« ForrigeFortsett »
Mr. LENNON. I believe the explanation of that is that the reason the Coast Guard was assigned this responsibility in addition to its historical duties is that we do not want to make a show of the force of the Navy, is that right?
Admiral MORRISON. That was my understanding; yes, sir.
Mr. LENNON. But that is taking a considerable amount of personnel and ships of certain types, is it not?
Admiral MORRISON. Yes, it is.
Mr. LENNON. And will continue to do so for as long as any of us can foresee the future.
Admiral MORRISON. We started out originally and thought that we could do this on a 6-month crash basis and we have been at it longer than that.
Mr. LENNON. Unless something happens in Cuba, it will continue. Admiral MORRISON. I am afraid so, yes, sir.
Mr. LENNON. Does the Coast Guard intend to present to this committee sometime during this session sort of a dry run on its capital improvement program? Is that the thinking?
Admiral MORRISON. Yes, indeed. The presentation you saw today was just a prelude to a subsequent presentation to discuss our longrange plans.
Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GROVER. May I say, Admiral, that we recently in the New York area had to-do over some newspaper reports cutting down on the capability or the personnel and equipment, and so forth, in the Long Island Sound and the Great South Bay and related areas and your district commander, Mr. Reed, I think, dispatched this notion with adroitness.
I am just wondering, though, if we could not anticipate these problems. I am thinking now why can you not have a documentary film to show this sort of thing to the people? I think it is an excellent presentation, the one you had today.
Admiral MORRISON. Well, we intend to expand on this particular film today. This was hurriedly put together.
As I say, we intend to expand on it and make it into a permanent film for future showing.
If I may make a little comment on the situation in New York, this all stems from a recent report on the requirements for Coast Guard shore units. The objective of this report was not to make any decrease in service. It is certainly obvious in the report, which incidentally has not yet been approved by Treasury but we expect approval very shortly, that the objective is to increase service.
Now, it is quite possible that we might take a boat from one location and move it to another or provide a better boat in a different location but provide helicopter service, but certainly there is no desire to diminish our services.
Mr. GROVER. I am quite satisfied with that.
Your district commander and Mr. Reed have had a conference and I think everybody but perhaps the newspaperman is satisfied that you are increasing the service with these new helicopter units, but the point I am making is that the Coast Guard was put on the defensive in this instance because you had a long-range plan here which is going
to increase the service and, had you started with a little public relations to begin to sell that, I do not think this misunderstanding would have occurred.
What I am saying now is that you are going to have to come to Congress for replacement of ocean station vessels and then, after that, or perhaps collaterally with it, new icebreakers, and, if people do not generally know, as pointed out by our chairman, the work that you are doing, then this becomes a matter of dollars and cents rather than a complete understanding of the real true value of the replacement of these vessels.
In other words, I am saying, do not hide your light under a bushel, as I think I said once before, because I think you have something to sell.
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Downing.
Mr. DoWNING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the Coast Guard on this excellent presentation.
In line with my colleague's statement, for years I think the best kept secret of the United States was the activity of the Coast Guard. But I will say that, within the last year or two, I have noticed a definite trend toward informing the general public of these activities. I think that is good. Things like this should be distributed more evenly.
I have great respect for the Coast Guard. I have been rescued twice by it. I want you fellows to keep up to snuff and not be hesitant in putting forth good programs for improvement.
I do think that, within the past year, I have seen a decided trend toward more and better public relations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. .
Mr. BONNER. There is one further question I would like to ask. Should a national emergency arise, by reason of the present condition of Coast Guard equipment, is your readiness lowered ?
Admiral MORRISON. Yes, indeed, sir.
Mr. BONNER. That is one of the directives to the Coast Guard, is it not?
Admiral MORRISON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BONNER. As an adjunct to the national defense, the Coast Guard should be ready.
Admiral MORRISON. That is one of our statutory duties and we get our equipment from the Department of Defense. Most of our equipment is quite obsolete. Insofar as antisubmarine warfare is concerned, we are still using mostly World War II equipment, although we do have a modernization program underway now which is rather modest but at least it is underway.
