station at Calcasieu Pass, La., $346,000.

We also requested a station for Morro Bay, Calif., for $500,000.

Those, sir, are the increased capability items that we had requested

and that are not now currently in the President's budget.

In addition, of, course, there were some, included in that "other"

category, that represented expansion of support facilities that are

not now included. And there are several training items also that are

not now included.

And that is basically it.

Senator GRIFFIN. The facility at Alpena, was that an expansion

of an existing facility?
20

Captain SCHEIDERER. No sir. We have nothing there now, other

than Coast Guard auxiliary.

Senator GRIFFIN. This was going to be a new station.

Captain SCHEIDERER. It would be a regular station; yes, sir.

Senator GRIFFIN. Why, in general terms, did the Coast Guard ask

for funding for all of these facilities that you have mentioned?

Admiral SMITH. Senator, if I could speak to this, in our preliminary

estimate to the Department there were no limitations placed on

presenting what we thought we would need in our long-range planning

program to improve our capabilities.

So that we started out from the standpoint of carefully listing and

pricing out all of the things that we felt we could use to good advantage

and that were part of our long-range planning to carry out our duties

properly.

So that at this point there were no ceilings or limitations placed on

our considerations.

Senator GRIFFIN. I think it is perfectly obvious that in almost all

of the areas you mentioned, the increase in boating, I would assume,

has put a greatly increased burden on the Coast Guard, and additional

facilities are needed to try to perform the functions and provide the

services that the Coast Guard is expected to provide.

Is that a reasonable statement? Can you elaborate on it?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. In fact, our long-range planning for our

small shore units, the rescue stations, is primarily designed in support

of recreational boating, except for search and rescue purposes and for

law enforcement.

They also provide a good service for us in helping to take care of the

aids to navigation in a particular area. But the basic justification for

these stations is the need for them because of the very rapidly increased

use of recreational boats.

Senator GRIFFIN. The Coast Guard, aside from the Army Corps

of Engineers, of course, which is directly involved in the construction

of public works, is the one branch of what we generally look upon as

the armed services from which the public directly benefits. The public

benefits indirectly of course from all of the armed services and so

forth, but with respect to the Coast Guard the public is a direct

beneficiary in most of the things you do.

And, of course, coming from a State where we have so much water

around us, I am so conscious of the rapid increase in the use of boats

and recreational boating and fishing and the dangers that go with

it. It is a little disturbing as we see the budget for the other branches

of the services going up so rapidly that the amount allowed by the

Bureau of the Budget for the Coast Guard construction of such

facilities remains the same.

This is just a comment on my part that I wanted to put into the

record.

I would like, Admiral, to turn to another matter.

There is a resolution pending in the Congress cosponsored by 31

Senators and some 70 Members of the House of Representatives which

would declare a new policy of the United States with respect to our

territorial sea.

As you well know since the days of Thomas Jefferson, we have

claimed only a 3-mile limit, although with respect to fishing rights there.

is a generally recognized 12-mile fishing area.
21

The resolution to which I refer is Senate Joint Resolution 136 and

it declares in effect that our 3-mile limit would continue with respect

to other nations of the world which also recognize only a 3-mile limit

with respect to their shores but that with respect to nations which

claim a wider limit that henceforth our territorial limit as to those

nations would correspond to the territorial limit that they claim.

For example, North Korea and Russia claim and we respect a 12-

mile limit off their shores.

The resolution provides that in no case would we claim a territorial

limit wider than 12 miles.

I am not going to ask you to comment on the policy, as to whether

or not this is a wise change in policy, but I would like to direct your

attention to the problem or the question of enforcement of such a

policy which would fall on the Coast Guard to a large degree. 

In commenting on that, I would ask you to take into consideration

the fact that at the present time the fishing area extends out 12 miles,

as I understand it, although under certain circumstances, for example,

a bilateral fishing agreement with the Soviet Union allows the Soviets

to fish in prescribed areas within 6 miles off of Long Island in New York

during certain periods of the year.

