staff appeared before the committee, this same committee, with respect to the authorization for fiscal 1967. I think at the time the Secretary related that on September 15, 1965, he came to the billet, and I asked him at that time to relate to the committee the extent to which he participated in the preparation and the presentation to the Bureau of the Budget of the fiscal 1967 request.

For the record, Mr. Secretary, again I want to say, sir, that I share your concern about the Coast Guard moving from where it has historically been berthed or lodged with the Treasury Department. You came to it on September 14, 1965, and in less than 2 years you are losing your charge, aren't you?

Mr. DAVIS. That is right.

Mr. LENNON. For the record, gentlemen, and I am sure the budget officer probably has this with him, the fiscal year 1968 estimates for the first category under the legislation, vessels and the subtitles, vessel plans, increased capability of existing vessels and extension of service life of existing vessels, for the record; Admiral, or Mr. Betts, what was the fiscal 1968 preview estimate for those categories, vessels, and the subtitles that I have mentioned for fiscal 1968 ?

Mr. BETTS. To implement the vessel plan the request was for $96,003,000; to increase the capability of existing vessels, $2,762,000 and to extent the service life of existing vessels, $2,710,000.

Mr. LENNON. A total of what figure?

Mr. BETTS. A little over $100 million; $101,475,000 to be exact. Mr. LENNON. You have in the Coast Guard what I think you gentlemen referred to as the departmental task force recommendation for fiscal 1968. That is specific projects determined by the Coast Guard. In that same category, vessels, and the three subtitles, what is the figure recommended by the departmental task force for fiscal 1968? Mr. BETTS. What you refer to as the task force was an ad hoc arrangement in the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1967. Mr. LENNON. I assume that for 1968 you had the same sort of ad hoc committee or task force that you had for fiscal 1967; right? Mr. BETTS. No, sir, we did not, Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. Did you have a comparable task force?

Mr. BETTS. The decisions affecting the 1968 budget were made through reviews by the Undersecretary, Mr. Barr; Assistant Secretary, Mr. Davis; and finally the Secretary.

Mr. LENNON. All right, sir. What are those figures for fiscal 1968 in those categories that I have enumerated?

Mr. BETTS. For the vessel plan, $36,664,000; for the increased capability of existing vessels, $2,044,000; and to extend the service life of existing vessels, $2,710,000.

Mr. LENNON. For a total of what, sir?

Mr. BETTS. $40 million roughly. I will give the precise figure for the record. (The precise figure is $41,418,000.)

Mr. LENNON. I assume that the figure that you just mentioned, just under $40 million, is the figure that the Treasury presented to the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. BETTS. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LENNON. And that figure which is shown in the legislation that has been introduced, of $39,776,000 was approved in the President's budget? In other words, what you say now that the Treasury asked

of the Bureau of the Budget was the same figure that was allowed in the President's budget for these items?

Mr. BETTS. Not precisely the same because of the allocation by line projects of a ceiling given by the Bureau of the Budget is a decision on the part of the Coast Guard. After the Treasury Department had submitted the request to the Bureau of the Budget, and after the Bureau of the Budget had discussed the budget with the President, there was some shift by the Coast Guard in the individual subcategories. This is a decision made by the Coast Guard as to how they allocate the total ceiling rather than on a line-by-line or project-byproject basis.

But in total the amount in the vessel category included in the authorization bill and in the President's budget is nearly the same amount that was requested of the Budget Bureau by Treasury.

Mr. LENNON. The hearings last year lasted only 1 day and these tables that are included in the printed record of the hearings were furnished subsequent to the hearings so that we have had an opportunity to read them, but not to talk to you folks about them. These are your tabulations verbatim.

Mr. BETTS. That is right.

was

Mr. LENNON. I was interested because in the category of vessels and the three subtitles the fiscal year 1967 review estimate $114,905,000. The departmental task force recommendations were $86,578,000. The Coast Guard's fiscal year revised budget raised that to $89,038,000. When you took your request to the Bureau of the Budget, it was reduced to $65,528,000. When we finally came to the Congress through the President's budget it was $49,528,000, less than half, and I repeat less than half, of what in the judgment of the Coast Guard was necessary just for this category alone, vessels.

