Admiral SMITH. Of course, the Navy operates oceanographic vessels, ESSA operates oceanographic vessels. The Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Fisheries have vessels that can do oceanograpic work. I don't know whether you would call them purely oceanographic vessels.

Mr. EDWARDS. Does it disturb you that this is fragmented among quite a few agencies?

Admiral SMITH. I think that the total oceanographic problems and contributions and demands for information is spread fairly wide throughout the Federal Government, and I think that this is natural because each agency has either some capability to contribute to the program or some requirement for the type of information produced by the program that they need to carry out their assigned job.

Mr. EDWARDS. Talking about the transferring of certain functions from customs, do you see any particular change in the way that operation will be carried out under the Coast Guard as opposed to the way it was carried out under customs?

Admiral SMITH. No; I do not. I think that for the most part these duties are ones that we have been familiar with because we have worked very closely with customs on all matters that affect the merchant marine and I anticipate no dramatic or radical changes in our carrying out these particular duties.

Mr. EDWARD. As you probably know, there has been some criticism from some quarters that these functions ought not to be transferred. Are you saying then that those who are worried should not worry, that the duties and responsibilities will be carired out substantially the same as they have been in the past?

Admiral SMITH. Yes. I would like to say that I don't believe that the users of these services should worry because I don't think that they are going to find any special problems as far as their relationships with the Coast Guard are concerned, as compared with their relationships previously with customs.

Mr. EDWARDS. Referring now to the million dollars in the bill for work in Brookley Field, and I may say here that I think the Coast Guard has been very fortunate to find this facility and to go after it, because I think it will be a real asset to the Coast Guard. Does this million dollars generally cover all of your present requirements for Brookley?

Admiral SMITH. I would like to ask Captain Scheiderer to address himself to that question. I think he knows a little more precisely than I do just exactly how far this million dollars will go.

Captain SCHEIDERER. No, sir, it doesn't cover everything. It will take care of sufficient adaptation to bring the existing facility at Choctaw Point over, but after our unit moves, then there is going to be some further work that will have to be done in connection with a possible radio station site.

There may be possibly some housing. I don't know just how that is going to work out at this stage of the game, but there will be some additional renovation for a reserve training area. Actually it is a phased project.

Mr. EDWARDS. This will get you into Brookley and out of Choctaw Point. Will the Choctaw Point property be disposed of?

Captain SCHEIDERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EDWARDS. You have no intention to retain that in the Coast Guard?

Captain SCHEIDERER. No, sir. We will be most happy to let it go. Mr. EDWARDS. Who has control of the 26 vessels over in Vietnam? Is that under the Navy?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir. Those vessels are in the operation that they call "Market Time," and this is a part of the total naval operation in South Vietnam.

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you know of any present plans to take any more Coast Guard vessels over there?

Admiral SMITH. No; we are not aware of any plans to augment this particular group of boats and unless there is some changing condition in this operation, I don't believe that there is a requirement for additional 82-footers.

Mr. EDWARDS. You have been involved in a program of setting up search and rescue stations, helicopter stations, and whatnot so that they can fan out and cover portions of the coast. How is that problem coming along?

Admiral SMITH. Well, I think it's coming along quite well. I think it is a little closer than we had anticipated in our plans, which is more or less in perspective with the development of our vessel plan and our shore unit's plan. We have completed six stations under the program. I was looking for a list of the stations that we have completed. There is Los Angeles, Savannah, Houston, Astoria, Detroit, and Cape May, and we are asking for one in our 1968 request which would be located at Chicago.

Mr. EDWARDS. That is for fiscal 1968?

Admiral SMITH. Yes.

Mr. EDWARDS. And you do anticipate that there will be others in the coming years?

Admiral SMITH. Yes. This plan called for the establishment of 14, so that we would be asking for additional stations at Cape Kennedy, Coos Bay in Oregon, Panama City in Florida, Buffalo, Humboldt, Rockland in Maine, and Groton. This is our present thinking.

