[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET FOR COAST GUARD AND MARITIME
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS, AND H.R. 889, THE COAST GUARD AND MARTIME
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2005
=======================================================================
(109-4)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 3, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-872 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama BOB FILNER, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SUE W. KELLY, New York GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
GARY G. MILLER, California ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JULIA CARSON, Indiana
JON C. PORTER, Nevada TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
TED POE, Texas RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
VACANCY
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Democrat
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington, California
Vice-Chair MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
CONNIE MACK, Florida ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
DON YOUNG, Alaska JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio) (Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Blust, Steven R., Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission......... 8
Collins, Admiral Thomas H., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard........ 4
Moravec, Joseph, Commissioner of Public Building Service, U.S.
General Services Administration................................ 10
Welch, Master Chief Franklin A., Master Chief Petty Officer,
U.S. Coast Guard............................................... 6
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
LoBiondo, Hon. Frank A., of New Jersey........................... 75
Young, Hon. Don, of Alaska....................................... 89
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Blust, Steven R................................................. 24
Collins, Admiral Thomas H....................................... 31
Moravec, Joseph................................................. 77
Welch, Master Chief Franklin A.................................. 84
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Collins, Admiral Thomas H., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard:
Rescue 21 Project Summary-Deployment Schedule, chart.......... 44
Legacy National Distress Response System vs. Rescue 21, chart.. 45
Nationwide AIS (NAIS) Projected Deployment FY05-FY10 (FOC),
chart........................................................ 46
Responses to questions......................................... 47
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Fleet Reserve Association, statement............................. 97
National Association of State Boating Law Administrators,
statement...................................................... 94
THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET FOR COAST GUARD AND MARITIME
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS, AND H.R. 889, THE COAST GUARD AND MARITIME
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2005
----------
Thursday, March 3, 2005
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation, Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:00
a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank
LoBiondo [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation will now come to order. The
Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the fiscal
year 2006 budget for the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation programs, and H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2005.
We are reviewing the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
request for the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland
Security's Port Security Grant Program and the Federal Maritime
Commission. I am pleased to see that the Administration has
recognized the critical work done by both the Coast Guard and
the Federal Maritime Commission and is requesting increases in
funding for both of these organizations in fiscal year 2006.
Nevertheless, the Subcommittee has concerns with some areas
of the Coast Guard budget that finds the amount requested for
port security grants to be inadequate to meet our maritime
security needs. The Administration has requested $8.1 billion
for the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2006. That is an increase of
$571 million or approximately 8 percent more than the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 2005.
This increase is divided between operating expenses and
capital improvements. Under capital improvements, the
Administration's request of $242 million is an increase for the
Deepwater Program. While it is nice to see that we are finally
making some progress, it is disappointing that this increase is
still less than the amount needed to get the program back onto
its original 20-year schedule.
I am also very frustrated that we have yet to be provided
with the program's re-baselined implementation plan. The plan
provides the blueprint for changes in asset capabilities to
reflect the post-9/11 environment. Before the Subcommittee can
move forward with its annual authorization for the service, we
need to be provided with this information. It is imperative
that we have a complete understanding of what we are buying.
I urge the Service, the Department and the Office of
Management and Budget to work out their issues with the plan
and get it to Congress as soon as possible. In the absence of
the new implementation plan, the Committee and the Subcommittee
leadership have introduced legislation to authorize $1.1
billion for Deepwater acquisition. We believe that this level
would allow the program to be completed in 15 years.
We understand that number may change once we see the plan.
Completing Deepwater in less than 20 years is critically
important if the Coast Guard is expected to successfully carry
out its missions. These aging assets are suffering operational
failures at an alarming rate and putting the lives of their
crews and the public they serve in grave danger. Accelerating
the replacement of legacy assets will enhance mission
performance and reduce rapidly escalating operational and
maintenance costs.
The homeland security mission of the Coast Guard continues
its post-September 11 growth. This year, the service should
complete the planning processes required under the Maritime
Transportation Security Act and move forward with full
implementation of the Act. The Subcommittee is still concerned
that we are focusing on protecting our shores once vessels are
here, rather than pushing out our oversight as far as possible
and preventing terrorists and any dangerous materials in their
possession from reaching our shores. Prevention is always
easier and safer than response.
Despite the particular attention placed on the Coast
Guard's homeland security-related missions in recent years, the
service continues to perform at a much broader range of
responsibilities. In the past three months, much media
attention has been focused on the Coast Guard's response to oil
spills in the Delaware River and in Alaska. In Alaska, the
service successfully rescued at great personal risk, 20 of 26
members of a crew of a vessel drifting without power in the
Bering Sea. The Coast Guard then immediately began an oil spill
response once the vessel broke apart. In the Delaware River,
the Coast Guard responded to the environmental damage from a
spill when the hull of the Athos I was breached by an uncharted
submerged object or objects. We are still not sure which.
The subcommittee will be looking further in to the lessons
we have learned from these spills and will pursue legislative
remedies later this spring. These spills are a reminder that
the Coast Guard's traditional missions must remain priorities
for the service. The strength of America's commerce relies on
waterborne trade and the Coast Guard protects that trade not
only from terrorism, but also from other threats. We need to
make sure these programs also receive the attention that they
deserve in the budget.
Of particular concern is the request to transfer Research
and Development Test and Evaluation funds from the Coast Guard
to the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of
Homeland Security. Congress rejected this flawed proposal last
year, and this Subcommittee will lead the effort to do so again
this year. We were assured initially that we would not have to
face this kind of a challenge when the Coast Guard came under
Homeland Security, but unfortunately we have to deal with it
once again and we will be very vigorous in pursuit of this.
The Maritime Transportation Security Act authorizes grants
to help ports improve security. More than $735 million has been
appropriated over the last four years under this provision. The
Administration proposes a single multi-sector grant program for
fiscal year 2006. I am concerned that such a program would pay
little attention to the maritime needs. I hope we can protect
funding for the Port Security Grant Program at no less than the
fiscal year 2005 appropriated level of $150 million. I look
forward to an explanation of the effects this proposal would
have on implementing the port and facilities security plans
called for under the Maritime Transportation Security Act.
We will also hear this morning from the General Services
Administration about the proposed move of the Coast Guard's
headquarters to property formerly used by St. Elizabeths
Hospital. I also look forward to learning more about this
proposal.
Finally, the President's fiscal year 2006 budget for the
Federal Maritime Commission proposes $20.5 million, an increase
of $1 million. This increase will allow the Commission to
continue vigilant enforcement of foreign shipping rules and
regulations to protect U.S. shipping concerns.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming this morning. We
look forward to your testimony. Now, I would ask Mr. Filner for
any opening statement.
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
working with you and the other members of the committee this
year in this session of Congress. We have the important role,
now, of looking over the budget for the Coast Guard.
