Изображения страниц

Acquisition, construction, and improvements, fiscal year 1967 program-Continued

[Dollars in thousands)

1 Design small cutter. ? Improve icebreakers transferred from Navy. * Combined with icebreaker improvement. 4 5MMR. 64MRS. 69 MR AC. ? Procure 16 helicopters for icebreakers. Combined with Cape May A/S.

dequisition, construction, and improvements, fiscal year 1968 program

[In thousands of dollars)

[blocks in formation]

1. Impleme it vessel plan:

1. Replace HEC's.
2. Replace 2 MEC's, sniall
3. Lorer Mississippi River tender and barge

and mooring
4. Arkansas River tender and barge and moor-

5. Design replacement icebreaker.
6. Oceano yessel
7. Replace lightships.
8. Reserve training vessel

B. Increase capability of existing vessels:

1. Increase fuel capacity and improve habit

ability on 6327' HEC's
2 Bow thrusters on seagoing tenders
3. Install 4 balloon tracking radars on HEC's
4. Helo haul-down (prototytpe installation on

MEC plus FH-52A)..
3. Oceano: install shipboard loran-C aud Navy

navigation satellite receivers on HEC's...

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

2 Aviation

1. 5 sir zleengine aircraft.
2. medium-range recovery airacraft including develop-

merit of medium-range search aircraft
1. Evaluate test, modify, and reconfigure a medium-

Tänze aircraft to meet Coast Guard SAR require

ment. 4. 9 short-range recovery aircraft. 5. Administrative aircraft 6. Chicago sir station and 3 SRR aircraft 1. Improve law enforcement capability of long-range

search aircraft (photo equipment)
$. 9medium-range search or recovery aircraft
9. Modernize and replace facilities at San Francisco Air

station and construct hangar at Barbers Point Air

[blocks in formation]


[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]


Acquisition, construction, and improvements, fiscal year 1968 program

(In thousands of dollars)

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

B. Increase capability:

1. Western area communication improvement

(construct receiving station at Fort Con

2. Implementation of SUP at-
(2) Cape Charles City (establish new

(6) Alexandria Bay (construct new sta-

tion building, family housing)..
(c) Jonesnart (replace trailers with new

station building, pier, and bulk

head, family housing for COXO).
(d) Sassafras (construct station building,

pier, family housing)
(e) Algonac (construct new and family

housing, replace St. Clair Flats

Canal Station.
a) Crisfield (establish new station, fam-

ily housing).
(9) Alpena (establish new station, family

housing for CO/XO).
(h) Wrightsville Beach (replace station

and construct family housing for

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

you desire

Mr. LExxox. You will recall, gentlemen, that last year the committee, after the testimony and after concern was shown then, as it is being evidenced here, raised the President's budget from $103 million ($126,079,000.

The committee raised it, just like you have indicated that to do, br $26,079,000.

The largest item in that additional $26,079,000 was for an additional cutter for $13 million, as the committee will recall.

Here is the point I come to: When it came to appropriations, and se are speaking now of this committee only in terms of authorization Legislation, there was only $103 million appropriated, which is the atual dollar figure in the President's budget for fiscal 1967, which leads me now to what I am about to say.

I recall last year, after this committee and the House raised this fure, that we ran into a problem in the Senate, and I remember dislissing it with three members of the Senate authorization subcommittët, and they went along with this figure.

Let me say I think the members of the Coast Guard, Secretary Davis, and Admiral Smith, Admiral Trimble, and all others here, krow that they have no better friend than the gentleman from Oklahome, Mr. Toin Steed. He told me yast year, when he and I were discussing the appropriation, and I am attempting to quote him verbatim, if I can recall it, that it was the inability of the Coast Guard to demonstrate before the Subcommittee of Appropriations the justification and the need for the total of $126,079,000 which was authorized.

He even suggested to me that in his judgment that the Coast Guard could get the bids on these additional high endurance cutters, based on their long history of having been able to get the contracts at what was considered a fair and reasonable price, but the Coast Guard just did not push it when it went before the Appropriations Committee.

In other words, the Coast Guard supinely in its appearance before the Appropriations Committee attempted only to justify the $103 million, which was in the President's budget, and made no sincere or aggressive effort to justify the appropriation over and above that $143 million figure.

Admiral, you were not the Commandant, then.
Mr. Secretary, I will ask you if there is substance in what the
gentleman from Oklahoma said, who was chairman of the Subcom-
mittee on Coast Guard.
Mr. Davis. Certainly Chairman Steed has been a great friend of
the Coast Guard for many years.

Mr. LENNON, No greater.
Mr. Davis. I would not say they did not justify it, but, as you know
the problem that comes up, and the instructions within the adminis-
tration. You go along with the budget, and you believe in the budget.

In all of the bureaus within the Treasury Department, every one
has requested additional money. We went to the Bureau of the Budget
with a substantial increase for Treasury, because we felt that this was
what we needed to do the job properly—a $175 million increase over

So we end up with only a $15 million increase request to the Congress. So that that is about $130 million less than what we had asked for all of the department.

[ocr errors]

last year.

We appreciate these problems, but we also are trying to be, I will say, good soldiers, and support the President's budget I know the Coast Guard could use additional moneys.

They do, too. But also I know that within my area, the Bureau of Customs could use some additional moneys; and the Internal Revenue Service needs some additional moneys.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Secretary, could we be specific?

The Coast Guard stated last year in connection with its fiscal 1967 authorization for acquisition and construction and improvements that it needed to replace five high-endurance cutters.

You wound up with the President's budget for 1967 with three. The committee raised that to four.

In the appearance before the Appropriations Committee, the Subcommittee on Appropriations, did the Coast Guard insist upon the need for four high endurance cutters?

Mr. Davis. No, they did not insist upon it.

Mr. LENNON. If you had, sir, you would have gotten the appropriation from the Appropriations Committee for the four, rather than for the three.

Is that not a fair statement?

Mr. Davis. Well, yes, Mr. Lennon, but let's also remember who is the Commander in Chief of the Coast Guard. He sets his budget, and we all support it.

Mr. LENNON. All right, sir.

For the record, then, even though the Coast Guard said they needed five, the President allowed three, the committee authorized four, the Coast Guard now says that it did not pursue before the Subcommittee on Appropriations the need for the additional, or the four.

Now, let's move to the category of aircraft.
Mr. ÉDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?

I think it should be pointed out that there was in fact need. because the Coast Guard apparently came back this year and asked for five, and they have been cut back to one, so that they have indicated again the need that was existent last year in their request this year.

Mr. LENNON. The gentleman is saying, I take it, that if the committee, following the counsel of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, increased the authorization to two or three high endurance cutters, where they say they need five, that when they went before the Appropriations Committee, they would not attempt to justify the need before the Appropriations Committee for anything over and above what is in the President's budget.

Is that a fair statement, gentlemen, of the Coast Guard?

I get to this point, gentlemen : Why should the authorization committee increase these figures, if there is not somewhere in the Coast Guard, in spite of the fact that the President is Commander in Chief— let's say he is not the Commander in Chief—it does not apply under those terms—but why should this committee expand the authorization of authority, and then we members go to the Appropriations Committee and tell them how badly you need these things, and when you go before them you do not present a united front?

I wonder. It never happens in the Department of Defense, does it?

I happen to be a member of the Armed Services Committee, and a special investigating subcommittee, but it seldom happens there that

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »