[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD'S
MISSIONS
=======================================================================
(114-13)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 15, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-182 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
ROB WOODALL, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TODD ROKITA, Indiana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
JOHN KATKO, New York JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
------ 7
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska JOHN GARAMENDI, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB GIBBS, Ohio CORRINE BROWN, Florida
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina JANICE HAHN, California
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
WITNESSES
Vice Admiral Charles D. Michel, Deputy Commandant for Operations,
U.S. Coast Guard:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Don Young of
Alaska..................................................... 32
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD'S MISSIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m. in
room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hunter. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to
order. The subcommittee is meeting this afternoon to review how
the Coast Guard allocates its assets and personnel to carry out
each of its 11 statutory missions, as well as the challenges
the Service faces in performing its missions and measuring
performance.
Under section 2 of title 14, the Coast Guard is responsible
for a wide range of missions, from search and rescue, ice
breaking, and marine environmental protection, to port security
and drug interdiction. In fiscal year 2014, the Service
responded to over 17,500 search and rescue cases, saving over
3,400 lives; conducted over 21,000 safety, security, and
environmental inspections of U.S.- and foreign-flagged vessels;
and interdicted over 3,587 undocumented migrants and 140 metric
tons of illegal drugs. Try to understand even a small part of
that is more than we get in the entire country with every
single law enforcement agency combined.
These are impressive numbers, but they don't tell us
exactly how well the Coast Guard is performing. One of the best
ways to gauge the Coast Guard's capability to carry out its
missions is to review mission performance data. In 2014 the
Service used 23 different performance measures to track its
success in meeting its mission goals. The Service stated that
it met or exceeded 15 of 23, or 65 percent, of its performance
measures.
In December 2014, the DHS inspector general released its
annual review of Coast Guard mission performance objectives for
fiscal year 2013. The report indicated that the Coast Guard's
total number of mission resource hours, the number of flight
hours for aircraft and underway hours for boats and cutters,
had fallen 17 percent since 2011.
The Coast Guard has attributed this reduction in patrol
hours and other issues affecting readiness to the fact that its
fleets of aircraft and vessels are no longer reliable, having
surpassed their service lives and become increasingly prone to
failures. You got a bunch of old ships.
Representing southern California, I am particularly
concerned about the Service's capability and ability to secure
our borders against illegal drugs and migrants, and maintain
its defense readiness. I look forward to working closely with
the Coast Guard and my colleagues to get new assets operating
as quickly as possible and to find other ways to improve
readiness and enhance mission performance in a cost-effective
manner.
I thank the witnesses for coming--the witness, Admiral. And
I look forward to your testimony. With that, I yield to Ranking
Member Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, thank you for putting this
hearing together. I enjoy working with you, and working with
the Coast Guard on the maritime issues.
Admiral Michel, thank you very much for being here.
Appreciate the conversation we had in my office a couple of
days ago. And we will probably cover some of those issues yet
again. I see that our ranking member of the full committee is
here, and he gets rather excited about some of these things,
too.
As I have mentioned at prior hearings, the Coast Guard is
indispensable to commerce, to this Nation's security, and
environmental protection of this Nation. A maritime,
multimission military service, the Coast Guard is responsible
for the safety and security of our Marine Transportation
System, a diverse, intermodal network that moves more
waterborne cargo and $649 billion worth of cargo annually, and
about 13 million jobs.
Unfortunately, the Coast Guard, apparently, is a victim of
its own success, often overlooked by policymakers who are
looking at all the other things that we need to do, and forget
about the Coast Guard. You are always there, you are always
ready to call, and we always--whenever you are called upon, you
do the job. Maybe if you didn't one day, somebody would be
paying more attention. Paradoxically, it can be said the Coast
Guard is a victim of your own success. And if you take a look
at 9/11, Superstorm Sandy, and other tragedies that hit this
Nation, the Coast Guard is there, providing service that nobody
thought you did--could do, but you did.