Of course, the President's proposed budget is 8 percent
higher than we appropriated last year. I wish he did equally
well in other parts of the budget, but that is not a discussion
here today. You have, I think, recommended increased funding
for the Deepwater Acquisition Program. It may not be enough to
accelerate the program as much as we have expressed in the
past, and I am especially concerned that the Administration has
not given to the Congress the so-called re-baselining of the
Deepwater Program so that Congress will understand what changes
need to be made to that program in the post-9/11 world. As it
stands, it looks to us like we are buying new vessels and
aircraft without a proper consideration of what is needed to
meet the new challenges.
Let me just mention a couple of other things which I have
mentioned to the Admiral over time in personal conversations,
and I appreciate the time, Admiral, you have given to us to
explain the Coast Guard's budget and the programs.
I have talked over the last couple of years about the
HITRON helicopter. That is the fast-moving helicopters that
could deal with drug interdiction. We have I guess not made the
advances that I thought we should in terms of having more of
those HITRON helicopters. I represent, of course, San Diego and
we have through South America and the sea right off our coast
many drug runners. The HITRON helicopters would be a great
benefit to us. We know they have interdicted, in fact, up until
this time $6 billion worth of drugs, so we know how effective
they are. I still am not sure why we have not leased any
additional ones to deal with this threat on the West Coast.
Chairman LoBiondo and Chairman Young of the Appropriations
Committee last year agreed that we put in $39 million in the
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act authorization to
lease that additional squadron. Of course, it has not occurred.
Another issue that I look at, Admiral, is that when you
gave us the Budget in Brief with the pie charts here, we
appropriated in fiscal year 2005 $2.48 billion for non-homeland
security missions. The Coast Guard spent $2.05 billion. That
is, over $430 million was put in the non-homeland security. It
was shortchanged, perhaps the search and rescue, marine safety,
aids to navigation kind of programs. Of course, we have the
benefit up here of saying you are not spending enough on
homeland security, and then if you spent more, we say you have
not spent enough on non-homeland security, but that is our
privilege, I guess, as Congress members. But I do not think
Congress intended when we enacted the Homeland Security Act
that there should be a decrease in the non-homeland or
traditional missions of the Coast Guard. So I hope you may
speak to that, too.
So Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on these
issues. I look forward to working with you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay, thank you, Mr. Filner.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome our new
members that are here today. We have some new faces and we are
thrilled that they are with us. We believe they can help us in
what we are trying to do with authorization and oversight. On
our side of the aisle, we have four new members to our
Subcommittee. We have Vice Chairman Dave Reichert from the
State of Washington. Thanks for being with us. We have Connie
Mack from the great State of Florida. We have Louis Fortuno,
who is on his way. Okay. And we also have Charles Boustany from
the State of Louisiana.
Mr. Filner, do you want to introduce?
Mr. Filner. They have all given me their proxies.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay.
Mr. Filner. We have only one true freshman on our
committee, Congressman Higgins from upstate New York. We have
two red shirt freshmen who are not true freshmen, but are new
to this committee. That is Congressman Weiner of New York City
and Congressman Honda from San Jose, California.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay.
We will welcome our panel now. We have Admiral Collins,
Commandant of the United States Coast Guard. We thank you for
joining us again. We also have Master Chief Franklin A. Welsh,
Master Chief Petty Officer of the United States Coast Guard. We
have the Honorable Steven R. Blust, who is the Chairman of the
Federal Maritime Commission. And we have Mr. Joseph Moravec,
who is the Commissioner of Public Building Service for the U.S.
General Services Administration.
Admiral Collins, please start off.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THOMAS H. COLLINS, COMMANDANT, UNITED
STATES COAST GUARD
Admiral Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be with you and
distinguished members of the committee. Thanks for the
invitation to be with you today to discuss issues that are near
and dear to our heart, and that is the 2006 budget request.
From our view, it is a great budget and will have a positive
impact on how the Coast Guard delivers services across America
for all our missions.
Since 9/11, we have made great progress in securing
America's waterways and making America's waterways safe at the
same time. There is absolutely no doubt that there is a lot of
work that remains, but there is also no doubt that we have
improved maritime homeland security every day. That in large
measure goes to the strong policy and budgetary support of the
Administration and Congress, and very importantly, this
committee. We appreciate that support.
The Coast Guard 2006 budget continues our progress,
proposing discretionary budget authority of $6.9 billion. This
budget provides the necessary resources to continue
recapitalizing, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard's
aging cutters, boats, aircraft and supporting infrastructure,
while building up maritime safety and security capabilities
essential to meeting present and future demands.
The overarching goal here is to secure America's borders by
managing and ultimately reducing risk. It is a very risk-based
focus that we take, risk in the maritime domain. Doing so
requires that we identify and intercept threats well before
they reach our shores by conducting a layered, multi-agency
security operation, while strengthening the security posture of
our strategic economic and military ports. As we reduce
maritime risk we continually balance, and we area always
involved in this balance equation of each of the Coast Guard
missions in how we deploy assets so there is no degradation in
the service that America expects across our missions.
The 2006 budget will positively impact our ability to
deliver these type of services, both safety and security, to
America. We have three priorities as reflected in the Budget in
Brief document: recapitalizing the Coast Guard, primarily
through the Deepwater Program, but there are other obviously
capital initiatives within this budget; implementing or to help
implement maritime security for homeland security; and
enhancing mission performance across the board.
Obviously, the central feature, as you mentioned and
underscored, Mr. Chairman, is Deepwater. It not only serves to
recapitalize the Coast Guard, it is the foundation for and
necessary precursor to implementing the maritime strategy for
homeland security and enhancing our mission performance across
the board.
I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge the
outstanding service provided by extremely dedicated Coast Guard
work force, a total team of uniformed active duty, reserve,
auxiliary personnel, dedicated civilian employees, and I would
also add talented contractors, to help us do our job.
My written statement that you have addresses the Coast
Guard's many accomplishments of last year. I think from my
perspective, they are impressive. Looking at those
accomplishments, it is clear that Coast Guard men and women
continue to rise to the challenge and deliver results across
both homeland security and non-homeland security missions.
Let me just give you up-to-date examples in addition to
that annual total that is in the written statement. The events
over the last four days of the past week give a great snapshot
of the multi-mission Coast Guard at work. In 152 cases in those
four days, our men and women saved 87 lives in distress.
Protecting our homeland on both East Coast and the West Coast
in 12 different cases, they interdicted a total of 308 migrants
from four different countries who were attempting to enter this
country illegally.
In another hand, they investigated a Greek tanker carrying
over 23 million gallons of crude oil which ran aground in the
lower Mississippi. They detained four foreign-flag vessels for
failing to comply with the Maritime Transportation Security
Act. In two separate cases in the Caribbean, they interdicted
more than 6,000 pounds of cocaine. That was just this past week
in four days. It is typical of the type of across-the-board,
multi-mission service that our Coast Guard is delivering to
this Nation.
Obviously, Coast Guard men and women are unwavering in
their commitment to our service and our country. We still have
six patrol boats, as you know, over in the Arabian Gulf
providing service there. We ensure that they are properly
compensated and that they develop both professionally and
personally. That goal is my highest priority, my very highest
priority. The budget before you is about placing the right
tools, the right equipment, the right policy in the hands of
our dedicated men and women. They have shown time and time
again that when we do put the right equipment, right policy in
their hands, they know just what to do with it.