Do you have any comment on how the Coast Guard would be

affected if the Congress should decide to adopt such a resolution?

Admiral SMITH. Senator, we have had a number of discussions of

this particular problem. We are well aware of the resolution. And to

speak just for a moment on the fishing matter, in addition to the rights

of the Russians which you mentioned, United States has agreements

with a number of other countries that involve traditional fishing rights.

There is one agreement, for example, with Mexico where there is an

agreement on the part of both Nations that the vessels be permitted

to fish within the 12-mile limit. Enforcement of the fishing, the new

fishing boundaries going out to 12 miles has placed an additional

operating program on the Coast Guard. That is, we have to cover a

considerably larger area than we covered before.

Senator GRIFFIN. But you have to do that now whether or not we

adopt this resolution, don't you?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir, I was coming to that. But we have been

able to do this, and I think we have been quite effective in our patrols,

both on the west coast, in Alaska and the northeast fisheries.

With respect to the change in the territorial waters, it would be

difficult for us to anticipate what might happen in the future. But since

vessels may pass through the territorial waters, innocent passage if they

are carrying out their normal trade, we would not anticipate this would

place a particularly heavy burden on us as far as the surveillance of the

waters are concerned.

At the present time we do not make a special effort to keep all of our

territorial waters under surveillance. It is only on the basis of an incident that requires our attention. And this would not change even

though the territorial waters were extended to 12 miles.

Senator GRIFFIN. When a vessel comes within 12 miles, is it the

ordinary practice to require it to identify itself?

Admiral SMITH. Are you talking about now within the territorial

waters?

Senator GRIFFIN. Well, within the territorial waters, that would

be within 3 miles now.
22

Admiral SMITH. Within 12 miles of course they are still outside of

the territorial waters, so there is no requirement imposed on them in

any way, except for the enforcement of the fisheries rights.

Senator GRIFFIN. If it looked like a fishing vessel and it were

within 12 miles, you would seek to identify that vessel?

Admiral SMITH. We would seek to identify it. But unless it was

actually in active fishing we would not disturb the vessel. Only if it

was actually fishing within those waters would we challenge the ship.

As far as the territorial waters are concerned, if the vessel is just

passing through our territorial waters, is not entering any of our ports,

we would not take any special action unless there was something in

connection with this passage that required our attention. That is, we

would not keep them under surveillance, or we would not make any

particular attempt to identify them, if they were just in innocent

passage.

Senator GRIFFIN. All right.

I realize this is outside of the scope of the legislation before us and

I won't pursue it any further.

Thank you for answering the questions. That is all.

Senator BARTLETT. I would like to join with Senator Griffin in his

statement that the Coast Guard, of all of the armed services, continues in effect to be whittled down. He said he was a little disturbed

and there I differ from him because I am vastly disturbed. That too

is a comment that has nothing to do with the questions I am about

to put to you.

Admiral Smith, what is your feeling insofar as the Coast Guard

itself is concerned, unrelated to the Bureau of the Budget decision

and the Department of Transportation decision, to the action of the

House in adding an amendment to the authorization bill for the

construction of two additional high endurance cutters?

Admiral SMITH.. Senator, as you are well aware, we feel that the

replacement of our large ships is an important program as far as we

are concerned. So that actually we welcome any indication that this

program has the interest and attention and support of our committees

in the Congress.

Senator BARTLETT. What is the average age of your high endurance

cutter fleet?

Admiral SMITH. We have actually in our inventory now three

different classes. The 327-foot cutters, there are six of those. They

were built in the mid-1930's, 1936, and 1937.

The second class are the 255-foot cutters, which were built by the

Coast Guard and there are 12 of those, and they were built during the

war, completed over a period of about 3 years.

The 311-foot Navy vessels, the AVP vessels that were transferred

from the Navy to the Coast Guard, were also built during the early

part of the war.