And, to its credit, the Coast Guard has responded
professionally and competently and effectively on the many
challenges for homeland security, most of which were enunciated
by our chairman just a moment ago, and I will simply echo what
he said.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for putting together this
hearing. I look forward to the information that we receive, and
get on with making sure the Coast Guard has all the assets it
needs, including icebreakers. We like icebreakers.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Garamendi. And a few other things. And, as this hearing
commences, there are a few things I will toss in with some
questions and some comments along the way.
Mr. Hunter. Thank the ranking member. And I would like to
recognize Mr. DeFazio here, because it is not very often we get
such important people at our little subcommittee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. DeFazio. I was wondering why we got delegated to this
small room here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
for holding this hearing.
You know, I can't think of another Federal agency that has
as challenging a portfolio--you know, national defense, armed
force, regulatory agency, humanitarian service, you know,
Federal maritime law enforcement, border enforcement, and part
of the intelligence network of the United States. So that is
extraordinary. And I think John said it well. It is like
sometimes I think the fact that you can do and you have done
with diminished resources, it is not properly recognized by
some of our colleagues here.
You know, I was just at Station Newport, and they--I mean
just looking around, this is so beautiful, I mean, this old
building and this--``Yes, you know, we did it ourselves.''
Well, I can't remember the last time I was on an Army base or
an Air Force base and, you know, went into the headquarters or
a barracks and they said, ``Oh, yes, we did the work here
ourselves, you know.'' No, that is not the way the other
services work. So that is extraordinary. And I hope and I think
Chairman Hunter and John and I all share the desire to do a
little bit better by your needs.
You got a lot of new challenges. And John referenced the
icebreaker. I did have the privilege of visiting the icebreaker
just last month, and was taken by the unique construct of it,
the fact that it is essentially a design that can't be
replicated by any shipyard in America, or maybe in the world
today, that the alloy used in the ice band is absolutely
unique, and I am really going to look forward to, when you haul
it, to see what the integrity of that hull is.
And if it is that great, I think we need definitely to look
at the option of what John calls repurposing. I call gut-and-
stuff, which is, you know, turn it into a modern icebreaker,
using that unique configuration, if that would be a more cost-
effective way to go, and a more expedient way to go. Plus, some
of the spares you get off there, like the transistors from the
sixties, and some of the critical functions could be used on
the other icebreaker, until we can upgrade that one. So that is
one particular concern, and I hope the committee will look
favorably on that.
And the other is, you know, when I look at the performance
measure summary, I am distressed to see--I mean I am a boater,
I live on a boat here, actually, in DC. And, you know, one of
the things that--and I represent half the Oregon coast in a
very cold-water environment and a difficult ocean. And to see
that the percentage of people in imminent danger saved in the
maritime environment was not met, and the percentage of
people--and then the next one, the percent of time rescue
assets are on-scene within 2 hours, and again, it wasn't met, I
know you are trying, but I don't think we have given you the
adequate resources.
But I am going to say, given the fact that there were
proposed cuts in two lifesaving stations, and one of them being
Newport, in the center of the Oregon coast, that does half the
rescues, and we would have had to divert assets either from
Astoria or North Bend, which means, you know, a much longer
flying time and, you know, is not going to help me with--on the
scene within 2 hours, and I think that we would have--we would
end up having casualties that could have been prevented.
So, I partnered with some of my delegation and we said it
couldn't be closed, and I am going to look for ways to help you
deal with your budget problems, but I just can't support a
closure of critical lifesaving stations. And I want to see
those two Xs on the other side of the ledger when we get the
next performance measure summary. And I want to do anything and
everything I can to help you get there. So, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the opportunity.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you. And if you want to address his
questions, comments, or concerns right now, feel free. We will
say that was the first recognized question.
Admiral Michel. Sure. We can talk about a number of things.
I know we are going to talk about the icebreakers in detail.