With your continued support, I am confident that we will be
successful with our men and women, with our missions, and in
service to America, and deliver the robust maritime safety and
security America expects and that America deserves.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I
would be happy to answer any questions you have at the
appropriate time. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Admiral.
Master Chief, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MASTER CHIEF FRANKLIN A. WELCH, MASTER CHIEF PETTY
OFFICER, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
Master Chief Welch. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to present my views in support of the service
members and their families that I am very honored to represent.
I am very proud of the national contributions made by our
work force, and with your support we have benefitted greatly
from the reductions made between military and private sector
pay gaps of years past. The cumulative positive impact of
military pay raises, coupled with significant reductions of
housing expenses, has been both timely, as well as well
deserved.
Despite increased operational tempos experienced by all
components of our work force, our recruiting and retention
continue to remain impressive. In fiscal year 2004, we slightly
exceeded our active duty recruiting mission, while making
significant progress to further diversify our work force.
Minority accessions totaled 36 percent of our overall
recruiting efforts, representing an 11 percent increase from
fiscal year 2003. Our reserve accessions were also equally
successful.
Retention rates also remain extremely high. The current
retention rate within the enlisted work force is 89.6 percent,
with 1.2 percent of those accessing to our officer corps. While
there are many factors contributing to our high retention, I
view our successes as being key and measurable results of our
Commandant's commitment to our people.
We have invested to nationally advertise and promote the
roles and missions of the Coast Guard and we have made great
strides in providing our people with enhanced professional
development opportunities. Recent accomplishments include the
establishment of a senior enlisted command master chief course
and the introduction of a formal enlisted professional military
education program, increased throughput of our leadership and
management school, the establishment of a comprehensive unit
leadership development program, and continued aggressive
support of tuition assistance funding. We consider these human
capital investments key to the continued development of our
work force and essential for us to remain attractive to those
contemplating military service.
We also remain ever mindful of the quality of life needs of
our people. Housing, for example, remains a chief concern of
our service members and their families. While BAH reform has
been successful in absorbing housing costs incurred by our
people who reside in the private sector, we cannot claim total
housing success until we can provide our people who reside in
government-owned quarters with the same desirable and well
maintained housing found on the economy. To that end, we have
begun privatization in Hawaii and have privatization
feasibility studies underway in Alaska, to be followed by Cape
May, New Jersey.
Child care is also an expensive and problematic issue for
our service members with children. High child care costs impact
our work force throughout all geographical areas, but
particularly those assigned to location in accessible to Coast
Guard or Department of Defense child care facilities. We have a
child care study ongoing to assess the needs of our work force
and to identify areas in which we may make appropriate
interventions.
Medical and dental care concerns remain widespread. The
majority of our concerns are due to the fact that most of our
personnel are assigned well beyond the bounds of military
treatment facility catchment areas, thereby forcing our members
to seek providers which are becoming increasingly difficult to
secure. I believe that the principal contributing factor to
limited provider access is that of provider dissatisfaction
with health care reimbursement rates. We continue to work with
the Department of Defense to resolve these challenges, and we
look forward to the implementation of the new TRICARE contract
which we hope will rectify some of the shortcomings experienced
with TRICARE in the past.
In addition to quality of life concerns, we also remain
committed to the needs of our people in the workplace,
specifically and most critically, our responsibility to provide
our service members with safe, reliable and effective cutters
and aircraft from which to operate. As I have testified before,
our front line fleet of cutters continues to deteriorate,
resulting in significantly degraded readiness capabilities and
equally degraded crew morale. Fleet readiness issues are having
an adverse impact on our presence in the maritime domain and
are causing our good men and women to work even harder to
overcome the deficiencies associated with our fleet.
In fact, if it were not for the ingenuity, the
professionalism, and the sacrifices made of our crews, our
cutter fleet simply would not be in service today. The well-
predicted demise of our major cutter fleet can no longer be
overcome at the expense of our people, though we are very
grateful for your historical support and understanding of the
urgency of need for our Deepwater recapitalization initiative.
In conclusion, your continued support of our efforts to
transform the United States Coast Guard is gratefully
appreciated. We thank you all for your service, and I thank you
for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to
answering any questions that you may have, sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. Master Chief, thank you very much.
A little bit of housekeeping. We have been notified that
around 1:00 p.m., we are going to enter into a series of votes
that could last up to one hour. So with that in mind, we will
proceed to the next two members on our panel, and for the
committee members when we get to the questions, try to think if
you can narrow it down a little bit. Remember, that we can
always submit questions in writing, so if you have something
burning that you want to know about that we are not going to
have time for, then we will take a pulse when the vote comes
about whether we continue or come back or not.
So Chairman Blust, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. BLUST, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL MARITIME
COMMISSION
Mr. Blust. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee. It is
a pleasure to appear before you today to present the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget for the Federal Maritime
Commission.
With me today I have two of my fellow commissioners:
Commissioner Paul Anderson and Commissioner Hal Creel, and a
number of our staff members who represent our whole
organization and have done a great job during this last year.
The President's budget for the commission provides for
$20,499,000 for fiscal year 2006. This represents an increase
of 6 percent or just over $1 million over fiscal year 2005
appropriations. This amount will allow us to continue to
perform our vital statutory functions and meet the
responsibilities Congress has entrusted to the agency.
I would like to highlight for you some of the commission's
significant accomplishments of the last year. I am pleased to
advise that on January 19 of this year, non-vessel operating
common carriers, NVOs, are now permitted to enter into
confidential arrangements with their shipper customers
detailing the terms and conditions of their international ocean
transportation. As you know, the Shipping Act permits ocean
common carriers, or VOCCs, to enter into service contracts with
one or more of their shipper customers, and the Ocean Reform
Act of 1998 provides that these contracts are filed
confidentially with the commission.
While NVOs may enter into service contracts and shippers
with ocean carriers, the Act does not grant the NVOs the right
to offer service contracts in their capacity as carriers. As
you might recall from last year's hearing, the commission had
received eight petitions from seven individual NVOs and one
trade association requesting relief from this disparity. We
received at the commission hundreds of comments from the
industry, as well as Congress. The petitions asked for a range
of solutions, and it also raised the issue of whether the
commission had the statutory authority to grant the relief that
they were requesting.
During the process last fall, several of the petitioners,
along with the Transportation Intermediary Association and the
National Industrial Transportation League, filed a joint
proposal with the commission suggesting a unified approach to
this issue which recognized the potential limitations that the
commission had. After assessing the proposal, the commission
issued a proposed rule to grant the relief the industry was
seeking within the parameters of the Shipping Act. In order to
grant an exemption from the requirements of the Shipping Act,
the commission found that it did not result in a substantial
reduction in competition or be detrimental to commerce.
Based on these criteria, the proposed rule set forth in a
conditional exemption from Sections 8 and 10 of the Shipping
Act was put forth. After receiving comments from the industry,
minor modifications were made to the proposed rulemaking and a
final rule became effective in January. I am pleased to report
that we have had a number of the NVOs take advantage of this
new non-vessel service arrangement approach that they now have
available. We have, I believe, over 250 NVOs who have signed up
to take advantage of this new program. It has allowed parity
and additional competitive activity within the marketplace, so
it is a very good solution to a situation that had been out
there for a number of years and is being well received and
taken advantage of by the industry.
