Have you been waiting too long to do this sort of thing? Have you been too modest in your requests to Congress?

Many of my colleagues would open their ears and eyes in amazement if they were to hear me advocating increased Government spending. In this instance I think it well justified.

You speak of building 100 additional housing units at Fort Buchanan. Is this provided in the budget for this year? Is it in the budget we received yesterday?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes; this is in there, for 120 units.

Mr. GOODLING. In your ship replacement program do you use your own facilities or private yards?

Admiral ROLAND. For building?

Mr. GOODLING. Yes.

Admiral ROLAND. At the Coast Guard yard we build boats but we do not build ships. We would not build one of these big ships, for instance.

During this program, while we are building 210-footers, we intend to have one under construction at the yard as the program goes along. The others will be built by commercial yards.

Mr. GOODLING. What becomes of the obsolete ships? Do they have any salvage value?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes; they are disposed of by the Government for whatever we can get for them.

In some cases they sit around for a long time before anybody shows up to take them because I think, as is evident from the hearing this morning, they are very old by the time we are through with them. Mr. GOODLING. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GARMATZ. Possibly the reason they can't sell them is because they can't pass their own inspection.

Mr. Lennon?

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to observe that the Coast Guard and the Treasury Department are here for the first time in 15 years in a different capacity. I think it was in 1949 that in the revision of the code this particular committee lost its socalled authorization authority. We welcome you gentlemen here in your new capacity.

It is appropriate to observe that one of the gentlemen appearing this morning, as a witness, is in my judgment largely responsible for this committee having this authorization authority, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

It is a fact, in my judgment, and I have tried to live pretty close to this thing, that Secretary Dillon and Assistant Secretary Reed, and you, too, Admiral, have been largely responsible, for the first time in the years I have been privileged to serve on this subcommittee, for bringing into the light of day the problems of the Coast Guard.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I don't think the gentleman speaking should be overlooked, either.

Mr. LENNON. Well, I am just one of the voting members.

My recollection is that you stated, Mr. Betts, and I think we should understand that you are not part of the Budget Bureau but the budget officer of the Department of the Treasury-not representing the Budget Bureau.

Mr. BETTS. That is right.

Mr. LENNON. Would you point out for my information, sir, this information: Does this difference of $18 million represent commitments and obligations for construction and improvements which have not yet been funded? What specifically does that $18 million represent?

Mr. BETTS. I will be glad to give you that.

Mr. LENNON. I think we should have it, Mr. Betts. In explaining this to other members, other than to this committee, they will say, "Well, you have $90 million for construction, acquisition, and improvement," whereas in truth and fact if we get what you are asking for we are getting just under $72 million.

Mr. BETTS. That is right.

Mr. LENNON. Would you enlighten me, please?
Mr. BETTS. Yes, sir.

In the vessel program there is an amount of $13,625,000 we are requesting from the Appropriations Committee which does not have to be authorized. It includes $500,000 for the design of an icebreaker; it includes three and a half million dollars Admiral Roland spoke about for the rehabilitation and modernization of the big 327-foot

Mr. LENNON. Is that six of the high-endurance class which you contemplate refurbishing and renovating?

Mr. BETTS. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. Was it six of the high-endurance class which you said you expected in fiscal 1965 to refurbish and refurbish at a cost of about $3 million-plus each?

Admiral ROLAND. No, sir. What I intended to say is that there are six altogether but just one to be done in 1965.

Mr. LENNON. I am reading from page 3, line 2:

Meanwhile we plan to refurbish six vessels of the over 327-foot class

which is the high-endurance vessel.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. You mean the cost of that particular program is in this $18 million?

Admiral ROLAND. Only part of the program, just one vessel.

Mr. LENNON. For fiscal 1965 you intend to refurbish only one at a cost of $3 million-plus?

Admiral ROLAND. That is right.

Mr. LENNON. Go ahead, Mr. Betts.

Mr. BETTS. We are asking for the cost of installing security communications on 14 ships at $1,850,000.

To install some oceanographic equipment on 15 ships, $1,125,000. We have some enlargement of a compartment on four 255-foot ships at $240,000.

We want to improve the icebreaker stability on three ships at $500,000.

We have a number of small ones here, improvement of the Mackinaw, putting in a new fuel system, $125,000; improve the icebreaker by installation of a helicopter hangar, $125,000; improve two seagoing tenders by installing bow thrusters, $200,000.

Improving three coastal tenders, $300,000.

Procurement of balloon-tracking radar for ocean-stationed vessels, $5,360,000.

That totals $13,625,000.

In addition we are asking in the budget for $400,000 for ground support for new helicopter detachments.

Miscellaneous and selected aids to navigation, $2,544,000.

To automate a light station in San Francisco, $100,000.
For survey and design of various facilities, $1,190,000.

For a gantry crane at the Coast Guard yard at Curtis Bay, $320,000. This totals $18,201,000 which does not require authorization from this committee.

