    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        COAST GUARD MISSION CAPABILITIES

    =======================================================================

                                    (109-72)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                    COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 11, 2006

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    28-287 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax:  (202) 512-2250. Mail:  Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                 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             CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           BOB FILNER, California
    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
    SUE W. KELLY, New York               JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
    RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana          California
    ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio                  ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
    GARY G. MILLER, California           BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
    ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
    ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut             TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
    HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina  BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    JIM MATHESON, Utah
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
    MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota           RICK LARSEN, Washington
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania            JULIA CARSON, Indiana
    MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska                LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
    MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana           BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    TED POE, Texas                       ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
    DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington        JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
    CONNIE MACK, Florida                 JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
    LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
    LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

                                      (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,Vice-  California
    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
     Justice, Rear Admiral Wayne E., Director of Enforcement and
      Incident Management, U.S. Coast Guard..........................     4
     Nimmich, Rear Admiral Joseph L., Assistant Commandant for Policy
      and Planning, U.S. Coast Guard.................................     4

              PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER OF CONGRESS

    LoBiondo, Hon. Frank A., of New Jersey...........................    34

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

     Justice, Rear Admiral Wayne E...................................    18
     Nimmich, Rear Admiral Joseph L..................................    18

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Kelly, Hon. Sue, a Representative in Congress from New York, U.S.
      Coast Guard ship photographs...................................    12

     Justice, Rear Admiral Wayne E., Director of Enforcement and
      Incident Management, U.S. Coast Guard, and Rear Admiral Joseph
      L. Nimmich, Assistant Commandant for Policy and Planning, U.S.
      Coast Guard:
      Rescue 21 Ground Subsystem Installation timeline, chart........    16
      Responses to questions from Rep Brown-White....................    26

                        COAST GUARD MISSION CAPABILITIES

                                  ----------

                                 May 11, 2006,

            House of Representatives, Committee on
                Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
                on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,
                Washington, D.C.