Also in January, the commission implemented new regulations
governing agreements among ocean common carriers and marine
terminal operators. The new rules reduce the burden and cost of
complying with the agreement filing requirements of the
Shipping Act, while ensuring that the commission receives the
information necessary for effective oversight. The rules
provide the shipping industry with certainty as to the FMC
requirements, continued flexibility in commercial
relationships, and sufficient confidentiality for sensitive
commercial information.
The provisions governing modifications and exemptions have
been clarified, including a new exemption for low market share
agreements among ocean common carriers that do not contain
pricing or capacity rationalization authority. It has provided
flexibility and limited reduced requirements on their part,
while still allowing us to maintain sufficient oversight.
Finally, with respect to China, last year when I was here I
advised you that there were several pending proceedings
concerning China and that the Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration and the Chinese Ministry of
Communications had signed a bilateral agreement resolving a
number of the issues that we had identified. Subsequent to last
year's hearing, in April the bilateral agreement went into
effect through the exchange of diplomatic notes. After the
implementation, the commission requested comments from the
industry to determine whether the bilateral agreement had met
their needs and had satisfied their concerns. I am pleased to
report that the feedback we have received from the industry,
both from the vessel operators and the non-vessel operators has
been very positive and what was agreed to in the agreement is
being upheld. Both the carriers and the non-vessel operators
are moving forward with opening their branch offices and taking
over arrangements and taking advantage of the additional
bonding capabilities that were put forth.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the committee today. I would be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Commissioner Moravec, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MORAVEC, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC BUILDING
SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Moravec. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee. I am Joe Moravec. I am the Commissioner of
Public Buildings Service at the General Services
Administration.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
Administration's plan to consolidate elements of the U.S. Coast
Guard on the West Campus of the former St. Elizabeth's Hospital
in Southeast Washington, D.C. My prepared statement has been
submitted for the record and should be before you. If you will
allow me, I will briefly summarize its salient points and
hopefully shed light on how the plan developed, how it fits
into our overall plans for meeting the housing needs of our
Federal agency customers in the National Capital Region, and
what some of the challenges are to its successful
implementation.
GSA became the West Campus's landholding agency of record
in December of last year. We recognize that the West Campus's
182 acres was unique. It is the last parcel of Federally owned
land in the District, with a capacity to house large agencies
with high-level security requirements. As the Government's
landlord, GSA has identified a potential need for about nine
million square feet of such space over the next decade. Just as
a matter of fact, we turn over about five or six million square
feet of Federal leases in the National Capital Region every
year. Our inventory is so large here, so there is no question
of continuing need.
The West Campus, given its size and its topography and its
acres of open green space, providing secure stand-off distances
from surrounding development, provides us with an unparalleled
opportunity to build a secure, highly functional state-of-the-
art Federal campus facility at comparatively low cost within
the District of Columbia, the seat of Government, near Capitol
Hill and the central business district. It provides GSA with
the opportunity to fulfill our mission of providing a superior
workplace for the Federal workers and superior value for the
American taxpayer.
Of our customer agencies in need, the Coast Guard was
deemed a particularly good fit, in fact the best fit for the
West Campus, given Coast Guard's need for about one million
square feet of workspace, which they in some cases are in
desperate need of, given the timing of their expiring leases,
given their present inadequate, functionally obsolescent
facilities, especially at Transpoint, which is their main
building in Southeast Washington, their present fragmented
configuration in several buildings, which is diminishing
operational efficiency, and especially given the urgency
occasioned by their high-priority national security mission,
and related to this, their highest level installation security
criteria.
Also especially given the long-term headquarters nature of
the proposed facility for which there is no obvious private
sector equivalent, the Coast Guard emerged as the ideal
candidate to begin the renaissance that we envision will take
place over the next decade at St. Elizabeth's West Campus.
We will be able to meet their exacting state-of-the-art
specifications that we feel, based on our cost-benefit
analysis, represents a clear best value for the American
taxpayer, over an $80 million present-value difference between
the cost of leasing space for 30 years for the Coast Guard.
Their requirement gives us an opportunity to design and
build a distinctive, world-class hundred-year headquarters
facility, while at the same time preserving and enhancing a
unique national historic landmark. It also enables us to be, as
we say, a good neighbor to the District of Columbia. Coast
Guard will anchor with about 4,000 jobs, ultimately growing to
over 10,000 Federal jobs as we build out the balance of the
campus and economic revitalization of the Anacostia area, which
is entirely supportive of the city's economic development
plans.
We plan to work closely with the Coast Guard to continue to
develop and refine their program of requirements, which will
translate into building blueprints and ultimately into bricks
and mortar as part of an overall campus Master Plan that will
invite input from the city, the historic preservation
community, and the surrounding neighbors. We hope to break
ground in fiscal year 2007 and begin moving the Coast Guard in
in fiscal year 2010, and assuming adequate funding, complete
the campus in the 2014 time frame.
We have a number of challenges. The buildings and grounds
on the West Campus have not been used in years and have been
somewhat neglected. They have fallen into a state of disrepair.
There is much deferred maintenance on the site. The
infrastructure, which is to say the roadways and sidewalks and
the sewer water utility conduits, lighting, signage, and
landscaping all need extensive work to support occupancy by the
Coast Guard.
Also, the historic landmark status of the property will
require special handling. Access to the site, both access to
the two green line Metro stations to the north and south of the
site, and vehicular access off of I-295 and the Suitland
Parkway will require some careful consideration.
However, in summary, we believe that the West Campus
provides the best, most cost-efficient long-term solution for
the Coast Guard and other high-security profile agencies that
need to stay near the seat of Government.
I would be pleased, of course, to answer, Mr. Chairman,
whatever questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Commissioner, very much.
In consultation with Mr. Filner, we are going to try to
wind up before we have votes so we do not detain the panel for
an unnecessary amount of time. So with that in mind, I will ask
the committee members to please be mindful of colleagues who
would like to ask questions.
We will start off with you, Mr. Filner.
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bienvienidos [Greeting given in native tongue]. Thank you
to all of you for being here. Admiral, we have discussed an
issue for a long time in public and in private. We have two
persistent and stubborn people here, so I will keep trying. I
do not give up.
As you know, we have seen the capability of the so-called
HITRON helicopter for drug interdiction. We authorized money
for you to have another fleet and you did not take it. And now
we are in the process, I take it, of re-engining these HH-65s.
The Chairman and I had asked for basically data which would
justify on a cost-effective basis that decision. I think we
just got it and we have not had a chance to really read it yet.
But it seems to me, still, that the data and the advice
that you had as this decision was being made of re-engining the
HH-65s rather than going out with a whole new generation of
helicopters, as I read the ICGS report, it makes the
recommendation that the dollar differential cost a little more
for new ones, was more than made up for by an increase in
capability. I was just wondering why you rejected that
recommendation.