So our ships, these three classes, are all very close to 30 years average

age. I have a figure here that the whole fleet averages 24.6 years.

Senator BARTLETT. Is a merchant vessel considered obsolescent at

that age?

Admiral SMITH. Senator, I am not sure just where they make this

decision. I think it would depend somewhat on the trade and the

type of ship. But generally merchant vessels after 20 years, with

improvements of design and increase in sizes of the ships that we

are operating now, would start to fall into the class of being obsolete.
23

Senator BARTLETT. How many new or relatively new high-endurance

cutters does the Coast Guard have?

Admiral SMITH. We have 10 vessels that have been funded, four

that are delivered and operating and the other six in various stages

of completion except that the money for one is presently in reserve

in the Bureau of the Budget.

Senator BARTLETT. Is it in reserve in the Bureau of the Budget at

the request of the Coast Guard, or at the insistence of the Bureau?

Admiral SMITH. Of course this is not the only item that is in reserve

at the present time, Senator. And the amount of money that we presently have in reserve in the Bureau of the Bureau is about $20 million.

This came about through a combination of the program of expenditure

reductions for fiscal 1968, and the congressional resolution that placed

limitations.

Senator BARTLETT. And lack of funding on the part of the Appropriations Committee for the high-endurance cutters?

Admiral SMITH. Well, actually we were in a position where if we

had been able to go ahead with the construction at that time of obtaining enough funds from other xareas to make up the difference. But this

did influence us in placing that item in the reserve.

Senator BARTLETT. Did you place it in reserve or did the Bureau of

the Budget?

Admiral SMITH. We had a hand in selecting those items that were

placed in reserve in the overall picture, yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. Did you have any voice in determining the

total amount of money that was placed in the reserve?

Admiral SMITH. After the figures were arrived at as to how much

money must be placed in reserve, there were discussions of course

within our Department as to how this would be apportioned, and we

participated in these discussions.

Of course we had no control over the final decision as such.

Senator BARTLETT. Are all of the new cutters at home or are some

of them in Vietnam? I mean off Vietnam?

Admiral SMITH. The new cutters are all in U.S. waters.

Senator BARTLETT. Your replacement schedule calls for a modern

high-endurance fleet to be completed in what year?

Admiral SMITH. The date that we used when we submitted this

plan and started this replacement program was 1974.

Senator BARTLETT. To what extent has it lagged in terms of the

year of completion?

Admiral SMITH. The first vessels that we wanted to replace under

this program were the AVP's which were the ex-Navy vessels. And

there are still 11 of those in operation that require replacement now

with five such replacements still unfunded.

Senator BARTLETT. Actually very, very slight progress has been

made; is that not a fact?

Admiral SMITH. I would say moderate progress, Senator. We have

now 10 that have been funded which I think is a little better than

slight progress.

Senator BARTLETT. Last year we authorized $12 million for the

oceanographic vessel and as you said, the Appropriations Committee

did not appropriate any money for that vessel, but directed you to

build an additional high-endurance cutter. Do you feel that your

justification for the oceanographic vessel is strong enough this year so
24

that you will be successful before the Appropriations Committees

if we should authorize funds for construction of such a vessel?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir; I am very hopeful that the Appropriations

Committee will entertain this request more favorable this year. I

think that we have had a chance to discuss it with the committee

more thoroughly, I think they have a better understanding of our

justification for the vessel.

Senator BARTLETT. You asked for $12 million last year for this

oceanographic ship and this year $14% million. Why the very considerable difference? 

Admiral SMITH. When we made our estimate, Senator, last year

for the oceanographic ship we had not really completed the design of

the vessel. I would like to ask Captain Latimer to mention some of

the factors that have caused this increase in the amount of money

that we are asking for.

Captain LATIMER. When we started out making estimates on the

oceanographic ship, Senator, we were replacing a converted buoy

tender, which has had a makeshift rig which we used in the North

Atlantic for a number of years.