        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in room
    2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Frank A.
    LoBiondo [Chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The Subcommittee is coming to
    order, and the Subcommittee is meeting this morning to review
    the Coast Guard's capabilities to carry out its many
    traditional maritime homeland security missions, as well as to
    examine the progress of several systems designed to enhance
    maritime domain awareness.
        Over the last five years, the Coast Guard's budget,
    personnel level and mission scope have expanded to meet the
    Service's increased responsibility for maritime homeland
    security. However, it is unclear whether these enhanced
    maritime homeland security responsibilities are negatively
    affecting the Coast Guard's responsibility to carry out its
    many traditional missions. A GAO report in 2004 revealed that
    resource hours for many of the Coast Guard's traditional
    missions have decreased as demands of the port security
    missions have increased.
        While I do not believe the number of hours devoted to each
    mission is a true indication of mission performance, I am
    concerned that the Coast Guard's traditional missions may be
    suffering as a result of the priority level of homeland
    security missions. At the same time, the Coast Guard's legacy
    vessels are increasingly unavailable, due to operational
    restrictions or unscheduled maintenance, caused by the
    unexpected deterioration of the assets.
        For example, the 110-foot patrol boat fleet has experienced
    numerous hull failures, creating an overall readiness gap.
    These vessels will be replaced under the Deepwater program. But
    I am very, very concerned how any shortfall in asset readiness
    will affect the Coast Guard's mission capabilities in the
    meantime.
        I hope to hear more this morning from the Coast Guard's
    plans to maintain a balance between all its missions and about
    the actions the Coast Guard is taking to improve the efficiency
    of each of its missions.
        The Coast Guard currently is in the process of employing
    improved technology systems to enhance its awareness of
    activities occurring within the maritime domain. The Coast
    Guard has begun the national implementation of the Automatic
    Identification System, AIS, in U.S. ports and coastal waters.
    AIS will enhance the Coast Guard's capabilities to target and
    track vessels as they enter and exit our Nation's ports. This
    system, coupled with long range vessel tracking systems, will
    allow the Coast Guard to monitor commercial vessel traffic up
    to 2,000 miles from shore.
        Under current law, the Coast Guard is required to develop
    and implement a long range vessel tracking system. However, no
    such system is in place today. I believe we must extend our
    tracking capabilities beyond our immediate coastal waters. I
    realize that the Coast Guard is working through the
    International Maritime Association to develop international
    standards for such a system, but this should not stop the
    United States from instituting its own program in the interim.
    I hope the witnesses will provide us with an update on this
    important program and an idea of when and where we should
    expect a final system to be implemented.
        Lastly, the Coast Guard is in the process of recapitalizing
    its maritime control command and communications system through
    the Rescue 21 program. This program will allow the Coast Guard
    personnel to respond faster to maritime emergencies through the
    use of directional finding equipment that will aid in locating
    distressed mariners. Rescue 21 is already in place in my home
    State of New Jersey, and we have seen the tremendous upgrades
    that this program provides.
        I hope to hear more about the plan for the implementation
    of this system nationwide and on how the Coast Guard plans to
    incorporate the capabilities of this program with the Service's
    other maritime domain awareness initiatives.
        I want to again thank the witnesses for coming this
    morning. We look forward to hearing your testimony. Now I will
    turn it over to Mr. Filner.
        Mr. Filner. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    this hearing.
        As you may remember, several years ago when Admiral Collins
    testified before this Committee, he said that the multi-mission
    approach of the Coast Guard means they cannot carry out any of
    their missions optimally, but they can provide them in the most
    cost effective manner for our Nation. If we were to have
    different single purpose agencies for the various Coast Guard
    missions, they might be more successful carrying out those
    missions, but it would cost a lot more.
        Since the transfer of the Coast Guard from the Department
    of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security, we
    have seen a reduction of resources in traditional Coast Guard
    missions and an increase in homeland security missions of the
    Coast Guard. In the President's proposed budget for fiscal year
    2007, the Administration is proposing to cut funding for marine
    safety programs from $502 million to $453 million, and cutting
    funding for search and rescue missions from $629 million to
    $569 million. Meanwhile, funding for port security would
    increase from $1.2 to $1.4 billion.
        Now, the automatic identification system mentioned by the
    Chairman was developed as a collision avoidance system to help
    protect ships from colliding in our waters. The law requires,
    as you know, all commercial vessels over 65 feet long and all
    towing vessels over 26 feet to have an AIS system on board.
        However, the Coast Guard's own regulations only require AIS
    systems for those vessels that operate in a so-called vessel
    traffic service area. As a result, if a towing vessel operates
    above Baton Rouge, Louisiana, they are required by law but not
    Coast Guard regulation to have an AIS system on board. I think
    it is time for the Coast Guard to recognize that this system
    was developed for prevention of marine casualties and not
    solely as a means of tracking vessels for homeland security
    purposes. Just because the Coast Guard can't track a vessel on
    the Mississippi River north of Baton Rouge doesn't mean that
    the vessels aren't required by law to have that AIS
    transponder.
        Similarly, Congress has required these same vessels to have
    electronic charts on board beginning January 1st of 2007.
    However, the Coast Guard has not yet prescribed any regulations
    telling them what kind of electronic charts they have to have
    on board. Again, just because the Coast Guard doesn't prescribe
    the standards for electronic charts doesn't mean the vessel
    owners don't have to have them.
        Congress wrote this statutory requirement to prevent
    accidents, like the one where the captain of the towing vessel
    Mauvilla got lost in the fog and struck a railroad bridge on
    September 22nd of 1993. Shortly thereafter, the Amtrak train,
    Sunset Limited, crossed the bridge and plunged into the
    waterway, killing 45 people. Electronic charts with GPS can
    prevent these types of disasters. So the Coast Guard, I think,
    needs to provide the resources necessary for the marine safety
    program to prescribe these regulations on time for the industry
    to comply with our statutory deadline.
        If the Coast Guard is not committed or cannot carry out
    these statutory responsibilities for programs like marine
    safety, then maybe it is time that these functions be
    transferred back to the Department of Transportation. Vessel
    safety inspections, licensing of mariners, documentation of
    registration of ships, are exactly the same functions that are
    carried out by DOT today for both aviation and rail. Those
    safety responsibilities for these other modes of transportation
    were not transferred to the Department of Homeland Security,
    because they were not thought to be directly related to our
    security. But in fact, these safety missions of the Coast Guard
    were not transferred to the Coast Guard until after World War
    II and had been carried out previously by the Bureau of Marine
    Inspection and Navigation.
        So these are issues I hope we explore today, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for scheduling this hearing. I look forward to
    working with you to ensure that there continues to be adequate
    support for all of the Coast Guard's non-homeland security
    missions as well as their homeland security function.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Filner.
        We are very pleased with the panel that has joined us. We
    have Rear Admiral Joseph L. Nimmich, Assistant Commander for
    Policy and Planning of the United States Coast Guard and Rear
    Admiral Wayne E. Justice, Director of Enforcement and Incident
    Management for the United States Coast Guard.
        We thank you very much for being here. Admiral Justice,
    please proceed.

        TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL WAYNE E. JUSTICE, DIRECTOR OF
    ENFORCEMENT AND INCIDENT MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD;
    REAR ADMIRAL JOSEPH L. NIMMICH, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR POLICY
                AND PLANNING, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

        Admiral Justice. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
    members of the Committee.
        It is our pleasure to appear before you today representing
    the men and women of the Coast Guard to discuss our continuing
    success in balancing the Coast Guard's organizational
    performance across our missions. Additionally, we will provide
    you with an update on the Coast Guard's ongoing efforts to
    improve our mission performance for the scope and application
    of technology to the Nation's maritime domain awareness needs.
    I ask that my written statement be entered into the hearing
    record.
        The Coast Guard's world of work is our oceans, lakes,
    rivers, harbors and our waterways. It is the maritime domain
    and it is unique. Distinct from land borders characterized by
    clear, easily distinguished legal boundaries, our oceans
    represent the last global commons. It is fundamental to our own
    and the international communities' economic prosperity.
        As a result, maritime safety and security are not just
    issues of U.S. national interest, but of global stability. The
    maritime domain is extremely intricate and unparalleled by the
    variety of users.
        Our Nation has built a Coast Guard within the Department of
    Homeland Security that is able to successfully operate in this
    complex and unique environment. The Coast Guard exercises
    authorities and deploys capabilities to guarantee the safety
    and security of the U.S. maritime domain. That's who we are:
    military, multi-mission and maritime.
        While the character and the nature of our service are
    clear, our missions are by no means static. New threats emerge
    as others are mitigated, and the Coast Guard's capabilities,
    competencies, organizational structure and processes must
    evolve accordingly. The Coast Guard must be steadfast in its
    character but adaptive in its methods.
        The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for maritime
    homeland security, a role supported by its unique complement of
    authorities, maritime capabilities, proven competencies and
    longstanding domestic international partnerships. Carrying out
    this role requires a Coast Guard that is ready to act, enabled
    by awareness and well equipped.
        In addition to current activity levels, focus should be on
    examining the Coast Guard's results with respect to its
    performance targets and the degree to which the Coast Guard
    continues to mitigate risks for me in the maritime domain
    across all missions. The post-9/11 environment demands that we
    focus on addressing the threats, reduce risk in the maritime
    domain and strive to achieve our performance goals in all
    mission areas.
        The Coast Guard has successfully insured that both homeland
    security and non-homeland security missions are properly
    executed. We met 8 of our 11 mission goals in fiscal year 2005
    through a balanced allocation of resources across all Coast
    Guard mission programs. While we do not have the final results
    of the fiscal year 2006 performance, all indications are that
    the balance of performance will be similar to that of 2005.
        Coast Guard forces are flexible, rapidly deployable and
    able to respond to crises in a full range of capabilities. The
    Coast Guard has adapted to growing mission demands, to enhanced
    maritime security, while continuing to meet other mission
    requirements. Examples of these growing demands include natural
    disaster response, drug and migrant interdiction, military
    security, and support for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
    Freedom.
        Looking forward to fiscal year 2007, our budgets and
    missions further strengthens the Coast Guard preparedness
    across all our missions and enhances our capability to respond
    to all hazards and threats within the maritime domain. Our
    fiscal year 2007 budget submission, among other things, reduces
    the inflationary cost gaps for depot level maintenance and
    energy resources, supports the medium endurance cutter mission
    affecting this project and funds Deepwater logistic support.
        Equally important to readiness and awareness is equipping
    and training the Coast Guard personnel with capabilities and
    competencies to respond effectively. For example, the advance
    notice of arrival requires vessels entering the United States,
    it is critical to understand who and what is arriving in order
    to identify potential threats. However, if Coast Guard assets
    do not have the capabilities necessary to deal with these
    identified threats early and effectively, an opportunity to
    mitigate risk is lost.
        Fiscal year 2007 budget initiatives include funding the
    Deepwater modernization program, Rescue 21, National Capital
    Region Air Defense Infrastructure and Operations, enhancements
    to maritime security and response team, and our airborne use of
    force operations. Additionally, securing our vast maritime
    borders depends upon our ability to enhance maritime domain
    awareness, which Rear Admiral Nimmich will further discuss.
        Thank you. It is an honor to be here, sirs, and I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Admiral Justice.