Admiral Collins. I would be glad to answer that one, sir.
We have supplied you with data on the H-65 and we have a report
coming to you within a matter of a week or so, hopefully, as we
clear it through the Administration, that details the analysis
associated with a HITRON squadron in Jacksonville, a HITRON
squadron on the West Coast, or one in Jacksonville and the
cost-benefit of that. That is on its way, and I think you will
see the numbers are pretty convincing.
The issue at hand is on the 65, we had a fleet of 90-some
helicopters, 84 operational, 11 support helicopters that had an
engine that was beyond its day. It was not safe. It was not
reliable. It was marginally safe, and we had to operate on the
margins and we had to restrict operations. We have a force with
a fleet that does the bulk of the Coast Guard's job, and we had
an engine that did not service our men and women or the people
that they rescued. They had to be changed. That was the IG, the
GAO, all looking at it, said that was the absolute right
decision for us to make.
We had an existing fleet, the engine was not performing, it
had to be replaced. We did not have the luxury of waiting for a
six-or seven-or eight-year time frame to buy a new system. That
is what it cost, at least that time frame, to define the
requirement, get the performance specification, go through all
the major systems acquisition, and get the thing awarded. We
are looking at that way down the pike. It was a now issue that
had to be resolved. And so we made the right decision and I
think, again, most of the audits say that it was the right
decision.
So now we have a helicopter, we are investing over $350
million in, that is structurally very, very sound helicopter.
We have already received the first two re-engined helicopters
that are magnificent in performance, great thumbs up from all
our operators. We are making this investment, let's get the
return on investment for the taxpayer out of it. That is the
basic answer there. We were caught up in a time thing and had
to make the right decision. I think we made the right one.
Mr. Filner. Again, we have discussed this before. I am not
sure that the time frame is exactly as you laid out, but we
have put in a French engine in a French helicopter. There are
no American engines that do this job?
Admiral Collins. We of course went out with the
solicitation, an invitation for information, request for
information. That was the best fit and the best value.
Mr. Filner. You went out with a public competition on that?
Admiral Collins. We went through
Mr. Filner. You went to the French manufacturer.
Admiral Collins. No, we went to our Deepwater contractor,
because this is a Deepwater asset. It has to be integrated in
the Deepwater system now and into the future. It made great
sense to use that system as integrated. That is what we are
paying for them to do is integrate.
Mr. Filner. I understand that. It looked to me that the
people who have some vested interest in that decision made the
recommendation and there was not really a public competition
over that. We are going to spend $500 million in the re-
engining versus buying in a full transparent competition of
maybe a new generation. Something does not make sense still
with me.
We have tried. We have talked about this for a while. We do
not have time, giving respect to my colleagues, to really go
over this. I still think, Mr. Chairman, something is fishy
about this, if I can use that metaphor. We are spending a lot
of money and a lot of time re-engining helicopters. There are
available now a newer generation. There was not an open
competition as it were, recommendations down the line seemed to
recommend something else. So I still am going to look further
into this with your permission and help, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Filner.
Mr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
gentlemen for your testimony.
Admiral, it is great to see you. I drive by the Coast Guard
Academy almost every day that I am in the district, and it
looks great. I cannot wait for the renovations on Chase Hall.
It always looks good on the outside, but it needs work on the
inside. I commend you on that.
Two issues: one, R&D money. When we transferred the Coast
Guard to the Department of Homeland Security, the understanding
was it would be transferred intact. A couple of years ago, or
at least in the last Congress, R&D money was taken out of Coast
Guard line-item budget and placed in Department of Homeland
Security with the idea that the R&D Center would compete for
those dollars. This subcommittee and the T&I Committee felt
that that violated that agreement and we restored those dollars
back into the Coast Guard.
Now, the Administration has submitted once again where the
Coast Guard R&D is zeroed out with the idea that we compete. In
an effort to cover my bases, Mr. Chairman, I have gotten on the
Homeland Security Committee so I can watch this issue from both
sides. Kind of like watching tennis, and bouncing back and
forth.
Mr. LoBiondo. Well, we considered it solved then, if you
are on that committee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Simmons. Well, I will be your lead man because I
believe those dollars ought to go to Coast Guard. Do you have a
comment to make on that issue?
Admiral Collins. I think the intent here within the
Administration is to try to build a very cohesive, synergistic,
coordinated approach to R&D within the Department of Homeland
Security. Certainly, that is the mission of the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology, is that over-arching kind of
coordination, let's make sure we are all rowing in the same
direction with R&D. I think the intent is right there.
From our perspective, I have absolutely no anxiety level
that we would not get roughly $24 million on a reimbursable
basis from them. We are in the process of developing a
memorandum of agreement between us that will talk about that.
It prescribes certain amounts of that money that would be
allocated for homeland security and non-homeland security-type
activity. So I really have very, very low anxiety that we would
run into trouble.
Having said that, we can work this either way that the
committee feels is appropriate. The one little snag is the
money that we get from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Right now, under a departmental budget for R&D that gets
reimbursed to us, that roughly I think it is $3.5 million that
is sourced from that, cannot be sourced from the department. So
that is one wrinkle in this new arrangement.
Mr. Simmons. Which leads me, Admiral, to believe that what
we should do is have a line item for Coast Guard R&D and put it
in for Coast Guard R&D and then let the R&D Center compete with
DHS for those other projects. In other words, we need to look
at it in that fashion.
Admiral Collins. Sir, I would not argue with you one bit on
that.
Mr. Simmons. Great. In conclusion, and I will let my other
colleagues speak, I agree completely with Mr. Filner in his
comments. Pratt & Whitney had an engine available. Pratt &
Whitney is obviously a U.S. company and not a French company. I
guess my feeling is that when those Pratt & Whitney workers
work on an engine for a Coast Guard helicopter, they are
thinking of the young men and young women that are on that bird
and they want them to be safe. They want them to be safe in
their mission. They want them to come home safe because those
young men and women are Americans. It is their friends' and
neighbors' children. I am not sure that the folks over in
France working on that engine have the same feeling about it.
So I concur with Mr. Filner on that subject and I would be
happy to join him in looking into that issue further.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. These votes came up a little bit sooner
than we thought. We are going to go to Mr. Taylor next, but I
am going to ask the committee how many members want to come
back after votes, or can come back, if we should hold the
panel.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I will come back. If you do not
mind, I would prefer to ask my questions when we come back.
Mr. LoBiondo. For the panel then, I apologize, but we are
going to ask you to come back. We will break for the votes and
we will be back as soon as we can. We will stand in recess for
the votes. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mack. [Presiding] The committee is now back in session.
We left off with questions. I believe Mr. Taylor, if you are
ready?
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for sticking around. I know it has been
a long day for you.
Two things I would like to ask you. One is I know you have
a very ambitious shipbuilding plan in place, and I am sure from
past experience know that you need the ships. The recent
announcement by the Navy of the possibility and quite possibly
probability of reducing the buy on the DDX program and the
possibility of going to a single-source program could, if
enacted, absolutely wreak havoc on the Nation's maritime
shipbuilding industrial base.
