Images de page
PDF
ePub

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that enactment of this legislation would be consistent with the Administration's objectives. Sincerely,

ALAN S. Boyd. Enclosure.

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

MENT OF VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SHORE AND 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 i 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 prepara-
tion of sites and furnishing of appurtenances, utilities, and
equipment for the following:
(1) Depot, Greenville, Miss.: Barracks, messing, and opera-

tions building; garage; mooring facilities (see Vessels,

item A(5) for associated tender and barge)----
(2) Moorings, Natchez, Miss.: Mooring facilities (see Vessels,

item A(5) for associated tender and barge)-------
(3) Station, Suislaw River, Florence, Oreg.: Barracks, messing,

operations, and administration building----
(4) Station, Hobucken, N.C.: Barracks, messing, operations,

and administration building; convert existing building

to garage and storage building, improve facilities -----
(5) Moorings, Juneau, Alaska: Enlarge existing building to

to provide additional space for electronic spaces,
shipping and receiving area, office space, and other
purposes. -----

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

operations, and administration building; garage and

workshop building; mooring facilities; helicopter pad (7) Station, Grays Harbor, Westport, Wash.; Barracks,

messing, operations, and administration building-----(8) Station, Port Aransas, Tex.: Repair and replace water

front facilities. -----

165, 000 128, 000 307,000

470, 000

213, 000

604, 000 450,000 361, 000 $267, 000 326, 000

---

2, 223, 000

700,000

612, 000 2, 146, 000

3, 250, 000

--

3, 039, 000 1, 420,000

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

building; convert existing building for messing and
recreation spaces; enlarge loran building, garage and

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

building, pier facilities.--------
(11) Air station, Mobile, Ala.: Barracks, BOQ and messing

building; training, recreational, and exchange facilities,

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

operations building; mooring facilities, helicopter pad..
(13) Station, Annapolis, Md.: Barracks, messing, and opera-

tions' building; mooring facilities ---------
(14) Western Long Island Sound development.------

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 bar-
racks, messing, administration, and work-storage

facilities.
(15) Base, Portsmouth, Va.: Dredging, bulk heading, site devel-
opment, utilities.----

utilities -----------------------------------
(16) Station, San Francisco, Calif.: Barracks building, adminis-

tration building, subsistence building, waterfront front

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

provide for consolidation of mental trades.--.
(18) Station, San Juan, P.R.: Barracks, and messing facilities,
waterfront facilities renewal.----

-------
(19) Base, Honolulu, Hawaii: Dock construction.----------
(20) Base, Galveston, Tex.: Sewage system.-.
(21) Base, New York, Governors Island, N.Y.: Sewage system.
(22) Station, Portsmouth Harbor, Newcastle, N.H.. 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, Va.: Galley-mess

building-----------------------------------------
(28) Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Va.. Advanced

engineman school classroom and laboratory building--
(29) Training Center, Cape May, N.J.: Gymnasium and recrea-

tion building----
(30) Training Center, Alameda, Calif.: Recruit barracks.---
(31) Training Center, Cape May, N.J.: Medical-dental
building-

-----------
(32) Various locations: Public family quarters ------
(33) Various locations: Advance planning, construction, de-

sign, architectural services, and acquisition of sites in
connection with projects not otherwise authorized by

law.--------
(34) Various locations: Automatic fixed station oceanographic

sensor systems and monitor buoys-------

1, 300, 000

860, 000

100, 000 2, 500, 000

1, 047, 000 2, 400, 000

125, 000

591, 000 1,000,000 1, 005, 000

369, 000 2, 697, 000 1, 400, 000

[ocr errors]

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

2, 100, 000 8, 000, 000

--------------

4, 035, 000 1, 450, 000

Total, construction -

47, 660, 000

Sec. 2. Alteration of bridges:

(1) Berwick Bay Bridge (near Morgan City, La.) ----
(2) Calumet River railroad bridges (near Chicago, Ill.)----

Total, bridges

3. 270.000 2, 530, 000

5, 800, 000 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. 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

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.

« PrécédentContinuer »