Arctic; or Pan Am 103 goes down, and it turns out to be in the Arctic; or, indeed, we have an oil spill up there in the Arctic in the ice, and you do not have any U.S. presence to go up there, then we have the real thing.

So we cannot talk about activity level. We cannot talk about science work, and which agency is going to do science work. We should talk about that, but we have to talk about presence.

The GAO report is keyed to whether we should-

Senator LAUTENBERG. The Navy's ownership of this icebreaker would give us a presence.

Admiral NELSON. Yes, sir; that would. But the GAO report, I think, keys to whether we want to have a sixth or a seventh icebreaker. We are talking about two icebreakers, Mr. Chairman; we are talking about presence, both in the Arctic east, around the Greenland area, the Arctic west, around the Alaska area; we are talking about Antarctica: distances, great distances.

We are talking about two icebreakers, not the sixth or the seventh. I want to make that point.

Mr. MEAD. But, I think

Admiral NELSON. May I just finish?

COAST GUARD'S ICEBREAKING ROLE

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, please.

Admiral NELSON. The other issue that I want to talk about is the role of the Coast Guard as the icebreaker motor pool. I think that has to be studied somewhat. Are we going to operate the Nation's icebreakers or are we not going to operate the Nation's icebreakers?

GAO correctly pointed out that they do not do really anything for the Coast Guard. We operate them as a service for the Nation. And we are expected by Congress to impose user charges. That gives other agencies a tough time. I work with the National Science Foundation, and the National Science Foundation has put out a number of official documents supporting this third icebreaker fully, and indicating they would fully utilize it.

Senator LAUTENBERG. We will have to see that.

Admiral NELSON. The President has also indicated that. And I feel that the GAO people went down to the National Science Foundation and talked to some of their ribbon clerks down there, and they recognize, because they are flush with cash in that particular agency, that they might be able to get another icebreaker. And so they are lobbying for it.

All the GAO is doing is focusing on the Coast Guard's role in icebreakers. I think the study should be expanded, and I have talked to Mr. Mead about this, to include the total icebreaker issue, and the total Arctic presence issue.

I would welcome this committee doing that.

Do I sound passionate on this thing? I am a little bit passionate on it.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I think you sound appropriately committed. The American presence I think is important. I must tell you this, I listened very carefully to your colleagues. And I would have to tell you that I thought it was a pretty intelligent, very complete

review, as I sat with Admiral Robbins and others, we were in airplanes for lots of hours.

If the Coast Guard is going to operate the icebreaker motor pool, to use your description, because it really kind of synthesizes the thing in fairly crisp form, that maybe someone else ought to buy it who has got more money, like the Navy, and turn it over to the Coast Guard and say, OK, now here it is, you operate it.

The fact is that the executive branch has declared that the Coast Guard is the icebreaker agency, but then goes ahead and provides funding for NSF to get its own icebreaker.

Now that is a violation, in my view, of policy. It certainly muddies up the decisionmaking process.

Admiral NELSON. Absolutely.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I think this is a constructive exchange here this morning.

The fact is that I do not hear GAO saying that we ought not to have an icebreaker presence; I hear them talking about making the operation that we have more efficient. Maybe they are wrong, but I think it is appropriate to raise the question.

I think that the Coast Guard has an obligation to respond to that. You have already, in talking about crews. I still have the question about where homeporting takes place.

Again, one day we will have a review of why it is unique to Seattle that the icebreaker service or maintenance is done there. I mean, if San Diego or some other far southern port can handle it, then we ought not to have the vessel out to sea that much longer to make up the distance, a few days on each end. Those are very long, long stretches.

HOMEPORTS FOR ICEBREAKERS

Admiral NELSON. Sir, I would just say that when we had five icebreakers, we had two of them on the east coast, and there was a good mix.

Senator LAUTENBERG. We have not even discussed-I have not discussed the east coast. Certainly we know we need that kind of task.

Admiral NELSON. And we had one in southern California. But as we decommissioned the old ones, it turned out the new ones were in Seattle. And we have not moved to relocate those. We would hope we would not. But we have to see how the budget process comes down this year.

USE OF ICEBREAKERS

Senator LAUTENBERG. Did you want to say something else, Mr. Mead, in response to Admiral Nelson?

Mr. MEAD. Just very quickly.