My question is, given that very real possibility, has the
Coast Guard given much thought to the possibility of coming
before this committee or coming before the appropriators and
saying, we can help preserve that industrial base during this
lull caused by the delay of the DDX, the reduction of the DDX,
by expediting the purchase and building of some ships that I
know I need anyway. Chances are if they are built in more of a
series, that there will be some economies of scale that you
might not have had otherwise. A, have you looked at that? I
know it is a rather recent phenomena coming out of the
Secretary of the Navy's office, but it does indeed create an
opportunity for you. That would be question number one.
The second question is, we have been working with your
office, unfortunately with varying degrees of lack of success,
on trying to have a navigation project on the Pearl River in
Mississippi included in the Truman Hobbs Program. One of the
hurdles that we are looking at, and it is a fair observation on
the part of the Coast Guard, as they say, under existing law,
we do not really need to replace this swing bridge which is the
shortest path to the sea through an authorized channel. Well,
there is an alternative that although it is not an authorized
channel, you do have an alternative, and therefore Truman Hobbs
really does not apply.
Two things come to mind. The alternative is through an
extremely shallow lake that requires periodic dredging by the
Corps at enormous expense. The alternative I would guess the
Corps could put a pencil to and would show that over the years
will cost us a heck of a lot longer to maintain that
unauthorized channel than to maintain the channel which is the
quickest and shortest path to the sea.
So what I am asking for, and would hope that you would
consider, is a willingness on your part or on the part of the
Coast Guard to consider some changes to the Truman Hobbs Act
that would take into account all of the factors, including
environmental, including long-term dredging at the citizens'
expense by the Corps of Engineers, environmental impacts,
quickest and safest route to the sea. I think it has been some
time since that Act has been amended. I would just ask if you
would be willing to work with us on that. I see a nod on that
one. I will take that as a yes.
On the first one, your thoughts on whether or not we should
try to alleviate some of the problems that could be caused by
the small buy on the DDX by expediting the delivery of the
ships that we know you need.
Admiral Collins. Of course, we do have an ambitious
program, as you have stated. We are subject to the same budget
constraints and downward pressures that the Department of
Defense is, maybe more so, in our program. I feel very, very
fortunate to have the Deepwater Program submitted at the level
it was in the 2006 budget that shows, given on a relative
basis, what is happening across the national budget, the
Federal budget, pretty sound support from the Department of
Homeland Security and the President and OMB on our program.
What we can do in the out-years is a function of what we
can fit in, obviously, the Federal budget in terms of capacity.
A year or so ago that we submitted to Congress, I think it was
the first report submitted by the new department as a matter of
fact, several years ago, a report to Congress on the ability of
Deepwater to be executed in a more rapid way, more compressed
way, and did the Nation have the shipbuilding capacity to do
it, and was it a return on investment thing that made sense.
We submitted that report over and said the answer to the
first question is yes, the shipbuilding industry in the United
States was talented and had the capacity to do it. And second,
that it made sense from getting a capability sooner that this
Nation needed, you know, the capability that Deepwater builds
give us, which is a network-centric, much more capable, and
particularly C4-ISR business.
So that report is up here on the Hill, and I think kind of
speaks for itself on what we could do. Right now, how fast and
aggressive we can be with Deepwater is a function of the over-
arching priorities in the Federal Government. I think for any
agency in this government over the next couple of years it is
going to be a challenging budget time.
So again, to get $966 million in it, I am absolutely
thrilled that we are at that level. I think, of course a lot of
the shipbuilding is going to happen down in the beautiful State
of Mississippi in Pascagoula.
Mr. Taylor. What a coincidence.
Admiral Collins. What a coincidence. So we are thrilled
with that and we have the keel being laid on the national
security cutter next month, the first one. We have the middle
cutter being designed and that is robustly funded within the
2006 budget to get that designed and to get that production
going, and ultimately build 25 of those, 25 to 28 depending on
the ultimate plan.
So I think we are doing pretty good with that. Clearly,
Deepwater does offer an opportunity to level out the ups and
downs of the production curve. As you know, when you have more
downs than ups, you pay more and get less. That is not a
pejorative statement on any of the shipbuilders, but the
burdened overhead rate goes up. When you have less production,
the head-rate goes up. So you pay more and you get less. So it
is to the advantage of the taxpayers, the advantage of the
Federal Government, it is the advantage to the people that are
building ships to try to dampen out those big swings. Deepwater
does offer an opportunity to do that.
Mr. Taylor. To what extent, Mr. Chairman, if you do not
mind, to what extent, I deeply regret that there is going to be
another round of base closure. Based on what I am seeing with
the B-22,the F-22, the littoral combat ship, the DDX and the C-
130J, which are all being either reduced or cancelled, I just
have a gut feeling this is going to be the mother of all BRACs.
I think it is going to end up being somewhere between one out
of three and one out of four bases in America.
To what extent is the Coast Guard involved as some of these
bases, and there are going to be some nice bases closed, I
regret to say. To what extent are you allowed to look at that
and get first pick, should some other government entity no
longer want that installation? Governors Island comes to mind,
but by the time the Coast Guard got it, it was pretty worn out.
There are some new bases that are going to----
Admiral Collins. We do have an opportunity, as part of the
process. The problem is that most of the Department of Defense
facilities, quite frankly, the scale of their services and ours
is like we are on a different planet. The scale of their bases
are significant. It is more infrastructure than we can afford
or manage. It is a mismatch.
Mr. Taylor. Home port Pascagoula come to mind, which is,
again, brand new housing. Some of the offices still have
plastic on the furniture. I mean, it is going to be great for
someone.
Admiral Collins. As you know, we have just moved three
additional ships to Pascagoula. Two of them are already there,
another one will be there in the next year or so. Those are PC-
179s that transferred to us from the Navy. We have a medium
endurance cutter there in Pascagoula, and we have a Coast Guard
station there. It is a great fit. I could not agree with you
more, Congressman, that the people love being there. It is a
reasonable cost of living. Mississippians are friendly. They
like their Coast Guard. It is a great place to be for us.
We will look at opportunities over the years ahead, if
there are opportunities there for a larger footprint. But
again, most of the scale of Navy bases come with a big price
tag when you own a whole bunch of real estate. It is an
expensive proposition for us.
Mr. Taylor. The war in Iraq, what, if any, effect has that
had on your recruiting and retention?
Admiral Collins. I just got back from, both the Master
Chief and I, several weeks ago from visiting our men and women
in the Arabian Gulf. We got a little sea pay. We were underway.
We got a little wet. We got off-shore on the patrol boats
there. Our men and women are doing incredibly. They are highly
regarded by the other services, very, very professional, and
regarded as so by the Navy, Army and everybody else. They are
doing a tremendous, tremendous job. We are very, very proud of
them. Their spirits are incredibly high. They understand the
mission they are doing is important. They are there for about
12 months, then they rotate back. They are very proud of what
they are doing. By the way, they get their first assignment
choice coming out of theater, so that makes them a little happy
at tail's end.