        I would like to ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Kelly be
    allowed to participate in this hearing. Thank you.
        Admiral Nimmich, please proceed.
        Admiral Nimmich. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
    distinguished members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be
    here with you today to discuss the Coast Guard's maritime
    domain awareness efforts. Because of its vast size and complex
    nature, the maritime domain is particularly susceptible to the
    exploitation by individuals, organizations and nations. It
    uniquely facilitates freedom of movement and flow of goods
    while allowing people, cargo and conveyances to transit with a
    degree of anonymity generally unavailable with land and air
    movement.
        To counter these threats, the foundation of our maritime
    strategy relies on three key points: achieving maritime domain
    awareness, establishing and leading a maritime security regime;
    and the deployment of effective and integrated operational
    capability. These are not standalone goals, but rather part of
    an active system of layered maritime security. Enhancing our
    awareness in the maritime domain will only be made possible by
    improving our ability to collect, fuse, analyze, display and
    disseminate actionable information and intelligence to our
    operational commanders.
        This awareness must become increasingly comprehensive as
    potential threats approach the U.S. coast. We must know what is
    normal and what is not normal throughout the marine
    transportation system and the maritime domain, so we can best
    assess potential risks and take the appropriate actions.
        The collection to dissemination process emphasizes unity of
    effort between all levels of government, the private sector and
    our international partners with the following goals in mind:
    enhance transparency in the maritime domain to detect, deter
    and defeat threats as early and as distant from our shores as
    possible; enable accurate, dynamic and competent decisions and
    responses to the full spectrum of the maritime threat;
    persistently monitor vessels and craft, cargo, crews and
    passengers, in identified areas of interest in the global
    maritime domain, and then fully adhere to the law to ensure the
    freedom of navigation, the efficient flow of commerce and
    individual rights.
        Thanks to the strong support of the Administration,
    Congress and this Committee in particular, a number of
    initiatives are underway to transform Coast Guard capabilities
    to align with these national goals and the efforts of our
    partners. However, we must do more than provide improved
    capabilities. Our efforts must also include policy, technology
    and operation contributions that will enable enhanced global
    maritime security.
        I would like to provide you with three examples related to
    partnerships, research and technology deployment. In
    partnerships, we are establishing partnerships to share
    information and better leverage resources. These efforts
    include partnerships with Federal departments such as the
    Project Seahawk in Charleston, and the Joint Harbor Operations
    Centers with the Navy and other partners in San Diego and the
    Hampton Roads.
        Internationally, we are developing information sharing
    agreements with a number of other maritime nations, as well as
    pursuing global solutions at the IMO, International Maritime
    Organization. In research, we are also partnering with the
    Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology
    Directorate, as well as numerous entities within the Department
    of Defense to explore technological solutions to some of our
    thorniest problems.
        We have just completed the first stage of an effort to look
    at probably our most difficult problem: assessing, collating
    and organizing all the relevant, existing data about a given
    vessel, its cargo and its persons and identifying that and
    tracking it with the vessel. Technological deployment, we are
    finally taking a serious and deliberate look at our needs and
    how to prioritize and address them with technology that is
    available today.
        Through the Presidentially-chartered Maritime Domain
    Awareness Implementation team, our senior officials from across
    every Federal department are looking at their roles,
    responsibilities, existing capabilities and gaps in the
    Nation's maritime awareness. The MDA implementation team will
    develop, among other things, a coherent, integrated,
    interagency investment strategy that will help leverage
    existing capabilities and guide future budget efforts.
        Mr. Chairman, this Committee has played a significant role
    in the Coast Guard's recent noteworthy achievements and our
    ability to balance all of its post-9/11 missions. I would like
    to thank you for your strong support on behalf of the military,
    our civilian and our auxiliary volunteers.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Admiral.
        I would like to turn to Mr. Filner to start off questions.
        Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Admirals, for being here. When we began this experiment of
    giving the Coast Guard new homeland security duties on top of
    the traditional role of the Coast Guard, we all wondered aloud,
    I think, whether that could be done successfully, and whether
    there were sufficient resources and sufficient adaptability of
    the organization to do that.
        And let me just ask some questions about that, if I may. As