Mr. BONNER. This is one thing that I hope that all of the committee will know about and be interested in because, when we go to the floor of the House with national defense authorizations for the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, there is no question about it but here in your case only a few, a handful who know something about the Coast Guard, realize the inadequacy of the Coast Guard at the present time to carry out the functions that are delegated to it.
Mr. REED. Could I comment on that for a moment, Mr. Chairman? Mr. BONNER. Yes.
Mr. REED. I would say 6 or 7 months ago we undertook the comprehensive study of the capabilities of the Coast Guard Reserve not only with respect to personnel but also with regard to its material. We had a comprehensive study made so that I think today we know where all our Reserve units stand and how short they are from the optimum standards which are set really by the Department of Defense. We know that for the first time.
We are woefully short in material and equipment, and so forth, which these men will need in the event of national emergency.
We also now have a comprehensive Reserve program for personnel. We have a flag officer in charge of that and he, too, has made a very comprehensive study of the personnel situation.
Again we are very short of the goal set by the Department of Defense but we are caught in this bind which has been so typical of the problems of the Coast Guard over the last 2 years or more, I daresay, not only with respect to the Reserve program but with respect to nearly every other program in Coast Guard Establishment. That is, we just do not get the money necessary to give us the equipment that is so needed and so necessary for us to perform all these functions that you saw shown today.
One reason I am so happy to have this forum is to present to all of you our views on this.
I thought you would be interested in that. Mr. Downing. Mr. Secretary, why don't you get the money? Do you make the request for it?
Mr. REED. We make that request. I think in years past it has been difficult in getting the initial approval from the Treasury Department. Happily we have that approval today. We have been having trouble with the Bureau of the Budget. I understand their reasons. They have their own problems in connection with approving budgetary requests we submit before the Appropriations Committee.
I do think there is a different climate today. I think there is more of an appreciation and understanding on the part of all those interested parties in what we are trying to do. Indeed, I think within the last year or two we have had more money than we have ever had in a comparable period during peacetime before, but we need a great deal more to meet the long-range programs which we finally have in being today which we will
present to your committee. Mr. ĞARMATZ. I want to say a word.
Admiral, I think these pictures were most interesting and very informative. Unfortunately, some of the other members could not be here this morning due to other committee meetings, but I hope that there is a chance that we may have this picture again and have the other committee members and also mention the fact to the entire membership on the floor.
Admiral MORRISON. We would be very happy, sir.
Mr. GARMATZ. Then we could have a full house and give all the members, whether on the Merchant Marine Committee or not, the benefit of the Coast Guard, especially those in the lake regions and up and down the east and west coasts.
I am in hopes, with the permission of the chairman, that the Coast Guard Subcommittee, along with some of the other members, if they care to do so, may go to visit some of these installations. We visited
several weeks ago in the Coast Guard but unfortunately our day was taken up pretty much. We could go up to the yard and up to the Academy and some of the installations on the east coast and maybe take the west coast at some other time and really see what you
have in these installations and familiarize the committee members with some of the things we do have in some of your installations, with some of your equipment, and actually see them at the station and things of that sort.
That would be helpful to our own members, so that we can sell ourselves before we try to sell someone else on the good deeds of the Coast Guard.
I notice in this morning's paper, the Baltimore Sun, something on this nuclear generator on this lighthouse in the Chesapeake Bay area.
Admiral MORRISON. We have had an experimental program in that area for some time.
Mr. GARMATZ. This is one of the Martin generator setups. It will be out at Curtis Bay for 2 to 6 months' test before it is installed in the Baltimore lighthouse. It says:
Later, it will be moved to a more remote lighthouse.
Installation of the generator in the Baltimore lighthouse which is presently unmanned, will significantly cut the amount of servicing required by the lighthouse.
Currently, the lighthouse requires servicing every 30 days.