They are well-supported. We are taking care of them. We are
taking care of the boats very well. I think the message back to
the rest of the force is, this is important duty, this is good
duty, meaningful duty. The Coast Guard has never been more
relevant to this Nation, whether it is overseas or at home. And
that is the message. It is influencing our retention rate,
Congressman.
Mr. Taylor. I hope positively. That is what I was trying to
get at. Is it a positive effect or negative effect?
Admiral Collins. I think it is a positive across the board.
We did not hear one negative, or at least I did not hear. Maybe
they were afraid of talking negative to me, but I did not hear
one negative vibe or see one negative vibe coming from our
forces there.
The other very attractive thing, quite frankly, is that we
are going to have, those junior officers and enlisted folks on
those boats, when they come back, their resume is much fuller.
Their experience set is much fuller. They are going to be much
more valuable Coast Guard folks that have just a broader view
of the world, and engaging with the rest of the services and
the coalition folks. I think they are going to be incredibly
valuable Coasties for a long time.
Mr. Taylor. Last question, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Collins. I did not answer your question on the
waterway and the Truman Hobbs, but we will be glad to work with
your staff, sir, to see what is the art of the possible on
that.
Mr. Taylor. Okay, two things. The Special Forces have a
program run mostly through charitable organizations, which is
called the Special Warrior Fund, where corporations or
individuals contribute to see to it that if the child of a
Special Forces person, a Special Forces person dies while on
active duty. I do not know all the details, but they know that
their kid is going to go college. That is the purpose of this
fund. A, does the Coast Guard have something similar? And B, I
was a bit surprised to find out that in those circumstances, if
a member of the United States Armed Forces is killed in the
line of duty, that they cannot transfer the educational
benefits that they earned, that that cannot be transferred to
their children. That troubles me. How would you, A, if the
question was, do you have a similar organization, of course
then we are counting on charity, which as you know, is a roller
coaster. How would you feel about amending it so that those
benefits could be transferred so that that young Coast
Guardsman knows, God forbid something bad happens, that his
kids are going to college?
Admiral Collins. I think it is a reasonable approach,
Congressman, and it seems very, very attractive and something
that we should provide our members. Maybe I would defer to the
Master Chief, because you are familiar with the program in
question and if it applies to us as well.
Master Chief Welch. If I may, Mr. Congressman, I, on behalf
of our work force, think that is a wonderful, wonderful and
much-needed idea. Our men and women work hard. Our men and
women sacrifice their lives for the good of this country. It is
my opinion that we owe them everything that we possibly can pay
them for their service. In addition, I think we also would be
well-served to not only offer dependents the Montgomery GI bill
benefits. I think we would also be well-served to include
educational benefits for some 65,000 active duty members today
that do not have educational benefits.
Mr. Taylor. Why is that, Master Chief?
Master Chief Welch. Most of the situation, Mr. Congressman,
results from people entering the Coast Guard on what we call
the VEAP era, Veterans Educational Assistance Program, who were
advised or otherwise did not accept the educational benefits
offered to them, and therefore were left out Montgomery GI bill
eligibility.
Mr. Taylor. I am making a request of you. As a former First
Class Petty Officer, this is kind of fun, but Chief, do you
think you could get me a recommendation on that, get your
lawyers to? That needs to be addressed.
Admiral Collins. We will get our staff looking at that and
we will do a staff-to-staff thing, sir.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, I
have to go to Armed Services, but thank you for sticking
around.
Admiral Collins. Thank you, sir.
Master Chief Welch. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo [Presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Fortuno, you are recognized for questions.
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, I visited with some of the men and women you have
in the San Juan operations, and I commend you for the work they
are doing. Actually, I was accompanying Chairman Young last
Friday, visiting, and I must tell you that we both were very
much impressed by what we saw they are doing. They are
certainly doing more with less, but they are doing it because
they are definitely committed to their job and to the defense
of our Nation.
Among other things, we saw other than ice-breaking. They
pretty much do everything else down there. We had a special
interest in the drug and migrant interdiction operations in the
area. The information they gave us is that 45 percent of the
migrant interdiction efforts of the Coast Guard nationwide are
performed out of the San Juan operations. In your presentation,
you say that there were 11,000 undocumented migrants that you
intercepted last year. I have numbers for fiscal year 2004 that
tell me that out of the San Juan operations, about 8,000 were
intercepted out of San Juan operations, so the numbers do not
necessarily match. I would like to understand better. It does
not have to be now, but later on if possible to get some
information on this.
Admiral Collins. We would be glad to provide you our best
records that we have relative to the outcomes out of San Juan
and others, and give you a full profile of what that
represents.
Mr. Fortuno. The other item that we discussed having to do
with migrant interdiction is that originally we would get
mostly migrants from the Dominican Republic. Now, we are
getting a lot of them from Cuba, the People's Republic of
China, the Middle Eastern countries. We do have a serious
national security concern that this may be a wide open porch in
the backyard. Once they get in San Juan, they are in Kansas.
That is just the way it is.
I do have a concern, and certainly I am sure that whomever
prepared the maps, then leave the U.S. VI and Puerto Rico
purposely, it is just that it is included in one of the
regions. But I was concerned not to see the U.S. VI and Puerto
Rico, given the fact that this operation covers from the
Dominican Republic to Haiti, all the way down to the
Venezuelan-Colombian coast, with not just a migrant
interdiction, but a drug interdiction operation that they are
carrying out. I must tell you, I commend you again for the job
that they are doing. We went out on a cutter. They do the best
they can with the equipment they have there, and they are very
proud of the job they are doing.
Admiral Collins. Thank you. Clearly, the area in and around
San Juan, the windward pass, every day I get an operational
brief and there is a force lay-down of where our ships and
planes are focused. I can tell you that that area has recurring
Coast Guard presence. That is where the business is growing,
the illegal movement of people business is growing. We have a
very robust presence there. We will continue to have a very
robust presence there.
The 110-foot patrol boat, the 123, the extended 110-foot
boat, our medium-endurance cutters in particular and
helicopters. We have what is called Op Bah, Operations Bahamas
and Turks out of Great Inagua. We have a forward operating base
in Great Inagua and a recurring helicopter presence there that
gives us that good forward-operating location for our
helicopters.
So we are dedicated to a robust presence. We know those are
where the threat vectors are coming from, whether it is moving
illegal goods or illegal people or counter-drugs. Those are the
primary threat vectors. We have, again, a robust presence on a
recurring basis.
Our Deepwater, I keep coming back to this because it really
is our future, the capabilities that Deepwater will give us, we
will be even more effective than we are now. We will have
vertical unmanned airborne vehicles, two to each one of our
ships. They will give us the eyes and ears to have total
visibility of those kinds of things, those kind of threat
vectors, along with helicopters and high-speed boats, a
coordinated package. So we are excited about the future, a
little impatient about these capabilities, but in the meantime
we are investing in our Legacy systems, the existing systems,
to make sure that our men and women have equipment that runs
and works. I tell you, they are doing great things. I agree
with you. I continue to be impressed every day with our men and
women.
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you.
Admiral Collins. Thank you for your comments.