    I understand it, you have created sectors in your organization
    that merge maritime safety with operations centers. Now, that
    may make sense for homeland security. But the other aspects of
    your role, for example, marine safety, may be compromised. For
    example, can it happen that someone with little or no
    experience in marine safety be put in charge of the whole
    operation in a port, like a helicopter pilot? Is that possible
    under that new organization and how do you compensate for that?
        Admiral Justice. Great question, sir.
        We absolutely look at the skills sets of our sector
    commanders. I will speak from my experience. I just spent three
    and a half years in Miami, sir, where we stood up sectors. We
    made sure across the Seventh Coast Guard District, as we put
    people in San Juan and St. Petersburg and Miami and Key West
    and Charleston and Jacksonville that the skills sets required,
    whether they be search and rescue, law enforcement, maritime
    security and safety, were filled by the commanding officers.
        And if the CO, if the commanding officer didn't come in
    with that strongest background in one of the missions, he made
    sure that the executive officer, the deputy, the number two
    person, had that skill set. That was done very distinctly and
    with great forethought, sir.
        Mr. Filner. I'm sorry you didn't use the West Coast for
    your example.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Filner. But they may put me in charge of the San Diego
    sector, and that really would be a problem.
        Have you thought about hiring, for example, civilian
    maritime safety officers or inspectors who would have
    experience directly in that field? You rotate people around,
    you have to try these balancing acts. Do you have any plans to
    hire civilian inspectors?
        Admiral Justice. Specifically, I can't answer that, but I
    do know that we absolutely have that option and we do take the
    opportunity to hire civilians into the Coast Guard world that
    would provide continuity. I know for a fact we have done it in
    the search and rescue world, in our command centers at these
    sectors. We have taken the opportunity to put one or two
    civilians in there, to add some continuity and some local
    knowledge to those programs. So yes, sir.
        Mr. Filner. OK. I hope you will look at that for these
    sector kinds of issues.
        Just quickly on Katrina, where we have consistently praised
    the Coast Guard for its response, as this crisis is prolonged,
    I guess, you have had to reallocate resources and now we are
    told by some of the vessel owners that people who were
    conducting safety inspections are now doing other things. So
    they are not sure they are going to have their certificate of
    inspection on time.
        Do you have enough inspectors in the Gulf of Mexico to make
    sure that that won't happen?
        Admiral Justice. I would answer that, yes, we do. I would
    answer that, and I appreciate your calling that to my
    attention. What we do also, as we showed in Katrina, we have
    the ability, if we find an area that is light, we will surge
    people to that area to make sure we can respond to the needs of
    that mission.
        Mr. Filner. I hope so. Maybe we can get you those exact
    problem areas that have been referred to us so that we can make
    sure that doesn't occur.
        Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how you are going to handle the
    vote that is going on now.
        Mr. LoBiondo. It is going to be a long day.
        We have about 11 minutes left in this vote. I don't want to
    cut Mrs. Kelly off, so what I am going to ask for is a brief
    recess. It looks like only one vote. As soon as we can get over
    and vote and get back, we will pick back up again.
        So the Committee stands in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. LoBiondo. The Committee will come back to order.
        I will now recognize Mrs. Kelly.
        Mrs. Kelly. I first want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    allowing me to sit in. I very much appreciate this.
        My concern is that the Indian Point nuclear facility lies
    in my district in Westchester County. It has a very close
    proximity with New York City, and it is a highly visible target
    for terrorists. And security of the plant is a top priority of
    mine. You may or may not know that the planes that took down
    the World Trade Towers flew over the Indian Point nuclear
    facility on their way to New York City.
        Currently, outside of the private security that is provided
    by the plant's owners, the main source of protection is the New
    York Naval Militia. Two militia vessels are stationed in the
    Hudson near the Indian Point patrol for water-borne attacks.
    The Naval Militia is good, brave volunteers who have an
    unfortunate lack of adequate resources.
        As you can imagine, I am very interested in what the Coast
    Guard is doing to augment this really strong volunteer force,
    and gentlemen, I have been on the boat with them. So I know
    what they are doing, I know how they are equipped, and I am
    interested in what you are doing to try to support them. I
    don't feel that what you are doing is enough.
        I was told in January that the Coast Guard conducts a
    weekly patrol of a power plant with a cutter, WLR, it is a 65
    foot inland tug. That is the picture of the tug. And I also
    understand the Coast Guard provides a weekly fly-by.
        Admiral Nimmich, both you and I know that the Coast Guard
    tug is not a fast or a well-armed vessel. What the people have
    on that vessel in terms of guns is sidearms. The WLR's top
    speed is 10 knots. Anyone, including a terrorist, can buy a
    boat that is two or three or four times faster than the WLR.
        I don't know how the Coast Guard intends to stop a high-
    speed boat loaded with explosives with people who want to kill
    themselves, blow themselves up with the boat. I don't know how
    they expect a tug to be effective at that. The terrorists have
    used boats like that in the past in Israel and in locations in
    the Persian Gulf. I am wondering if it wouldn't be more
    appropriate to assign a high speed patrol boat with a weapon
    that can sink a boat, like a Cyclone or an Island class cutter.
        Small arms are only going to deter somebody. They can't
    stop a boat crew that wants to die. The only weapon, it needs
    to be at least a 25 millimeter or higher cannon, and the WLR
    has no fixed armament, with the Coast Guard and Israeli
    experience with suicide boats show a boat sinking weapon of 25
    millimeters is need. There are no WYTL class tugs that have
    ever been deployed in the Persian Gulf to protect. Neither we
    nor the Israelis guard our naval port facilities in the Middle
    East with tugs.
        So why would the Coast Guard use a tug for a waterside
    nuclear facility in New York? That is my question.
        Admiral Justice. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
        As the Coast Guard works with the industry, State, locals,
    as we look at the infrastructure that needs protection in an
    area. We look at it, we see what is available, we see what the
    security plans are. Then as we take the threat-based approach
    to it, then there is, what kinds of resources can we apply,
    given the piece.
        What I would answer would be that, on this issue, I will
    take back this issue, we would be happy to talk with our people
    in New York. I will say that I actually agree with your
    construct that that vessel in itself is not properly armed to
    do the mission that you are talking about. What the depth of
    the water is there, I can't really speak to the peculiarities
    of the security.
        Mrs. Kelly. It is a pretty good deepwater port.
        Admiral Justice. And how far away the plan is from the
    beach and all those sorts of things. But I absolutely will take
    this back and we will look at what is being done and what else
    might be done, different sorts of assets that would be
    available to property attend to that concern.
        Mrs. Kelly. If we were able to have a cutter, if we were
    able to have a 25 millimeter or larger gun, I would feel a lot
    more comfortable about the job that the Coast Guard is doing.
    Because we right now are being protected by naval militia
    volunteers in a boat that they themselves have been working on
    to make it seaworthy.
        You talked about identified areas of interest being the
    things you want to protect. It seems to me that this is
    something we need to look at. I don't know what the Coast Guard
    uses to protect a high value asset in a central command. Is it
    a boat like that or more?
        Admiral Justice. Certainly not. But this location and area
    that you are talking about there gets into, it is a risk
    mitigation strategy, and what are the threats and how--we just
    can't protect everything with the best assets that we have.
    That remains, of course, a struggle that we are here talking
    about today, is how do we balance where we are going to put
    those assets to get the most effective use out of them to deter
    just what you are talking about.
        Mrs. Kelly. Well, that tug is plying the river. That tug
    also comes from New York City. So what you have with that tug
    is a way of, I assume, you are using it as a protective device
    from the river. But it is also New York City. So anything that
    is coming up to protect the nuclear plants is also going to be
    something I am sure you are going to be using for the ports in
    New York.
        Admiral Justice. Right.
        Mrs. Kelly. Perhaps we need to change the asset there and
    move from a 10 knot tug to something that does have the
    armament that would stop people who are bent on a suicide
    destructive act, with a loaded boat. And we should put the
    affixed armament in a way that fixed armament is out there,
    visible, so they know we will blow that boat up before it gets
    to shore.
        Admiral Justice. Yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. Kelly. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
    come and speak----
        Admiral Nimmich. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
        Mrs. Kelly. Yes.
        Admiral Nimmich. Ma'am, what I want to add to the picture
    is, as you know, that is a very well traveled and highly dense
    pleasure boat area. They move up and down in a very narrow
    channel. One of the things that we need to look at is not just
    how to stop but how to prevent, what is the awareness we have,
    what is the regulatory framework by which we know what those
    boats are and what their intent is, not just merely the end
    product, but stop it before those explosives travel down the
    river, stop it at its source.
        So I ask that as we talk about the technologies and the
    information sharing and the regulatory framework we will need
    to put in place about knowing what recreational boats are
    doing, where they are going, who is on board, licensing of
    recreational boat operators, should be equally as important as