However, with the installation of the new generator, servicing will be necessary every 3 to 6 months, when light bulbs will have to be checked.
The generator will operate for 10 years without refueling.
Without objection, the entire article will appear in the record at this point. (The article referred to follows:)
(From the Baltimore Sun, Nov. 19, 1963)
NUCLEAR GENERATOR FOR BAY LIGHTHOUSE IS DELIVERED
(By John B. O'Donnell, Jr.) A nuclear generator which will power a lighthouse in the Chesapeake Bay was delivered to the Coast Guard yard at Curtis Bay yesterday by the Martin Co.
However, the Coast Guard did not take possession, as originally scheduled, of the unit because a small malfunction was discovered in the instrumentation. A Coast Guard spokesman said it would be corrected by Martin's nuclear division, probably by the end of the week.
At that time, the generator will be turned over to the Coast Guard.
TESTS ARE GET
The generator will undergo 2 to 6 months of tests at the Curtis Bay yard before being installed in the Baltimore lighthouse off Gibson Island. Later, it will be moved to a more remote lighthouse.
The generator is powered by 20 pounds of radioactive strontium titanate, a safe form of strontium 90, according to Martin.
The generator is one of the SNAP, for Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power, built by Martin. Similar generators power unmanned weather stations buried underground at the North and South Poles.
Built at Martin's Middle River plant, the generator was taken to Quehanna, Pa., last January for fueling at the only U.S. industrial laboratory equipped to process radioisotopes on a large scale.
Installation of the generator in the Baltimore lighthouse, which is presently unmanned, will significantly cut the amount of servicing required by the lighthouse.
Currently, the lighthouse requires servicing every 30 days.
However, with the installation of the new generator, servicing will be neces sary every 3 to 6 months, when light bulbs will have to be checked.
The generator will operate for 10 years without refueling.
KNOWN AS SNAP-7B
The generator known as SNAP-7B is 3442 inches high, 22 inches in diameter, and weighs 4,600 pounds, including the shielding. A 3-inch layer of depleted uranium acts as the shield. In addition, double layers of a rupture-resistant, noncorrosive alloy known as Hastelloy-C encase the fuel.
Heat from the decaying radioisotopes in the 60-watt generator is converted to electricity by 120 pairs of thermocouples.
The generator is one of the two most powerful radioisotope generators built thus far in the United States. The other, also constructed by Martin's nuclear division, is a similar 60-watt unit which will be installed in the Gulf of Mexico early next year to operate a Navy weather barge.
Another Martin SNAP generator recently completed a successful 2-year test powering an unmanned weather station on Axel Heiberg Islands, several hundred miles from the North Pole.
Mr. GARMATZ. I am just wondering what are you people doing relative to small boating, pleasure boating. Is there anything else that might be done, any plans you have to meet the overall hotrod problem in general outside of the numbering program?
Admiral MORRISON. We have no plans, Mr. Chairman, except to increase our educational efforts toward greater safety.
Mr. GARMATZ. Again it is more money and more men.
Mr. BONNER. In connection with that, how many units do you have traveling around?
Admiral MORRISON. Mobile boarding units?
Admiral MORRISON. Of course, all Coast Guard units which have small boats, and that includes our larger vessels, participate in the boarding program.
Mr. BONNER. I mean on these inland boardings on lakes, and so forth.
Admiral MORRISON. I think it is in the neighborhood of 30 to 40 of these specific units, the mobile boarding teams that we send all around the country to various inland navigable bodies of water.
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Lennon.
Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one more comment. I think these gentlemen should be reassured that the lack of attendance here this morning of the full committee is no indication of the real concern we have for the Coast Guard. There were 123 Members of the House yesterday who did not answer rollcall or did not vote yesterday so that is an indication that our membership has gone to the hustings or gone back home.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that, if we could have a rerun of this same picture with any additions that might be made to it early in January shortly after Congress convenes, we would have almost our total membership. I happen to know that there are a lot of the Members out of town who did not answer rollcall yesterday.