We were going to design a good replacement for that vessel. But

there have been two areas of development recently in the whole

oceanographic business. One is that the entire business has received

considerable impetus. Industry has developed much new equipment,

much of this on their own initiative and with their own funds, incidentally.

The equipment available for oceanographic research is far beyond

what it was only a short time ago. The general increase in interest in

the whole program has resulted in the entire governmental and private

scientific community generating new needs, new things that they

would like to explore, discover, get information on.

We have been in close contact with the National Council on Marine

Resources and Development and in order to satisfy our customers,

you might say, for this data, we find that it requires a much higher

degree of instrumentation and sophistication than we had originally

visualized.

Practically all of this increase is an increase in scientific capability.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, sir. Admiral Smith, what kind of a

patrol on the part of the Coast Guard can we expect along the 175th

meridian west line during the 1968 Bristol Bay salmon run? As we

all know, that is the delineating line east of which the Japanese are

not supposed to fish.

Admiral SMITH. Mr. Chairman, we can expect to cover this area

both with a vessel at the scene on patrol and in addition we will use

aircraft whenever we can to keep the area under surveillance.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you. Now, Admiral Smith, the authorization bill before us calls for funding in the amount of $107 million,

Tight?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Senator BARTLETT. Is it true that the Coast Guard request originally

mailed to the Department of Transportation was in the aggregate

amount of $558,600,000?

Admiral SMITH. Senator, the figure I have here for our 1969 preview

estimates with the Department—this was our starting point in talking

about our program—was $224 million.
25

Senator BARTLETT. Not $558 million?

Admiral SMITH. No, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, in the House hearings, Admiral, page 41,

you are recorded as having said, and I quote: "Our total request for

fiscal 1969 was $558.6 million."

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. I understand now, Mr. Chairman, this

is our total budget request, not just the A.C. & I.

Senator BARTLETT. Yes. In other words, you got whacked within

the Department of Transportation to the tune of over $400 million?

Is that right?

Admiral SMITH. Could I go off the record for a moment, Mr.

Chairman?

Senator BARTLETT. Sure.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator BARTLETT. On the record.

Admiral SMITH. I would like to ask Captain Scheiderer to speak

to this. I think there is a little misunderstanding.

Captain SCHEIDERER. Sir, this $558 million we were speaking of

consisted of about $392 million for operating expenses, $107 million

for acquisition, construction, and improvement, $51 million for retired

pay and $9 million for research and development.

So that grossed out at $558 million total budget request of the

Coast Guard. Now when you attempt to relate our $107 million

A.C. & I. to that total request, I think this is where you came up

with the $400 million, sir. But that is not the reduction. No, sir; it

is not.

Senator BARTLETT. What was the reduction?

Captain SCHEIDERER. In gross, sir?

Senator BARTLETT. Yes.

Captain SCHEIDERER. It amounted to approximately $130 million.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, Admiral Smith, I know the Coast Guard

has always been, shall I say a good soldier. But you have been reduced

substantially here within the Department of Transportation and

within the Bureau of the Budget. So that makes it rather difficult

for me to agree entirely with the statement made in the closing paragraph of your presentation, when you said, and I quote:

We feel we have molded a viable package for the Coast Guard's 1969 capital

development request.

And I understand fully why you would be motivated to so inform

us. But personally I can't quite agree. Senator Griffin will preside

during the remainder of the hearing. He has another question or two

to ask and our counsel has several questions.

Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, before you leave, the Department

of Transportation is supposed to be very much concerned with safety

and particularly concerned about safety when it comes to automobiles

and there seems to be no limit to the expense that the private sector

can be put to when it comes to making sure that there will be safety

on the highways.