But I am glad you really were able to see that, sir. And I
would offer to any of the Members, I would be happy to
accompany you up there, if you really want to take the
flashlight tour of the Polar Sea. It truly is a unique ship,
and designed for a very specific purpose in a very specific
environment. And we haven't built a ship like that in this
country for over 40 years.
We are going to have to figure out what we are going to do
with Polar Sea. I am desperately trying to avoid an icebreaker
gap. If we are going to build towards a new one, or use a
refurbished one, or something like that, because there are--the
Nation has current needs for heavy icebreaking capability, and
right now we have one ship that is available to do that, and
that causes me great concern. But I do appreciate you looking
at that. Part of the survey work we are going to look at is
going to look at, you know, how much it would take to get 7 to
10 years' life, or even a longer period, if we can get out of
there.
My gut reaction on this, sir, is that ship is still 40
years old, and we are going to have to take a hard look at
that, as to whether we want to take that one back, or whether
we want to try for something new. And, as a sailor, and as a
naval engineer, you are going to have to take a very hard look
at that, just because it is a very unique capability, and it
operates under tremendous conditions. I mean this ship can
crash through 21-foot-thick ice, and only us and the Russians
operate these very unique ships. So I appreciate you taking a
look at that.
On AIRFAC Newport, roger that, sir. We got the message loud
and clear, and we are working very hard to ensure that all our
citizens throughout the United States are protected. We try
very hard to meet our 2-hour standard. Last year we fell a few
percentage points short. We would, obviously, always like to be
100 percent. Sometimes we are not able to do that because of
weather or different capabilities that we don't have. For
example, some of the helicopter replacements we wanted to make
along the way, we haven't been able to do that, because we
don't have any flexibility in our helicopter system.
But, believe me, when you talk search and rescue, sir, my
goal 100 percent of the time is 100 percent of the people
rescued, 100 percent meeting our standard. So eyes on search
and rescue, sir. And I greatly appreciate the fact that you
share that exact same concern for citizens. So thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. And just, you know, in--you know,
when I went to the icebreaker, I also went down to the school
at, you know, Cape Disappointment, where I understand the
chairman went, but the chairman had what I am told was nice
weather but big waves. I had unseasonably nice weather, and it
was, as I was told by one officer, FAC, which is--which was not
a fun ride.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. So I now have to go back again and with a--I
want to be like the video they show there, where you are
crashing through those 18-foot waves, and everybody is like,
``Woo,'' and you are all getting wet. And I want John to come
with me. He is going to love the ride. It was so calm, they let
me drive the boat.
Admiral Michel. We will try to order up a storm for you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you. And I will now--belatedly, you are
recognized for your statement, if you want to give one.
Otherwise, we can go to questions, or whatever you like.
TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL CHARLES D. MICHEL, DEPUTY COMMANDANT
FOR OPERATIONS, U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral Michel. If I could make a brief statement, Chairman
Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, Ranking Member DeFazio,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on Coast Guard missions. My complete statement
has been provided to the subcommittee, and I ask that it be
entered into the record, and I be allowed to summarize my
remarks.
The Coast Guard is a global maritime service recognized for
its ability to perform a broad and complementary set of
maritime missions across vast geographic areas. Each of our
diverse missions plays an essential and interrelated role in
the Coast Guard's overall ability to perform its primary
mission, which is ensuring the safety, security, and
stewardship of the Nation's waters.
The Coast Guard's missions, coupled with our broad array of
authorities and culture of adaptability allow us the ability to
rapidly shift from one mission to another as national
priorities demand. The true value of the Coast Guard to the
Nation is not in its ability to perform any single mission, but
it is in its highly adaptive, multimission character, which can
be applied across broad national maritime interests.
The Coast Guard performs its missions by employing an
expansive array of capabilities, competencies, authorities, and
partnerships. At all times an armed service, a Federal law
enforcement agency, a regulatory agency, a humanitarian
service, and a member of the U.S. intelligence community, the
Coast Guard is uniquely positioned to confront the complex and
evolving maritime risks of the 21st century. As such, the Coast
Guard remains a unique and indispensable instrument of national
and homeland security.
