30 degrees to the horizontal and enables the vessel to ride up onto the ice and break through by its weight.

How do these ships compare with new Polar icebreakers constructed elsewhere in the world since 1955?

The next slide shows the major features of other world icebreakers. The two on the left of course are the U.S. icebreakers, the two in the center are Russian icebreakers, and the two on the right are recent Canadian icebreakers. The latter of these two has been launched but not commissioned. Note that there is a trend toward larger ships: and higher powers and that a triple screw configuration has become the standard.

I understand that the dip in these trends which is represented by the MacDonald is due to the fact that she is required to operate in inland waters part of the time as well as on the high seas.

The figures at the bottom are developed from information that we have, and we feel show the relative capabilities of these vessels in breaking ice. Note that there are two figures given. One is called continuous icebreaking and the other is called ramming.

For want of a better definition, we define continuous icebreaking as being able to proceed at 3 knots steadily through the ice. In the ramming mode, the vessel is required to back off from one to three ship lengths, charge the ice, ride up on it, break through and then is stopped by the ice. It is necessary to back off and ram repeatedly in order to make progress under these circumstances.

Mr. EDWARDS. Commander, on that Russian ship, NUC-turbo, is that nuclear?

Commander RINEHART. Yes, sir. This is the only nuclear icebreaker in the world.

Mr. EDWARDS. Were you able to find anything about that in Finland?

Commander RINEHART. I didn't make the trip to Finland. I am aware of information that is avaliable from other Government sources. Apparently they consider this successful because there are plans and apparently construction now in progress to augment this with two other similar vessels.

Mr. LENNON. At this point will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. Does the witness know in what yard these will be constructed?

Commander RINEHART. I don't have the information at hand. Admiral TRIMBLE. Admiral Oren is Chief of our Office of Engineering.

Admiral OREN. She was constructed in Russia. The Russians will not give the Finns permission to make a nuclear vessel.

Mr. LENNON. In other words, Russia, and Russia alone, is the only place that a nuclear-powered icebreaker has been constructed?

Admiral OREN. That is correct, yes, sir.

Commander RINEHART. During the period of 1955 to 1965 numerous efforts have been made in Congress to authorize construction of replacement icebreakers and both the Navy and the Coast Guard have made studies and feasibility designs toward the same end. These efforts are summarized in the next slide.

With the agreement in 1965 to transfer operation of the Navy icebreakers to the Coast Guard, responsibility for new designs clearly lies solely with the Coast Guard.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at that point? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. You cited the title of the United States Code which devolved upon the Coast Guard the responsibility for the construction and maintenance and operation of icebreakers. Was there a similar section and title in the code with respect to the Navy's responsibility to participate in the icebreaker program?

Commander RINEHART. Mr. Lennon, my information was extracted from the roles and missions study which was made in 1962. I didn't make a complete survey of the code. However, in this roles and missions study there was an extract from title 10 which indicated that the Navy had authority to construct such vessels as it required.

Mr. LENNON. I was interested because you said in 1965 by agreement the Navy transferred to the Coast Guard this responsibility. How could that be done without legislation which would have the effect of modifying or repealing the statutory authority for the Navy to participate in the icebreaker program?

Admiral TRIMBLE. In answer to your question, Mr. Lennon, the Navy does not have specific statutory authority for icebreaking operations. There is a general authority for such Naval vessels as they need to support the fleet so that it is general, not mentioning icebreakers. Mr. LENNON. And that is the basis on which they have received annual authorization under their ship construciton program from the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate?

Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Is there any question since this agreement has been worked out that the Navy might not in the future reassert its general authority if it saw fit again to move into the field of icebreakers as it might be related to their missions and roles?

Admiral TRIMBLE. This departmental agreement I suppose could be abrogated in that sense. It's a Secretary-to-Secretary agreement transferring, or let's say eliminating the Navy participation in this program and making it a responsibility of the Coast Guard.

Mr. LENNON. Could this committee be furnished for its files a copy of the 1965 agreement between the Navy and Coast Guard with respect to this transfer to the Coast Guard of this now so-called exclusive responsibility?

Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. That would be for study by counsel.
Thank you.

