We do not plan to replace the 327-ft. class for several years.

Question. Once you begin replacing them, how long will it take to complete each ship?

Answer. Our experience with the present program to replace the 311-ft. cutters is that it takes about 21⁄2 years to build an HEC.

Question. Did the original AC&I request submitted by the DOT to BOB have a provision for a replacement program for these cutters?

Answer. Yes, it did. The submission to the Bureau of the Budget requested three replacement high endurance cutters in FY 1971.

Question. In your statement you said two High Endurance Cutters are being given to Vietnam. Are they in the 327-foot class? What are their home ports and how will you replace them in their home port?

Answer. The two high endurance cutters being given to Vietnam are the 311-foot class that is being replaced by our new cutters. Bering Strait is home ported in Honolulu and the Yakutat is home ported in New Bedford. Ships being decommissioned are not necessarily going to be replaced in their home ports. We have not yet firmed up plans regarding replacement of these two ships.

BUOY TENDERS

Question. At AC&I No. 17, you state that the Coast Guard is operating 38 seagoing and 12 coastal buoy tenders which are beyond their normal service life, but which cannot be replaced until future requirements and preliminary designs are established. What sort of study are you conducting?

Answer. We are conducting an extensive study of the entire Aids to Navigation system. This Maintenance Force Mix Study, 18 months in duration, is in three parts:

(a) Plastic vs. Metal Buoys.

(b) Buoys vs. Fixed lights.

(c) Service-Force Mix required to maintain the system.

Concurrently we are investigating the design of future families of buoys and techniques for handling and servicing them. These two aspects will bear heavily on replacement tender design. One of the final outputs of the study will be a recommended combination of floating and shore-based support facilities that will include initial operating parameters for the floating units.

Question. If these tenders are already overage, why wasn't such a study conducted earlier?

Answer. The National Navigation Planning Staff, charged with the study supervision, was formed in 1968. Preliminary investigation and analysis was required to define the problem of overage tenders as it interfaces with the total AtoN system. NNP Staff prepared the study requirements that led to contract award in July 1969. Final results, anticipated early in 1971 will be evaluated and incorporated into R&D efforts which should produce an operational prototype replacement vessel in FY 74-75. At that time the overage buoy tenders will be in service an average of 32 years. Operational replacement is planned to begin in FY 1978.

AIRPLANES

Question. You have requested six additional HH3F medium range helicopters. Have those that you have already acquired lived up to your full expectations? Answer. Yes. They meet or exceed the performance we expect of a medium range recovery aircraft. They can

(1) Proceed at reasonable speed for 100 nautical miles-search for 5 hours and return.

(2) Proceed 300 nautical miles-hover for 20 minutes, pick up 6 survivors and return.

(3) Capable of all-weather flight operations.

(4) Maintain level flight of sea level on half the installed engines. Question. If funds are authorized and appropriated for these aircraft, when would you expect to take delivery?

Answer. Delivery would begin after January of 1972.

Question. Was six the number of additional aircraft that the Coast Guard initially requested, or was the number reduced by the Department of Transportation or Bureau of the Budget? Which agency?

Answer. We originally requested eight aircraft. This number was reduced to six during deliberations between the CG and DOT to accommodate ceilings imposed by BOB.

Question. Where and for what purpose did you plan to use the two additional aircraft?

Answer. Like the six remaining in the budget, the two additional aircraft were planned as replacements for our aging HU16's.

Question. On AC&I No. 19, you state that if repairs to the 13 C-130 aircraft are completed, they should fulfill their planned service life of 20 years. What is the age of those planes now?

Answer. We obtained: four in 1960; two in 1961; four in 1962; two in 1963; and one in 1966.

CONSTRUCTION

Question. On AC&I No. 20, you indicate that you plan to acquire 334.8 acres for the communications station at San Francisco. That is a great deal of land. What sort of facilities are you planning to build?

Answer. It is planned to locate the receiving operations building and antenna field on a 266 acre site in Pt. Reyes. The transmitting operations building and antenna field will be located on a 75.5 acre site in Bolinas. Technical standards for minimum separation of antennas requires the use of large parcels of land at both sites as outlined in the Engineering Design Study conducted by Granger Associates.

Question. Last year your AC&I appropriation was $73.2 million. How much of that was tied up by the President's moratorium on new construction? Answer.

Question. On behalf of the Chairman of the full committee, who could not be with us this morning, I would like to ask for some more details on the closure of the Westport, Washington, radio station described at AC&I No. 21. Will you close only the radio station or the entire facility? How many men are involved? What will happen to the property?

Answer. We will close only the radio station, keeping Grays Harbor Station in operation. We will keep the property but dispose of all buildings except the lighthouse, two family quarters and the station operations building. The 26 billets will be prorated between the new San Francisco Radio Station and augmented radio operations at Astoria, Oregon, and Port Angeles, Washington.

Question. You have an item of nearly $1.4 million for a system to rapidly offload cargo from a damaged ship. How has that system proved out in tests? Answer. The first full scale test of the experimental prototype air-deliverable transfer pumping and storage system was completed on 5 February 1970. This was a calm water test; additional tests will be made under calm water conditions followed by tests under more severe conditions.

All components were air dropped, without damage, to the near vicinity of a test barge where they were retrieved and placed in operation using fresh water rather than a pollution liquid. Some minor technical problems which must be corrected before further full scale testing were revealed. However, from an overall point of view the test was considered successful.

Question. Does the Coast Guard have clear authority to conduct such operations both in domestic and international waters? From what source does that authority emanate?

Answer. An analysis of the Coast Guard's authority requires consideration of two factors:

(1) Whether the owner of the vessel/cargo consents (either expressly or implicitly) or objects to the conduct of such operations, and

(2) Whether the operation is conducted within the navigable waters of the United States or on the high seas. Where the vessel/cargo owner consents to the operation, the authority of the Coast Guard may be found within the Coast Guard's general authority to save life and property (Title 14, U.S. Code, Section 88) which empowers the Coast Guard, among other measures, to render aid to distressed vessels and to perform any and all acts necessary to protect and save property on the high seas, in the navigable waters of the United States and elsewhere. Further authority is contained in the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, which includes an express provision allowing the government to undertake pollution abatement measures in the navigable waters of the United States. This authority is vested in the Secretary of Interior. However, it is clear from the National Contingency Plan (relating to multiagency measures to control pollution by oil and hazardous materials) that the Coast Guard will be the operating agency exercising these measures in the coastal waters and major harbors of the United States.

Where the vessel/cargo owner objects to the operation, and the incident is in the navigable waters of the United States, there is available, in addition to the authority contained in the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, the authority of Executive Order, 10173, promulgated under the authority of the Magnuson Act, which empowers the Coast Guard to take full or partial control of any vessel to protect various U.S. interests including other vessels, harbor facilities and the waters as well. This authority is, of course, dependent upon the continued existence of a state of national emergency. Permanent legislation would be preferableand is being developed by the Coast Guard. Where the vessel/cargo owner objects to the operation, and the incident occurs on the high seas, the Coast Guard's authority is not so plain. Within the contiguous zone, as defined by the Convention on the Territorial Seas and the Contiguous Zone, Geneva, 1958, the coastal state is entitled to exercise ". . . control necessary to prevent infringement of its . . . sanitary regulations within the territory or territorial seas . . ." In our opinion this authority affords a substantial basis for action since the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, certainly is a "sanitary regulation." What is not clear is the extent of the action that can be undertaken without the concurrence of the flag state. Beyond the contiguous zone, there is no present authority to act over the objection of the owner. However, the 1969 Brussels Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in case of Oil Pollution Casualties, which is now open for ratification, would clearly spell out authority for a coastal state to take measures such as offloading oil from stricken vessels on the high seas. Finally, it should be noted that both S. 7 and H.R. 4148, bills currently pending before the Congress, contain extensions of the authority of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, which would substantially reinforce the position stated above concerning domestic waters and the contiguous zone.

In our opinion, the Coast Guard would have unquestionable authority to use or require the use of the equipment in a significant proportion of the incidents which will pose the type of threat in which it would be useful so as to justify the expenditure proposed in the current bill as well as significant additional procurement of this type of equipment.

WATERWAY AIDS

Question. Have your Waterway Aids and LAMP programs been cut back because of the construction moratorium?

Answer. Work has been delayed on about 12 Selected Aids to Navigation projects and essentially all FY 1970 LAMP has been postponed due to the construction deferral.

HOUSING

Question. You are proposing less family housing this year than you did last year. Why?

Answer. We are negotiating with DOD for 160 units of surplus housing. This, coupled with carryover of deferral work from FY 70 will keep us moving forward at a satisfactory rate and at a level which we can manage.

RESERVE

Question. What will the impact be if you lose your Selected Reserve? How will Reservists with obligated service fulfill their obligation if the Selected Reserve is dropped?

Answer. Reflecting the decision contained in the 1971 budget the Coast Guard is proceeding with plans for phasing out the Coast Guard Selected Reserve Training Program by 30 June 1971. The impact of discontinuing this program is as follows:

(a) Reserve recruiting has been discontinued.