Now the Coast Guard has a very important mission concerning

safety except that in this instance it is public funds that are needed

to make sure there will be safety on the water. It is very interesting to

note that the transfer of the Coast Guard from the Treasury Department to the Department of Transportation which has such a deep

interest in safety has actually resulted in what amounts to a reduction
26

in funds, because any time you appropriate or you authorize the same

amount of money taking into account the increased need and the

increased cost of living and the increased cost of construction, you

have actually reduced the level of funding for an agency that has a

primary concern with safety. Is that a reasonable statement?

Senator BARTLETT. I couldn't be in more complete agreement with

what you say. I just can't understand it. I was highly hopeful that

this year, budgetary stringencies notwithstanding—the budget is

pretty large, after all—that this very essential agency within our

Government would be properly funded.

Obviously it will not be. I understand the reluctance of the witnesses

to press for more money, they can't under the rules of the game.

But it seems to me that those of us who know what the function of

the Coast Guard is and realize how it is being diminished to a certain

degree by lack of money, have a heavy obligation to do what we can

to bring it up to date.

And I am certainly in absolute agreement with the Senator from

Michigan.

Senator GRIFFIN (presiding). Admiral, you stated there will still

be 32 of these old aircraft remaining in our inventory. That is from

your testimony relating to the proposed acquisition of some new helicopters.

Exactly how old are those 32 old aircraft and what limitations, if

any, do their age place upon the serviceability of those aircraft?

Admiral SMITH. Senator, they are about 15 years old. They were

built over a period of 2 or 3 years, about 15 years ago. And we have

considered them as reaching the end of their useful age at 15 years.

However, at the present time we are examining one of these aircraft

very carefully, particularly the wing spar and the main structural

members that have a bearing on the safety in flight, and if we find

that the aircraft can be extended, we propose to do that with the

best ones of the group beyond what we would normally consider the

end of their useful life.

Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Barer.

Mr. BARER (staff). Admiral, you indicated presently there are 10

cutters which have been funded. If you had maintained your earlier

replacement schedule with 1974 completion date, approximately how

many cutters would have been funded at this time?

Admiral STAFF. I will ask Captain Scheiderer to speak to that.

Captain SCHEIDERER. Our initial plan called for something like

three to four a year, so if we started with 1962 and went through 1974,

that is three for 36 and four for 48, so by 1974 we could have completed it, in view of the fact that our plan calls for at least 33 highendurance cutters under normal operating conditions.

Mr. BARER. I assume there must be some escalation in construction

costs of these vessels from year to year. How soon will the funds for

the 10 cutters be actually expended for cutters? I am concerned about

whether those funds will be able to build the 10 cutters by the time

they are actually expended.

Admiral SMITH. We presently have five of those vessels under

contract within the estimates of money that we requested. We have

only one of them that is not now under contract. When we go out for

additional vessels of this class, we would anticipate that increased

construction costs would be reflected in somewhat higher prices.
27

Mr. BARER. Is the cost of one of these cutters approximately

$14.5 million now?

Admiral SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. BARER. Is the one cutter that you have not contracted for

but have funded, represented by the funds that are frozen now

by the Bureau of the Budget?

Admiral SMITH. They are the funds that are in reserve with the

Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. BARER. Is that in the amount of $12 million rather than

$14.5 million?

Admiral SMITH. In the amount of $12 million for this specific

ship; yes.

Mr. BARER. So before you can move further on that particular

cutter, you are going to have to get an additional $2.5 million?

Admiral SMITH. We would have to find another $2.5 million; yes.

Mr. BARER. That $12 million was given to you by the Appropriations Committee last year in lieu of the oceanographic vessel; is that

correct?

Admiral SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. BARER. Last year this committee reduced the funds for public

family quarters by approximately $1.7 million on the basis that

construction of some 60 units at Guam was not sufficiently justified.

Is it correct the Coast Guard has no plans now to construct public

family quarters at Guam?

Admiral SMITH. This is correct. And let me explain that a little bit.

Last summer we assigned two additional vessels to Guam, buoy

tenders, in order to get them closer to their areas of operation. We at

that time anticipated that in order to take care of at least the families

of part of the personnel that we should start to provide some housing

on the island of Guam.