Mr. EDWARDS. This, in your opinion, would give you adequate coverage along the coastal areas for this search and rescue?

Admiral SMITH. As far as the helicopter is concerned, we feel this would give us the coverage that we would need to do a good job. Mr. EDWARDS. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. St. Onge.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Chairman.

Before asking some specific questions of the admiral and Mr. Davis, I would like to pick up the almost universal admonition of the members of this committee this morning. Perhaps I should phrase my statement a little more literally and not quite as bluntly as last year. I think we have a very unique situation here this morning where the members of the congressional committee are putting pressure, to put it mildly, on an agency of the Federal Government to come in with a more realistic budget, one which I am sure would be approved by the House, which recognizes the role the Coast Guard plays in our national life. While Mr. Davis won't be here in the future in this role, Admiral, basically I think the problem starts with your people. We need more

money for the Coast Guard and you have to request it. Last year I think the committee did a creditable job in obtaining more funds from the Congress, but if the Coast Guard comes in with a smaller budget than it requires, then this committee is placed at a disadvantage as far as the Appropriations Committee of the House is concerned and I find that this is not reflected in the sentiment of the Members of the House at large. We recognize full well the important role that you play in our lives and your statement, which is replete with the word "slippage," bothers me considerably.

To pick that up at this point, there have been several references made to the Vietnam operations of the Coast Guard.

Admiral, who pays the salaries of the men manning those ships off Vietnam? Are they in your budget or in the Navy budget?

Admiral SMITH. They are in our budget, Mr. St. Onge. However, they are now in our budget as an item that is in addition to our regular personnel requirement.

Mr. ST. ONGE. So that is not reflected in the bill which we have before us this morning?

Admiral SMITH. It would not be reflected in the bill because that is under operating expenses but it is provided for under our operating expenses so that it does not come out of the personnel we need for other jobs.

Mr. ST. ONGE. All right. Yet in your statement you point out that there is a saving of $10 million in phasing out of the Bermuda operation which would otherwise have to be funded. You are picking up an additional $3.8 million for work done by the Army Engineers so that this total that we have before us this morning should be further reduced if we are going to compare it to last year's budget by at least $13.8 million; is that correct?

Admiral SMITH. I don't know whether that would be an exact analogy. In our Bermuda operation this $10 million that we speak of there was partly a cost-avoidance thing and it is true that if we had not been able to do this we would have had to come to this committee and ask authority to do some of that business covered by that $10 million. I don't believe it would be quite all of it.

Mr. BETTS. The 1968 budget was increased by $3.8 for the new work on the bridges so that the two budgets are quite comparable when you take out the $3.8 million for bridges plus another small item of $214,000 for pollution control.

Mr. ST. ONGE. But you are still not keeping up the Coast Guard plan as submitted as early as 1962, for instance, in the old vessel planning which was to carry through 1973 and you are talking about an amended plan already which requires $117 million annually. We have $41.4 million in the budget. So that actually the old vessel plan which was amended has to be amended again.

Would you care to estimate off the top of your head, Admiral, how much we are going to have to stretch this plan out in years to get the vessels that you require if you continue at approximately $41 million when you need $117 million?

Admiral SMITH. I would like to take a little time to come to grips with that. However, it is true that if each year we have to postpone one or two more then the remaining years have to be increased individually to compensate and this is what seems to bring this up. Also,

there is a point where it would catch up to us. We would end up with some vessels perhaps that were not usable before we had been able to replace them.

Mr. ST. ONGE. A very minor question: When do you expect the plans for the icebreaker to be ready? You are working on them now. Is that sometime in this calendar year?

Admiral SMITH. I would like to refer this question to Captain Latimer. I think our preliminary design will be completed in the not too distanct future but this is only the first phase.

Would you explain this?

Captain LATIMER. Yes, sir. We of course got $1 million this year for a feasibility study and conceptual study of preliminary design. This has involved a great amount of research in everything about the present state of the art of icebreaking into new ground to find out more about it before we get to this new ground eventually. It is a matter of time, and we are on time. There are limitations as to how fast we can accumulate data and run certain research projects.

