Images de page
PDF
ePub

and boating safety demands of the intensively used Western Long Island Sound.

Projects for improvements at the loran station, Cape San Blas, 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 navigationa! 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 Training 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 provide 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

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 should 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?

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?

Admiral SMITH. No, sir; these would be the Bureau of the Budget. I will ask Captain Scheiderer 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.

Črisfield, 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?

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.

« PrécédentContinuer »