Mr. LENNON. Just to refresh my memory, Mr. Betts, with respect to the authorization legislation, some of the items that you have mentioned not included in your authorization bill which you bring to us are so closely related to many that are in the bill which you bring us, would you tell me in a layman's language why these approximately $18 million of improvements are not included in your authorization bill which you seek from us?

How do you differ between what you come before us for and those which you go directly to the Appropriations Committee for without authorization?

I think that is something some of us would like to know.
Mr. BETTS. I think it is very appropriate, Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. I would appreciate your opinion as a budget officer. Mr. BETTS. I will give you my opinions and you might want to hear from Captain Trimble or someone from the Coast Guard who has more intimate knowledge of vessels.

My understanding is that the language of the Public Law 88-45 said it is for the construction of shore, offshore establishments, and for the procurement of vesssel or aircraft."

The items I read to you do not seem to fall into that category. Mr. LENNON. In other words, refurbishing, refurnishing, or improving capital investment which we now have?

Mr. BETTS. That is right, or design work which is not part of procurement.

Mr. LENNON. So in the authorization legislation which you are. seeking from this committee, all of these items can be considered as completely new capital investments?

Mr. BETTS. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. Although in some instances on our shore installations. we actually are refurbishing, refurnishing, repairing, and renovating existing capital improvements, are we not?

Mr. BETTS. That is true on the runways; that is right.

Mr. LENNON. That is what I am trying to get. Where do you draw the line in regard to these installations?

Mr. BETTS. I went over most of this which involved refurbishing of vessels and improvements to vessels.

In the shore stations the only thing not being requested to be authorized is, first, some aids to navigation; automation of one light station.

Mr. LENNON. Don't misunderstand me. I am not seeking additional authorization but I want the lines to be clearly drawn.

When you go before the Appropriations Committee for this total amount of the authorization from this committee, plus the approximately $18 million, how are they determined? Is it likely that the Appropriations Committee will say, "This is authorized but this is not"?

We should look ahead to that, you lawyers in the Department, as to what the committee questions will be. How do you differentiate and distinguish? These things are close. "We don't believe that is authorized." We don't want that problem.

Mr. BETTS. I hope not. The budget presentation we will be making to them starting on February 3, spells out this $90 million along the lines presented to you as supplemental information on the authorization bill.

In addition we have broken out in a table, which I shall be glad to insert in the record if it would be helpful to this committee, and we plan to insert it in the Appropriations Committee, a list of the line items as to whether they are required to be authorized or not.

Mr. LENNON. I would request unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman,

that that be done.

Mr. GARMATZ. Very well.

Mr. BETTS. When the testimony comes down I shall insert it. (The information referred to follows:)

Analysis of Coast Guard authorizations and budget requests for fiscal year 1965

(h) Construct 1 additional Missouri River tender with mooring facilities.

635

(7) Improve 2 seagoing tenders by installing bow thrusters.

200

(8) Improve 3 coastal tenders by installation of increased capacity booms
and winches.

300

(d) Procure ground support for new helicopters.

400

(e) Construct public housing, Coast Guard Detachment, Annette
Island, Alaska.

1. 140

Analysis of Coast Guard authorizations and budget requests for fiscal year 1965—Con.

(c) Improve and enlarge facilities at Coast Guard Base, Woods Hole,
Mass

V. Training and recruiting facilities:

(a) Construct fieldhouse addition to Billard Hall, Coast Guard Acad-
emy, New London, Conn.

1,750

Mr. LENNON. I notice in your statement with respect to the request for approximately $14 million for a large cutter one of the items was meteorological and oceanographic installations. Is that one of the items to go into the vessel replacement programs?

Admiral ROLAND. That will be one of the functions.

Mr. LENNON. I notice, too, you provide in your breakdown, which you were kind enough to furnish us and which I have had an opportunity to look at, that you have a reduction in personnel-officers, warrant officers, and enlisted, numbering eight. Are facilities going to be provided on this high endurance vessel which has as one of its missions meteorological and oceanographic studies, will facilities be provided for, say, civilian scientists to come aboard, laboratories and things of that kind? How will you house them if they come on board for a week or so?

Admiral ROLAND. The provision is in the planning of the ship for the limited laboratory work which can be done on board the ship. The quarters for the scientists are specifically provided for.

Mr. LENNON. Will this new ship take advantage of automation to any degree, new types of equipment, mechanized equipment? Admiral ROLAND. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. I notice you provide a decrease of eight. I wonder to what degree the ship is being modernized.

Captain HOUTSMA. This vessel will be powered by a gas turbine. We expect the maintenance necessity for an on-board crew of the sledge hammer and chisel type will be eliminated and we will have higher trained people and fewer of them.

As an example, we expect to have the watches in the engineroom stood in an office where recordings which are normally made by people carrying mimeographed sheets will be actually done automatically. Another feature is that the maintenance of the ship, day-to-day painting done over and over again in the same area, oftentimes by the same men, will be eliminated by the use of plastic coatings.

We also expect, when this vessel is on-station, that we will not use the main engines to maintain station but will have an auxiliary method, a rather unique propeller in the bow. We hope by these means to release personnel, and this statement as to the reduction of personnel is in answer to your question due to new materials and to automation.