(The agreement mentioned follows:)

REVISED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ON THE OPERATION OF ICEBREAKERS 1. Purpose. The purpose of this agreement is to revise the Navy-Coast Guard agreement on operations of icebreakers, and to provide for the permanent transfer to the Coast Guard, at the earliest practicable date, but not later than 1 November 1966, of jurisdiction, control over, and responsibility for operating and manning the five U.S. Navy icebreakers in high latitudes to fulfill U.S. Navy mission requirements.

2. Introduction.-These special type ships are required to perform the following mission and tasks.

Mission: To ensure passage of ships through ice fields and sea ice in support of bases and operations in high latitudes.

Tasks:

a. To ensure services of ice reconnaissance including operation and support of helicopters.

b. To perform limited air control for ice reconnaissance and search and rescue missions.

c. To provide limited self-defense against low performance aircraft and light surface attack.

d. To conduct oceanographic, geographic and other scientific programs in polar regions that are inaccessible to conventional ships.

e. To provide limited logistic support to small detachments and advanced bases or stations in high latitudes.

f. To provide accommodations and command facilities for polar task group commander and staff in designated ships.

g. To provide diving, limited salvage and underwater repair including rescue towing operations.

h. To provide a mobilization capability to support military operations in high latitudes.

3. Background. Prior to World War II the Coast Guard operated ice reinforced cutters of varying effectiveness. The first four modern deep draft U.S. icebreakers were built early in World War II. The Coast Guard operated one throughout the war, but delivered three to the Soviets shortly after commissioning. Replacements for these three icebreakers were completed by 1947; one was assigned to the Coast Guard and two to the Navy. In 1951 the Soviet government returned the three lend-lease icebreakers to the U.S.; again one was assigned to the Coast Guard and two to the Navy. In 1955 the Navy commissioned the GLACIER, a larger and more powerful ship than the previous construction. This increase in power and size was based on experience gained in high latitude operations.

The Navy is responsible for maintaining and operating icebreakers to support missions assigned by the Secretary of Defense which include logistic resupply of U.S. Arctic stations in Greenland, Northern Canada and Alaska; the needs of the National Oceanographic Survey, the U.S. Antarctic program and the research needs for this specially designed ship required by other government agencies.

Under 14 USC 2 the Coast Guard is responsible for establishing, maintaining, and operating, with due regard to the requirements of national defense, icebreaking facilities. Under 14 USC 94, icebreakers are employed extensively to fulfill' the Coast Guard's oceanographic research responsibility. Executive Order No. 7521 of December 21, 1936, established presidential policy on use of vessels for icebreaking operations in channels and harbors. The Coast Guard was directed to keep channels and harbors open for the reasonable demands of commerce insofar as practicable by means of icebreaking operations.

Title 10 USC 5031 and 5082 set out the broad authority to the Secretary of the Navy ". . . to execute such orders as he receives from the President relative to construction, armament, equipment, and employment of naval vessels . . ."; and of the Chief of Naval Operations who ". . . under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, shall determine the personnel and material requirements of the operating forces . . . including the order in which ships, aircraft, surface craft, weapons, and facilities are to be constructed, maintained, altered, repaired, and overhauled . . ." Recent Navy emphasis on assignment of Navy Personnel primarily to combatant and combatant support ships has led to reconsideration of dual Navy-Coast Guard operation of polar icebreakers. Investigation of this matter has led to the conclusion that operation. and manning of all U.S. icebreakers by the Coast Guard would be to the advantage of both the Navy and Treasury Departments. It is necessary, of course, for such operation to be responsive to Navy requirements.

4. Operational Procedures. The following procedures will provide for accom plishing United States National objectives which require icebreaker services with the maximium economy of forces.

a. The U.S. Coast Guard will maintain and operate all U.S. icebreakers. b. In the event of contingency or wartime operations in high latitudes, Coast Guard icebreakers will be required. Therefore, Coast Guard icebreakers will participate in peacetime operations in polar regions for environmental and readiness training.

c. The Coast Guard will assign icebreakers to Navy operational control for seasonal deployment to the Artic and Antarctic in support of the national interest.

d. The Coast Guard will provide icebreaking services to meet the rea sonable demands of commerce in United States ports, harbors, inland waterways and on the high seas.

e. The Navy, upon request from the Coast Guard, will assist in ice clearance of U.S. ports, harbors, and waterways in the event that a severe winter causes conditions which exceed the capability of Coast Guard icebreaking facilities.

f. The Coast Guard will participate to the extent practical in polar scientific programs sponsored by the Navy, the Coast Guard, the National Science Foundation and other Federal and private agencies having approved scientific missions requiring icebreaker services.