(b) Reserve training during the current fiscal year is being phased down. (c) Impact on training units is being analyzed.

(d) Alternatives for handling Reservists with obligated service are being weighed.

(e) A program to provide for Reservists with retirement credits is under consideration.

(f) Alternatives for meeting mobilization tasks are being evaluated. (g) Legal implications of phasing out the Selected Reserve are being identified.

(h) Financial implications for other Coast Guard appropriations and programs are being evaluated.

RECRUITING

Recruiting for Reserve programs is integrated into 62 recruiting stations spread throughout the country. Of the 251 total recruiters 57 are supported through the Reserve Training Appropriation; this number of recruiters is being removed from the recruiting effort. This action will have some impact on the remaining recruiting capacity for our regular programs.

TRAINING

Reserve training is conducted at our Reserve Training Center at Yorktown, Virginia, and on three dedicated training ships. Additionally, basic training for Reserve recruits is integrated into our Regular training station program at Cape May and Alameda.

IMPACT ON RESERVE TRAINING FACILITIES

Removal of Reserve training workload, approximately 30%, from Cape May and Alameda affects programming and financial support at these facilities. About 50% of the training workload at Yorktown is for Reservists. The remaining workload at Yorktown is for regular Coast Guard programs, including our officers candidate school which is an important source of our commissioned officers, and an Engineman school for petty officers.

The training ships, Unimak and Courier, are home-ported at Yorktown and the third ship, Tanager, is based at Alameda. These three ships will be decommissioned, unless they are found to be suitable replacements for ships in our regular program.

We have an ad hoc group visiting Cape May, Alameda and Yorktown looking into capacity and utilization in relation to our identifiable training requirements for the foreseeable future. A possible need to close or consolidate training stations is also being considered as a part of this study.

OBLIGATED SERVICE

Recognizing that the phasing out of the Coast Guard Selected Reserve involves military service obligations, we are considering the following alternatives for obligors:

(a) Voluntary transfer to other Reserve components

(b) Voluntary extended active duty in the Coast Guard to fulfill any other service obligation

(c) Voluntary discharge from the Coast Guard Reserve for the convenience of the government

(d) Transfer to the Ready Reserve in a no-training status

RESERVISTS WITH RETIREMENT CREDITS

We contemplate maintaining a program to preserve and continue retirement entitlements for those Ready and Standby Reservists who desire. Primarily, this will involve recordkeeping, as well as an offering of correspondence courses through the Coast Guard Institute at Oklahoma City.

MOBILIZATION CAPABILITY

A decision to forego the Coast Guard Selected Reserve training program was an economic one, a value judgment balancing the cost of maintaining this immediate response capability against the probability of needing it and alternative uses of the dollars involved.

With respect to the possibility of the Reserve being called, we note that the several callups made since WWII have not included the Coast Guard. Alternative resources with which we expect to be able to meet at least some of our mobilization requirements, should they arise, are:

(a) Redeployment of Regular U.S. Coast Guard forces already on active duty (includes early graduation of Academy first classmen, recruits, and basic petty officer trainees).

(b) Call-up of Ready and Standby Reserve personnel.

(c) Recall of physically qualified retired personnel.

(d) Veteran volunteers (from civilian areas).

(e) Expansion of outputs from recruit training centers and basic petty officer schools subsequent to mobilization.

(f) Possible use of the Coast Guard Auxiliary for selected mobilization tasks on a voluntary basis in the manner the Coast Guard Temporary Reserve was utilized in WWII.

(g) Use of Selective Service inductees.

We recognize that these alternatives provide haphazardly for skills, geographic distribution and control. Developing these resources offers a real challenge.

LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS

Legislative considerations take into account Section 6 of Public Law 90-168 which relates to the annual authorization by the Congress of the personnel strength of the Selected Reserve of each component of the Armed Forces and also provide that the absence of a Selected Reserve in the Coast Guard shall not preclude the appropriation and expenditure of funds for pay and allowances of members of the Coast Guard Reserve on active duty other than for training.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The phase out of the Coast Guard Selected Reserve Training program will result in the discontinuance of the Reserve Training Appropriation after fiscal year 1971. Ten million dollars is provided under that appropriation heading for an orderly phase out during fiscal year 1971.

There are a number of financial implications of the phase out on other programs in the Coast Guard, such as recruiting, training, utilization of facilities, and capital improvement programs. We are presently attempting to identify these and, where appropriate, will make provision in our 1972 budget request.

Senator LONG. Senator Hollings?

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.