In the meantime the Navy, as the host activity on the island of

Guam, told us they would make public housing available to our personnel on the same basis as they do for other military personnel on the

island, so it was not necessary for us to go in and actually construct

housing.

Mr. BARER. How much is requested this year for construction of

public family quarters?

Admiral SMITH. We have asked for $8 million for that.

Mr. BARER. How many units will that allow to be constructed?

Admiral SMITH. We estimate that the total number of units will be

about 290.

Mr. BARER. Approximately what then is the cost per unit on the

average? -

Captain SCHEIDERER. Our average unit cost has been running somewhere in the vicinity of about $24,000. On this basis we wind up with—

let's sec 

Admiral SMITH. The overall average unit cost we have projected is

about $27,600.

Mr. BARER. Do you have any information that shows whether this

is consistent with the average cost per unit for the other services or

how it compares?

Admiral SMITH. We can compare it with the costs of the other services. Would you like to have this made a part of, the record?
28

Mr. BARER. I would appreciate it if that could be supplied for the

record.

(The information follows:)

COST OF COAST GUARD HOUSING VERSUS DOD HOUSING

Standards for Coast Guard housing are consistent with BuBud Circular A-18

and DOD standards. Beyond this it is extremely difficult to make realistic comparisons—similar "yardsticks" for comparisons just do not exist. DOD projects

are generally in excess of 100 units. Since 1966, 28 of 31 Coast Guard projects

have been 15 or less units—(23 were 10 units or less).

For example, the FY 1966 Coast Guard program consisting of several small

projects within the Continental limits, the largest of which totaled 15 units,

produced an average cost of $23,650 per unit. In FY 1967 projects constructed

within the Continental limits averaged $24,800, The DOD maximum average

unit cost of family housing in the corresponding area during this period established

by the Military Construction Authorization Acts for the same two fiscal years

was $17,500 with the further provision that no single unit could exceed a cost of

$32,000.

In FY 1968 the average cost of units to be constructed within the Continental

limits is $23,200, which includes two major projects-140 enlisted units at Treasure

Island, San Francisco, and 50 units at Boston, both of which are joint construction projects with the Navy, and are therefore priced within DOD limitations.

The DOD maximum average unit cost for FY 1968 established by the Military

Construction Authorization Act of that year is $19,500, with the proviso that

no single unit can exceed a cost of $35,000.

The average unit cost of Coast Guard construction outside the Continental

limits in FY 1968 is estimated to be $46,000 for projects at Annette Island,

Alaska, and Wake Island. The DOD maximum average unit cost in the corresponding area in any project of fifty units or more can not exceed $32,000,

with the proviso that no single unit can exceed $40,000.

The only sizeable Coast Guard project actually under construction is in Honolulu

'

Hawaii (164 units) from FY 1967 funds, at an average cost of $24,300 per

unit. This project also requires construction of a sewage treatment plant which

would raise the average unit cost to $25,600. This compares very favorably to

the DOD cost limitations noted above for overseas construction.

Excluding DOD projects for general officers and CO's, during the same period,

DOD had only two of 83 projects under 15 units. The important point to be

noted here is that the DOD maximum cost limits are based on average costs

for all units constructed in any specific fiscal year.

The major reasons why costs are not comparable for the Coast Guard and

DOD are:

(a) Most DOD projects involve a large number of units and DOD can

take advantage of the economies associated with quantity construction.

(b) Most Coast Guard projects are for a very small number of units which

are located in remote, isolated, or resort areas. These sites lack utility services

which generally exist on DOD bases.

(c) Additional factors—more unfavorable site conditions requiring higher

site development costs; mobilizations costs higher and spread over fewer

units; utility services do not exist and/or are more costly to develop; located

generally near waterfront property or less sheltered area.

Mr. BARER. Does the average cost vary substantially from one

area to another?