Now, that reminds me that in your statement, Admiral, you talked about slippage, slippage and slippage. You certainly have slipped as evidenced by this statement that your furnished this committee or at least Secretary Davis furnished the committee in that category, not to mention in the others.

How many high endurance cutters do we have in the service of the Coast Guard now actually?

Admiral SMITH. We have 36, including one about to be commissioned.

Mr. LENNON. Thirty-five to be exact. What is the average service life of these 35 vessels?

Admiral SMITH. Remaining service life?

Mr. LENNON. No; presently existing?

Admiral SMITH. Existing? Well, the Secretary-class cutters are 30 years old. The remainder of them, the AVP seaplane-type vessels were built during the war as were our 255-foot-class cutters that we are using.

Mr. LENNON. In other words, the average of all 35 major cutters is 23.610 years. Now, last year you asked for five high-endurance cutters. That is what you requested; you wound up with three in the President's budget.

This year you asked for five medium-endurance cutters. You wound up with zero in the President's budget. Of course, that accounts substantially for the rather large reduction in that category because you didn't get any.

Now, for the record, how many high-endurance cutters did you request this time? I don't mean the Treasury Department, but how many did the Coast Guard request to the Department of the Treasury? Admiral SMITH. In our preview estimates, five.

Mr. LENNON. Five. The same thing as you asked last year.
Admiral SMITH. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. Now, last year you got three out of five and this year you are not batting as well. You got one out of five. This vessel that you contemplate will replace a former Navy seaplane tender which was built in 1941; is that right?

Admiral SMITH. Right.

Mr. LENNON. That is what your backup sheet says. Now you say what you actually needed, Admiral, was an annual average vessel replacement and improvement of $122.9 million. That is what you say on page 4 of your statement:

This brings our annual average vessel replacement and improvement requirements to $122.9 million.

There again in this year's fiscal request you are getting less than what you say your need is for vessel replacement. How do we shape up when we move down into the category of aviation with respect to what was needed and what was requested and what you finally wind up now with in the fiscal 1968 budget of the President? Would you tell us, sir, what was requested for aircraft in the so-called group composed of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and I assume, Mr. Betts, the Commandant participated in this ad hoc committee this year.

Mr. BETTS. The Commandant had submitted the original estimates,

yes.

Mr. LENNON. But did he or his direct representative or chief of staff or chief of operations thereafter participate in this decisionmaking process after they had made their estimate?

Who in the Coast Guard participated in the decisionmaking process that you have outlined here after they made their request?

Mr. BETTS. I can't name for you the individual. I don't know whether Secretary Davis has an answer to that.

Mr. LENNON. Is that the answer for the record?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Congressman, this was an internal Treasury decision as to what amount could possibly be made available, and after taking into consideration the President's request that everything be held down as tightly as possible because of the Vietnam conflict, we came up with what we felt was the very best that we could do under the circumstances and then gave back to Coast Guard a total figure for all of their operations. Then they distributed this overall ceiling to the various items on a priority basis within the total.

Mr. LENNON. Don't misunderstand me, Mr. Secretary and Admiral. I am not being critical. I am just for the record, and for future generations, seeing, if they take the time and trouble to read the hearing record, why our Coast Guard image does not get a little broader than it is in the national level. That is my purpose.

If you would be gracious enough to furnish for me now, if you will, Mr. Betts, the fiscal year 1968 preview estimates for aviation.

Mr. BETTS. $44,202,000.

Mr. LENNON. $44 million?

Mr. BETTS. And $202,000.

Mr. LENNON. And finally approved in the President's budget was $25,475,000?

Mr. BETTS. $27,549,000.

Mr. LENNON. Then these figures that are shown in the legislation that was introduced have been slightly increased?

That is on page 2 of the legislation of the bill introduced by the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, where you see the figure $25 million.

Mr. BETTS. That results from the interchange that the Commandant referred to in his statement. The $27,549,000 includes the construction portion of the Chicago Air Station and the hangar at Barber's Point Air Station. It is a different way of categorizing the items so as to agree with the budget presentation.

Mr. LENNON. I see. If we move, please, to the next category, shore units, I believe it was indicated as construction in your proposed legislation.