5. Icebreaker Replacement. The present total number of U.S. deep draft icebreakers is adequate to meet the requirements of the current national programs. However, the full employment, arduous duty and advanced age of the seven WIND class icebreakers requires a planned replacement program in the immediate future. In order to conserve national shipbuilding resources, and to ensure the ability to continue to meet the requirements of military, commercial, and scientific programs in polar regions, the following principals are agreed upon.

a. The Coast Guard will plan to replace icebreakers in its inventory with ships of appropriate size and power to meet the very heavy ice conditions in the Antarctic and potential military needs in the Arctic, to fulfill the reasonable demands of commerce and to carry out the U.S. science and research programs in polar regions.

b. The present national requirement for shallow draft icebreakers will be adequately met by the planned Coast Guard inventory of iceworthy buoy tenders, tugs and rescue cutters, including the USCGC MACKINAW (WAGB).

c, The Coast Guard and Navy will continue to exchange technical information and data to the extent necessary to ensure efficient icebreaker operation.

6. Future Requirements. U.S. Antarctic plans envision a long-term participation in Antarctica, and the Department of Defense has assigned the logistic support for the U.S. Antarctic program to the Navy. Icebreakers are required for logistic support of Antarctic bases and the inspection provisions of the Antarctic Treaty. Arctic icebreaker requirements consist of logistic support of military bases, oceanographic research, emergency repair of polar submarine cable, and support of potential military operations. Commercial shipping in Alaskan waters and in ports, harbors, and waterways of the U.S. Northeast Atlantic Coast and the Great Lakes, requires the services of icebreaking facilities during severe winter conditions. Coast Guard facilities are fully committed; therefore, any expansion of these activities may require additional icebreaking ships.

7. Funding. Complete implementation of this agreement by the Coast Guard will be dependent upon the appropriation of the necessary funds.

8. Revision. This agreement shall be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure meeting the demands for icebreaking services due to future developments in the military, commercial and scientific programs for the polar regions.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question? Commander, in the 1963 item, the Navy feasibility study, can you comment on that? Was this of icebreakers, was it of nuclear icebreakers, and was it in general leading in one direction or another?

Commander RINEHART. This was a feasibility study. It got as far as a ship's characteristic board memorandum which defined the vessel that they would design. This vessel was a nuclear-powered vessel. Mr. DELLENBACK. Were they urging development at that time? Commander RINEHART. I beg your pardon?

Mr. DELLENBACK. How far did they go in feeling that this ought to be done?

Commander RINEHART. To my knowledge the design was never completed. There was no design as such developed from this.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Because of funds, because of the feasibility study proving that they should not have this sort of thing, or was there any reason given?

Commander RINEHART. I Would say it would be fund limitation. There was nothing in this study that I have read that indicated that it would not be a good idea. I believe the general feeling of the Navy, at least those people connected with icebreakers, is that nuclear power would be good for icebreakers or at least should be considered. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you.

Mr. KARTH. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. KARTH. I wonder if the commander could tell us what the expected leadtime between design completion and development of an icebreaker would be in the nuclear class such as you have under consideration.

Commander RINEHART. If we start from the inception of preliminary design which we intend to go into this year, we would expect to be able to deliver the first vessel in 1973 or possibly 1974.

Mr. KARTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. One other question. I believe you said there were five transferred by the Navy to the Coast Guard. What is the age within the time frame for construction of those? The question is whether or not they are reasonably modern and in good shape as transferred to the Coast Guard by the Navy.

Commander RINEHART. Mr. Lennon, is the question what was the condition of the Navy icebreakers that we received?

Mr. LENNON. Yes, sir; and the time frame with reference to construction.

Commander RINEHART. They were the ships that were built during the same time as our Wind class. So they were all constructed during the period of 1943 to 1947.

Mr. LENNON. In the judgment of the Coast Guard are they the type of vessel that are comparable with the Coast Guard's latest icebreakers! Commander RINEHART. The Coast Guard's latest icebreakers, except for the Glacier, which is a unique vessel, were exactly the same as these vessels.

Mr. LENNON. As the Navy's?

Commander RINEHART. As the Navy's; yes, sir. There were seven vessels of the Wind class. The first three went to Russia. One was retained here. Then another authorization replaced those three ves