    how do we put the end, if we fail all the way up, we need that
    measurable line. But we really don't want to even get to that
    point where we have to use force. We really want to prevent it
    through knowledge up front.
        Mrs. Kelly. And I agree with you on that score. However, if
    we don't have the force in place, we couldn't use it if we
    needed it. And New York is a prime target. New York is the only
    place where we have experienced terrorism on our shores.
        The thing is that within the area of the nuclear plants,
    there are 20 million people. If you expand that, if there is an
    explosion at that plant and there is a release of some kind of
    nuclear material that goes into the air, that population grows
    to 50 million if there is a southern wind. There are so many
    people there, it is a high priority target for the terrorists.
    We need to be able to protect that target. And if you can do
    anything to help us do that, I would really, I think that the
    people in the area would feel a lot more comfortable than what
    we have now.
        I know the river.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Mrs. Kelly, would you yield?
        Mrs. Kelly. Yes.
        Mr. LoBiondo. There is something you can do. There is
    something that every member in Congress who comes to this
    Committee with a request like this can do. That is, redouble
    your efforts on Deepwater. They don't have the assets. We have
    this day in and day out.
        And we have a plan in place. We first want to keep it from
    slipping. We secondly want to accelerate. If Deepwater were
    fully online and everything were flowing with new assets coming
    in, the Coast Guard would be in a much better position to tell
    you an absolute yes.
        So I am sure they are going to go back, I am sure you have
    done a good job articulating this. But we are going to have
    another battle this year. The battle is shaping now. And again,
    we have a number of members who come in with similar type
    concerns, and the Coast Guard does a magnificent job with the
    resources at their disposal.
        But unless Operation Deepwater kicks into high gear and we
    get the money to keep it flowing, we are going to continue to
    have requests like this.
        Mrs. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, you probably know I stand right
    with you on this. Operation Deepwater is absolutely essential
    for the safety of the Nation. I certainly hope we are able to
    get Operation Deepwater passed and get you the money we need.
    This is high priority for the safety of all of us, but
    especially for people like the Chairman from New Jersey and me,
    from New York. We are in the target zone. We have experienced
    it. We know what it feels like, and we don't ever want this to
    happen again.
        So we will help, whatever we can do. And if there is
    something that we can do to help you, Admiral Nimmich, to get
    started on the study, I am glad to work with you in the Hudson
    region. A good part of the Hudson Valley falls within my
    district, and I am glad to be able to help you do anything I
    can there.
        Admiral Nimmich. Thank you, ma'am.
        Mrs. Kelly. I thank you, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman,
    for letting me come
        [Photographs submitted by Rep. Kelly follow:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
        I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. This sort
    of points at the discussion we have been having. But very
    pointedly, does the Coast Guard currently have adequate
    resources, including funding, personnel and assets to carry out
    all of its homeland security and traditional missions? Whoever
    wants to take a stab.
        Admiral Justice. Sir, that is a tough question, sir. The
    answer is that we have been magnificently funded, increased
    over the last few years. We have taken those resources that
    have been given to us and we work hard, across all missions, to
    focus on, we set goal for results, and we strive to get those
    results. And each year, it is not each year, it is each month,
    it is every quarter, we see how we are doing as we get toward
    those results. And if need be, we shift resources to react.
        And then of course, as importantly, sir, I do want to make
    the point that on top of the attending to our resources on a
    daily, weekly and monthly basis, you have built a surge
    capacity to be able to, like last summer, take Coast Guard
    completely out of the entire Country, go somewhere, do
    something very important, very needed, but still leave behind
    enough to get some adequate work done. So all those things go
    into the mix.
        Mr. LoBiondo. I certainly agree that the Coast Guard has
    done a magnificent job with the assets provided. But I guess it
    really wasn't a fair question, because the answer is obviously
    no. And the Coast Guard, the point I am trying to make is, the
    Coast Guard, over a long period of time, when asked that
    question over and over again, always said yes, we can do it.
    And the realities are that we are now in a position where we
    can't do it all because of how much has been thrown onto your
    plate.
        I think that the Coast Guard from top to bottom has got to
    understand a clear mission to articulate why you can't do
    things like Mrs. Kelly is asking for and why you can't do
    everything that is asked for.
        Along those same lines, has the deterioration of the 110
    foot patrol boat class and operational restrictions on the 123