Mr. Fortuno. I would like to switch to another topic. That
has to do with security, having to do with the cruise ships
that visit some of our ports. In the case of San Juan, we are
talking about 1.3 million passengers a year on those cruise
ships. Ninety-plus percent of those passengers are U.S.
citizens. This is happening on U.S. soil. I would like to
understand better what is the Coast Guard doing in terms of
managing that threat, which is complicated further by what I am
saying, actually. The numbers for illegal migrants coming from
countries other than Caribbean countries in the last couple of
years has skyrocketed, according to the numbers that we were
given. It is starting to include Middle Eastern countries, as
well as the People's Republic of China. So that is a concern
that I have, and I wonder if you have any comments on that.
Admiral Collins. The large-capacity cruise ship, of course,
is a popular phenomenon in the United States, a popular
business line, an important part of the Southeastern United
States economy. Heck, it is important to the State of Alaska,
by the way, because the cruise ship industry in Alaska is big.
There are large numbers of people that move on those cruise
ships. On a given day in the Port of Miami, on a Friday, and
you see the five huge cruise ships lined up with up to 3,000
passengers a pop. You know that they could be vulnerable or
targets.
So that security is important. We have been attentive to
that from day one. One of the interesting comments, of all the
aspects of the maritime community on 9-10-01, the one that had
the most advanced security feature to it, a security regime,
was the cruise industry. That happened from an Act that was
passed in the late 1980s as a result of the Achille Lauro. That
spawned legislation and enhanced security requirements for
cruise ships.
So when 9/11 happened, we already had a security regime in
place and a relationship with the large-capacity cruise ships
to build off of. So it was more advanced than other elements of
the maritime community. Immediately, we invoked 100 percent
screening of baggage and passengers. We had three levels of
security, we called them maritime security condition one, two
and three that can be invoked at any time. We oversee the
security operation. We do not do the screening. It is done by
the private sector, but we oversee it from an oversight
perspective. The companies, I think, are pretty aggressive and
responsive to the security requirements.
We spend a lot of time worried about their waterfront
security in places like Miami and San Juan and others, to
ensure that the right waterfront protection is there when they
are in port, and the necessary patrols and so forth. We do
inspections of those vessels, not only from a safety
perspective, but also a security perspective. The crew lists
are vetted. The passenger lists are vetted.
So I think they are getting pretty substantial coverage. We
continue to look at the threat, at the risk, and to put the
appropriate amount of resources to the threat and the risk as
it evolves.
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you, Admiral.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Mack. [Presiding]. Thank you.
Admiral, Master Chief, Chairman and Commissioner, I will
never forget this day, because I have not been here 60 days
yet, and look at me.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Collins. It is great when you are good, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mack. Who knew?
I just, for a point of reference, I am from Southwest
Florida. I appreciate everything that the Coast Guard does to
protect our shores and to protect this country. So thank you
for the work that you do.
I do have a question that I would like to ask you, and just
again for a point of reference. I know this is something that
is pretty important to the Chairman as well. The Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 authorized the Coast
Guard to establish a pilot program to develop and test
procedures to improve the processing and issuance of merchant
mariners documents. Currently, there are some zones, I guess,
examination zones that they have to travel to, and there is
quite a bit of distance in some cases where they have to
travel.
There are also, with the advancements of technologies
recently, not recently, really, but with the advancements of
technologies and private companies now offering this type of
solution, has the Coast Guard or the Department of Homeland
Security budgeted funding to carry out this pilot program? Has
the Coast Guard taken steps to improve the process by which the
mariners documents are issued? And has the Coast Guard
investigated the possibility of allowing merchant mariners to
submit necessary information and documentation using Internet-
based systems and technologies?
Admiral Collins. A great set of questions, and a lot of the
details, I would be glad to brief you and the Chairman on. The
answer to a lot of those questions is yes, largely for security
concerns. We had some fraudulent document concerns about
mariners from a security perspective, and it launched on
coordination with the FBI and others an extensive review of all
merchant marine documentation. We did hundreds of thousands of
reviews and everything else, to sort out the fraudulent part.
The reason I mention that, it launched us in a whole
process reexamination of the merchant marine document process.
A tiger team put together prototypes, ES launched to see how we
could tweak it. We submitted to the Appropriations Committees
in both the House and the Senate an unfunded priority list. It
is a new phenomena, a requirement in last year's bill for me to
support the high priority things that did not make it into the
budget, but still remain high priority. Obviously, the
President's 2006 budget represents our highest priorities.
These are the next tier.
On that, you will see merchant marine documentation
initiative, with significant FTP people and dollars associated
with it. So at this point, the robust funding of the process
improvements that we have examined, and we have a list of
process improvements we would like to launch, are subject to
that out-year initiative.
We also have a plan to centralize some of the functionality
embedded in our regional exam. We have these regional exam
centers around the country. We have done a study that says some
of the functionality of that lends itself to centralization,
where we could rip it out, consolidate it and make it central,
but leave the personal contact part back at the centers, make
that more robust, and make the central processing more robust,
and lean on information technologies to help you out.
So that consolidation plan is in the works. It is part of
this out-year thing that we would like to do. I think it is a
good return on investment. It is the right thing to do. It is
the subject of a future budget, obviously.
Mr. Mack. Sorry, real quick. Are you talking about the
pilot program or what you have learned from the pilot program
taking forward?
Admiral Collins. The pilot program, pilot initiatives are
underway. We owe you a report on that, as I recall, too. But
this would be the full restructuring of the program that I
think has safety benefits, security benefits, efficiency
benefits that will ultimately accrue. We would be more than
happy to give the Chairman and committee members a brief on
that plan. In response to direction from Congress, they wanted
to do a cost-benefit on us, to consolidate and centralize this
thing, particularly whether we would do it in Washington or we
would do it Martinsburg, West Virginia at the operations center
we have out there. We have submitted that already up on the
Hill that shows you the cost-benefit and what would accrue.
So the bottom line, we have done a lot of thinking and a
lot of work on this already. We have done a lot of process
improvement. We have incorporated the process improvement where
we can, where it does not involve a lot of money.
We are also looking at some fundamental changes through
regulatory effort of the document itself, you know, what the
document is and what is embedded in it, and how it is used.
So we would love to give the Chairman and yourself a brief
on that whole structure, and so you get a good feel with the
breadth and dimension of the effort. Quite frankly,
Congressman, the Coast Guard and the Nation is under-invested
in this particular process and I think let it get into a state
of disrepair. It is one of these back-office things, a function
in the back office and maybe did not get the front office
attention it should. I think what turned the light bulb on for
us was the security dimensions involved. You want to make sure
it is not only to document the experience and the training and
the capabilities of the member, but also is it the member who
has said he is, and is it a valid seafarer, et cetera.
So that security dimension has created a greater sense of
urgency about this issue for us.
Mr. Mack. Certainly with the advances in technology and
imaging and everything, and authenticating, the technology is
there and it is just working it into the system and getting it
funded is what I am hearing.
Admiral Collins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mack. Okay. Thank you very much.
If there is no further business, the Chair again thanks the
members of the Subcommittee and the witnesses. The Subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872.081