Mr. BETTS. Do you want the individual subheadings there, Mr. Lennon?

Mr. LENNON. No; just furnish for the record, sir, the preview estimate for fiscal 1967 by the Coast Guard for construction of shore units, replacement, increasing capacity and expansion of support facilities, being the three subheads under that category.

Mr. BETTS. Yes, sir. I will.

The preview estimate for total is around $19 million. The budget went forward at around $16 million. I will give the precise figures. The precise preview estimate was $18,968,000 and the request to Bureau of the Budget was $15,892,000, and the required here is $15,109,000. I am including only the shore units exclusive of aids to navigation and the training.

Mr. LENNON. In the language of the proposed legislation-
Mr. BETTS. It is $37 million.

Mr. LENNON. That includes furnishing of appurtenances, utilities, and equipment and that runs the figure up to $37,963,000 as shown in the proposed legislation. Is that the explanation for the difference?

Mr. BETTS. The $37,963,000 also includes aids to navigation, training, public family quarters and survey and design funds. That is the difference.

Mr. LENNON. Between that and what is shown in the bill.

Then would you, for the record, sir, furnish the committee the comparative table for fiscal 1968 as compared with the table that you furnished the committee for its hearing record of fiscal 1967? Mr. BETTS. We would be glad to do that.

(See table, p. 41.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Would the gentleman yield at that point?
Mr. LENNON. Yes.

Mr. EDWARDS. So that we might request the Coast Guard in future years to do this when they come to the hearing. As you say, we see it in the final record, but we don't really have a chance to look at it before, so that when we have these gentlemen before us it might be very helpful if they would bring such a comparison with them in the future. Mr. LENNON. I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I think it is most pertinent. I was hopeful that after the experience of last year, they would have done so. They had a period of transition in the staff, as you know, or so I am told.

I think that is all I wanted at the moment to ask the gentleman. I have taken too much time. I apologize for it.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

Mr. Grover?

Mr. GROVER. Admiral, I note that in your comments you refer to some 26 patrol boats in the Vietnam area, and I think last year we provided for the replacement of some 17. Where did the other nine boats come from?

Admiral SMITH. You recall that we originally sent 17 boats to Vietnam, and they were followed later by nine boats from our regular operating fleet. In the meantime you have given us authorization and we have funds to replace the first 17 that went over. We have taken a new look at our program for this class of boat and have found that we have been able to reduce our final requirement from, I believe, it was 53 boats down to 49.

We presently have onboard 44 boats, either onboard or being constructed and for delivery sometime during this year. So this will leave us five from our final requirement as to number in this type of boat.

In the meantime, we have placed in service and are gaining considerable experience with the new 44-foot motor life boat. We are finding that in some places this boat has more capability than we had originally anticipated, and it is able to carry out the same type of duties that the 82-foot patrol boat can perform. We are using it in certain places to fill in where the 82-foot patrol boat is not available. Mr. GROVER. I think it was also indicated that these approved helicopters are sort of making unnecessary some of the expansion in the small boat area; is that correct?

Admiral SMITH. We are looking at our whole shore units plan, looking at the small rescue stations in the light of what this new helicopter can do and are finding in some places where we have the helicopter that we are able to reduce some of our commitments and requirements as far as our surface craft are concerned.

Mr. GROVER. As I recall 2 years ago that was in the background of the planning for the reorganization of the units in the Long Island Sound area.

You were showing greater dependency upon the helicopters. I notice also that you are going in the bridge business. Does that presage, to use your word, other areas of activity than you presently are involved in when you go into the Department of Transportation?

Admiral SMITH. This is one of the items, that we will be given the responsibility for the handling of this particular function that was previously handled by the Corps of Engineers. There is one other specific item that we know about right now and that is the Great Lakes Pilots Administration that provides the piloting for the ocean vessels that traverse the St. Lawrence Seaway and operate in the Great Lakes. That had previously been under the Department of Commerce and is being transferred into the new Department of Transportation and under present planning will be placed under the general direction of the Coast Guard.

Mr. GROVER. This won't require any capital construction in the foreseeable future? This would be ministerial only?

Admiral SMITH. This would be ministerial only, with no construction required.