Admiral SMITH. It does vary substantially from one area to another,

particularly when we go outside of the United States, and when we

build housing in rather isolated areas, then the unit costs go up.

Another place where the unit costs are going to be higher than we

would like to see them would be at Governors Island, N.Y., although

we are building what we think is the most economical and the most

effective arrangement, an apartment system.

The unit costs for construction in the New York area are going to

be rather high.
29

Mr. BARER. With the information that you are going to supply the

committee relating to family quarters, could you also supply us with

what that substantial variance is, in other words, at the various locations what is the average cost going to be and where will these be

constructed?

Admiral SMITH. We can furnish that for the record.

Mr. BARER. We had some difficulty last year on this item, as you

know, and I would like to have as much information as possible.

Admiral SMITH. Yes.

(The information requested follows:)

REASONS FOR COST VARIANCES OF COAST GUARD HOUSING BETWEEN AREAS

Most of the Coast Guard's housing projects consist of a small number of

units and are located at remote, isolated, or resort areas. Cost differences are

attributed to varying site conditions, availability of utilities, and the number of

units in the project. Generally, each project has its own peculiarities of conditions,

thus meaningful comparisons are sometimes difficult to make. Climatic conditions

will dictate differences in materials and construction from one area to another.

We strive to give our men good accommodations to compensate for drawbacks

of assignment and to provide units that will instill some occupant desire to live

in the house and care for it.

Major factors for cost variances are different degrees of the following:

(a) Number of units in project; per unit costs vary.

(b) Site conditions and utility services.

(c) Mobilization costs; availability of contractors.

(d) Degree of permanence required due to climatic conditions and other

environmental conditions.

(e) Materials required for a low maintenance structure in a given area.

(f) Different cost construction areas.

(g) Security requirements such as fencing around antenna fields, etc.

An overall average unit cost of family housing units to be constructed from funds

requested in FY 1969 is estimated at slightly more than $27,000 each. Units are

planned for construction at the following locations, in the numbers indicated:

Annapolis Station, 8

Pt. Allerton Station, 2

Eaton's Neck Station, 11

Siuslaw River Station, 7

Hobucken Station, 7

New York Base (Governors Island),

160 (estimate).

Boston Area Complex, 100

Mr. BARER. How many Coast Guard vessels are now operating

with the Navy off Vietnam?

Admiral SMITH. We have five of our large vessels with Operation

Market Time, and twenty-six 82-foot patrol boats.

Mr. BARER. That is 31 vessels?

Admiral SMITH. Thirty-one vessels in all.

Mr. BARER. Has the Vietnam effort of the Coast Guard detracted

from that agency's ability to have sufficient vessels and equipment

available for its other duties? In other words, what has happened

to your ability to function with 31 vessels taken out of the fleet,

so to speak?

Admiral SMITH. I would like to say first of all that the 82-foot

patrol boats, the twenty-six 82-foot patrol boats assigned to Vietnam have been replaced in our inventory. Let me correct that. Seventeen of the boats have been replaced and are now back on duty in

the United States.

The impact of the five large vessels has been that our people have

had to spend a greater time at sea and we have had to make some

reductions in time that we devoted to training and certain types of

patrols. But it has not prevented us from carrying out our responsibilities as far as the public is concerned.
30

Mr. BARER. Do you feel there is a direct relationship between tne

lag in the replacement program and the Vietnam effort?

Admiral SMITH. I don't quite understand you.

Mr. BARER. Has your Vietnam duty in any way been responsible for

your lack of complying with your scheduled replacement program?

Admiral SMITH. No, I don't believe this has had any impact on our

A.C. & I. program, our scheduled replacement of equipment.

Senator GRIFFIN. The record will be open for the submission of

any further statement or information which may be useful. But

there being no other witnesses to be called this morning, we will

adjourn the hearings until the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,

subject to the call of the Chair.)

0

IIMINNMIIME ,