We would except to have the preliminary design completed which basically gives all of the major characteristics of the vessel and basically delineates the vessel by about September 1. After which we would be ready to have prepared contract design specifications. These are the things where you would go to shipbuilders and ask for bids. We would expect to be ready to initiate that step in September of this calendar year.

Mr. ST. ONGE. So that conceivably you would be in a position of asking for funds for construction in the next fiscal year?

Captain LATIMER. Yes, sir. If this should be a conventional icebreaker, and by conventional I mean conventional power, diesel or steam, we would be in position to ask for funds in fiscal year 1969. We of course are looking very carefully at pros and cons of nuclear power for the ice breaker. We feel that the state of the art requires it. If we should go that route, and this decision has not been made one way or the other, then possibly we would need more design time because of the complexity and because of the several industries and agencies involved. This would probably require postponing requesting building money until fiscal 1970.

Mr. ST. ONGE. I would think you are to be commended for giving very serious consideration to nuclear propulsion because I think if we are going to come to it, we might as well come to it more quickly than slowly.

Admiral, I think you are to be complimented for your plans for the New London area. I think the Coast Guard Academy building plan hasn't as much priority as some of your other programs, but I known from personal inspection that the recreational hall and the auditorium have to be replaced because they are fire hazards and if they ever caught fire with cadets in them we could conceivably have a very serious loss of life.

Mr. GARMATZ. Would the gentleman yield?

In whose congressional district is this Academy located?

Mr. St. ONGE. It is in the Second Congressional District of Connecticut, Mr. Chairman. Of course a consolidation of your facilities in New London Harbor is overdue. I was considerably disturbed by the list that you gave Mr. Edwards of the helicopter stations

because while Groton is included, it purely by coincidence happens t be the last station on the list and if we get one a year Groton would b at least 7 years away. So that I think some changes probably would b considered there.

In talking about your helicopter needs, you say on page 9 of you statement that you are going to procure support or backup aircraf for a helicopter that is going out of manufacture. Wouldn't it b wise to consider whether the newer helicopters, both Navy and Army couldn't be adapted to suit your plans rather than to build in obsoles cence because that is what you are doing here?

Admiral SMITH. We keep this continually in mind, Mr. St. Onge but this particular machine that we have here, some of the features of it have been incorporated for our particular purpose and it is an excellent machine and when we say that it is going out of production we only mean this particular version of it is because this machine has application not only in the military but also for commercial use in slightly different form. We have been very pleased with it. It is of a size and of a price that seems to fit in with the use that we make of the machine.

Of course, once a company has completed an assembly line on these, you cannot buy them any more, and what we are saying here is that we like this machine so well that we are going to use it for a while, and we want to have a little capability of having some on hand for replacement of damage in crashes which do occasionally happen.

Mr. St. ONGE. Are you saying, by inference, Admiral, that the helicopter needs of the Coast Guard are so limited that the cost of design and manufacture of a helicopter designed specifically for the Coast Guard would be prohibitive?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, that is true. We don't order aircraft in quantity that permits individual design for our purposes. Mr. St. ONGE. Thank you., Mr. Chairman.

I have no further questions.

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Watkins.

Mr. WATKINS. Admiral, I am still thinking about money, and with reference to line 6 in House bill 5424 put in by our distinguished chairman, Mr. Garmatz and also a bill by Mr. Clark, our distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, here, and by Mr. Lennon, I just have one pointed question to ask.

This is very serious to me.

Line 6 reads this way, "For procurement, extension of service, and increasing the capibility of vessels."

The figure on all three bills is $39,776,000. May I ask what was your request for that item?

Admiral SMITH. We had originally requested as one example five high endurance cutters, rather than one, and the total money request was $101 million.

Mr. WATKINS. $101 million, and that was for the year 1968?
Admiral SMITH. Yes.

Mr. WATKINS. Well, now, let me ask you another very pointed question.

Are you going to settle for $39,776,000? What are they doing to you?