    converted boats affected the Coast Guard's ability to carry out
    its missions?
        Admiral Justice. Yes, they have. Absolutely, sir. As I
    mentioned, I have just spent three plus years in Miami, very up
    close with our counter-drug and our counter-migrant mission
    down there. The patrol boats are the backbone of getting that
    mission done there, as well as they are out in San Diego and as
    well as they are doing fisheries up in New England. Our patrol
    boat challenge is there. We have a Deepwater solution. The
    Deepwater solution has been moved up in the cycle to be sooner
    than later. However, that answer is not here yet.
        In the meantime, there has been mitigation that we have to
    do to take care of the patrol boat challenge. That includes, we
    have gotten patrol boats from the Navy, as you know, the 179
    foot patrol boats that worked very well for us. We have had
    more 87 foot patrol boats that have been purchased and brought
    online, and we have used them as, they are not as capable maybe
    as a 110, but they do get the job done, as Coast Guard people
    do that.
        We continue to leverage our partners, particularly our DHS
    partners, to be smarter and to use their assets to support the
    patrol boats as needed. And as well, we have taken an
    aggressive effort to maintain the 110s. We have a 110 foot
    maintenance program at the Coast Guard yard that we are going
    to cycle these boats through that will get them, keep them
    around for a longer period of time.
        So all of that goes into trying to mitigate this patrol
    boat gap that we definitely have, sir.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Switching gears a little bit, can you tell me
    the time line for having Rescue 21 in place by region?
        Admiral Justice. Yes, sir, I can speak to it, and also I
    can submit a more formal answer for you. We are finishing the
    LRIP phase, as you know, in Mobile and St. Petersburg. Then we
    start to, as we finish the IOC phase in Atlantic City and the
    Eastern Shore, we will start to roll it out and we start to
    move north and south from there in year 2007. The goal, sir, of
    course, is to have it all done by 2011.
        It would be easier to get a picture to you with all the
    dates on it and provide it to you.
        Mr. LoBiondo. You'll submit something to us?
        Admiral Justice. Yes, sir.
        [The information received follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. LoBiondo. OK. It has been three years since the long
    range vessel tracking system was authorized under the Maritime
    Transportation Security Act. And I understand the need that has
    been articulated, to work through the International Maritime
    Organization on this issue.
        But has the Coast Guard set up a voluntary program in the
    interim?
        Admiral Nimmich. Sir, we have voluntary programs where
    people can provide information. But as we talk in terms of long
    range tracking, I want to make sure that you're comfortable and
    aware that there is a long range tracking, non-voluntary system
    using national assets that we can give you a further brief on
    in a classified setting. So there is tracking of vessels.
        The voluntary tracking and the providing of voluntary
    information, which is critical to validate against those other
    systems that we would use, we have put out several experiments,
    some tests and evaluation and we are working very closely with
    IMO. We have Coast Guard flag officers at IMO as we speak now,
    and we believe we will get the long range tracking validation
    we want.
        The critical piece is it would be purely voluntary if we
    don't go with IMO. So having voluntary without any regulatory
    framework on which to enforce it doesn't protect you very much
    more than not having a voluntary system.
        Mr. LoBiondo. According to previous Coast Guard reviews,
    the AIS transponders would have resulted in only a .05 percent
    reduction in the number of fishing vessel casualties that
    occurred between 1994 and 2000. How do the cost of imposing AIS
    carriage requirements on all fishing vessels compare to the
    benefits that can be expected from such a requirement?
        Admiral Nimmich. Well, sir, as you know, the legislation in
    ESA 2000 required that fishing vessels be included in their 65
    feet and greater. As you indicated in your opening remarks, or
    Representative Filner indicated in his opening remarks, we have
    not closed that gap and we are moving in that direction.
        We have a notice for public rulemaking prepared to be
    released in the very near future that starts to close that gap.
    We are working with the fishing industry to find a viable
    solution between the vessel monitoring that they are currently
    required under fishing regulations and the AIS we would like
    for broader information, both for safety, but also security,
    and how we might be able to utilize that VMS information in a
    way that would produce what we need on the security side.
        As you know, that is point to point information that is
    restricted in our use. So if we can expand the use of that
    information, we may be able to find a compromise position with
    the fishing industry. We are looking at that now, sir. But even
    that 5 percent, if it saves a few lives, may be worth that
    $3,000 to $4,000 investment for an AIS system on a fishing
    vessel.
        Mr. LoBiondo. OK. I think that is all I have at this time.
    I want to thank you both for being here, and the Committee
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]