Certainly the point Admiral Nelson makes about looking at who is really running the Nation's icebreaker fleet is a point that I think is very well taken.

Second, Admiral Nelson's point about a contingency plan for an icebreaker. I should think that that point about the presence, anywhere in the world at any time, for the whales or for whatever casualty, would argue in favor of an icebreaker that was capable of

crunching ice in the 6-foot area, which is what their existing icebreakers are capable of, not a backup icebreaker that would not be able to crunch ice to that degree.

Third, I did want to clarify that when our folks go out and interview people from other agencies, the ribbon clerk in this case was the National Science Foundation's Director of Polar Operations. We felt that he was a credible and sufficiently senior source to speak for them.

Admiral NELSON. We speak with forked tongue. [Laughter.] Senator LAUTENBERG. This is getting to be fun, is it not? [Laughter.]

Admiral NELSON. We do, Mr. Chairman, I have to be very honest, have a difference of opinion with our users.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Absolutely.

Admiral NELSON. Both regarding use of our icebreakers and other things.

Senator LAUTENBERG. And it is not the difference with GAO. I think they are highlighting the difference in the user community, the differences in the user community.

Admiral NELSON. We had an oil spill down in the Antarctic, and we had an icebreaker down there. That icebreaker had all sorts of capability, including the ability to be first on scene. They had divers, they had welders, they had enginemen, they had all sorts of heavy lift capability.

And yet they were not deployed by the National Science Foundation, who elected to use their own foreign sources to respond to that spill.

I find that incredible.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I agree.

Well, we are not going to resolve this today.

Admiral NELSON. No, sir.

FUNDING ICEBREAKER ACQUISITION

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am not sure whether the Coast Guard, and I use this in as kindly a fashion as I can, is not kind of the decoy or the attraction in this process to get the job done.

The Navy wants it, but does not want to do it; NSF wants to do it and they want it their way, but they know that the Coast Guard has an especially good appeal these days to the people who sit on this side of the desk, and maybe saying, OK, let us let them get it, and that will take the pressure off of us.

And it is testimony to the skill and commitment of the Coast Guard that you are being positioned that way.

But I wonder whether out of, and this reflects my own thinking, out of a roughly $300 billion budget, that a mere little $250 or $300 million icebreaker could not be kind of included on one of the request forms, and let the Coast Guard have the design and operating responsibility, and not put that kind of pressure on the Coast Guard budget where I think there is more use of the funding available.

Admiral NELSON. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say, when we agreed to take all of the icebreakers back in 1968 and operated them as an icebreaker pool, we agreed within the administration

that any replacements would be funded and operated by the Coast Guard.

And so that is why we are in the process of initiating studies and trying to meet the needs of the Nation.

So that is where we stand.

Senator LAUTENBERG. We might be able to encourage NSF to discourage them from going ahead with their icebreaker until we kind of resolve some of the discussions that we are having here.

Well, with that, we will end this endurance contest that we have been through today. And we will probably get an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records for it.

I appreciate the testimony and the effort that has gone into preparing this. All of you were very, very good witnesses.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

This committee will stand in recess until Thursday, May 4, 10 a.m., at which time we will review the budget for the Federal Aviation Administration.

The hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:14 p.m., Wednesday, April 12, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 4.]

The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m. in room SD-134 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Lautenberg, Byrd, Harkin, D'Amato, and Grassley.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

STATEMENT OF ROBERT WHITTINGTON, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:

NICHOLAS S. STOER, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET

WILLIAM POLLARD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR TRAFFIC ANTHONY BRODERICK, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR REGULATION AND CERTIFICATION

MONTE BELGER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION STANDARDS

ED HARRIS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIRWAY FACILITIES ROBERT DONAHUE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIRPORTS MARTIN POZESKY, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR NAS

DEVELOPMENT

OPENING REMARKS

Senator LAUTENBERG. We will call the Subcommittee of Transportation of the Appropriations Committee to order.

You have your troops lined up, Mr. Whittington.

Today we will be hearing from the FAA as they defend their $7.4 billion budget request for fiscal year 1990.

BUDGET REQUEST

The budget request reflects a nearly 14 percent increase for operations, a 41-percent increase for facilities and equipment, and a 3percent increase for R&D, and about a 4-percent reduction for grants to airport programs.