The challenges the Coast Guard is confronting today
transcend any single mission. Increasing risks are rapidly
changing the maritime domain, creating new efficiencies in some
areas, and additional mission demands in others. Transnational
criminal organizations, technological advancements in maritime
industries, increasing maritime activity, and reliance on the
maritime transportation system, rapidly changing energy
markets, cyber risks, diminishing ice coverage in the Arctic,
shifting human migration patterns, and weakening sovereign
nation states all pose significant challenges.
These trends are driving increased and unprecedented
demands across all our Coast Guard missions, and require
strategic approaches that ensure safety of lives at sea; the
Nation's maritime transportation system remains safe, secure,
and effective; our sovereign maritime territories and resources
are safeguarded; and our marine environment is adequately
protected. These challenges coincide with fiscal pressures that
demand ever-increasing effectiveness and efficiency in
performance of all Coast Guard missions at a time when the
Coast Guard must recapitalize critical operational assets in
our aging fleet.
As history has repeatedly shown, the fleet the Coast Guard
is able to recapitalize today will constitute tools it must
rely on to perform its missions many decades into the future.
The Coast Guard disrupts smuggling organizations in the transit
zone, where transnational criminal organizations are most
vulnerable. These criminal networks are fueling epidemic
regional violence, destabilizing governments, undermining rule
of law, terrorizing citizens, and contributing to illegal
migration from Central America to the United States. Protecting
U.S. maritime borders, which encompasses the Nation's
territorial seas, contiguous zone, and exclusive economic zone
requires adaptable and coordinated approaches that utilize
capable platforms.
Hence, ongoing acquisition projects such as the C127-J
Maritime Patrol Aircraft and the Offshore Patrol Cutter, which
will replace our aging fleet of Medium Endurance Cutters, are
essential to ensure the security of our homeland. As an armed
force, the Coast Guard is fully engaged with the Department of
Defense across the globe at the strategic, operational, and
tactical levels, as part of our defense operations mission.
The Coast Guard is also party to the cooperative maritime
strategy with the Navy and Marine Corps, a strategy that has
been revised to reflect emerging opportunities and challenges.
In conclusion, while the Coast Guard's missions remain
unchanged, the maritime challenges and opportunities of the
Nation continually evolve. The Coast Guard's ability to perform
a broad and complementary set of missions ensures the Service
is always ready to meet the Nation's maritime security
interests.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
and for all you do for the men and women in the United States
Coast Guard. I look forward to hearing your concerns and
questions. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. Thanks, Admiral. And I would like to recognize
Mr. Curbelo over here for the first question, if you don't
mind. No one ever shows up, we are just so happy when people
do, it is fun.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Curbelo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I come for
you, to be honest with you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Curbelo. And for the ranking member, as well.
Admiral, thank you very much for being here today. I
represent Florida's southernmost district. And, as my
colleague, Ms. Frankel, can attest, we are big fans of the
Coast Guard in the State of Florida, especially in my case,
representing the Florida Keys. And we depend so much on the
Coast Guard for our safety and for our security.
Just to give some of my colleagues an idea of how
significant the Coast Guard's mission is in south Florida, 1
year ago this week the Coast Guard intercepted a shipment of
3,300 kilos of cocaine on Miami Beach. Rough street value of
that, $330 million. And this interdiction was part of the Coast
Guard's Operation Martillo. In south Florida we use Spanish
words for Coast Guard operations. That means ``hammer'' in
English. That operation targets international shipments of
cocaine coming into America, usually through south Florida.
Admiral, last year General John Kelly, commander of the
U.S. Southern Command, testified before the Senate Armed
Services Committee that they're only able to intercept about 26
percent of the drugs smuggled into the country from Latin
America through Florida. This was his quote, ``Because of asset
shortfalls, we are unable to get after 74 percent of suspected
maritime drug smuggling. Without assets, certain things will
happen. Much larger amounts of drugs will flow up from Latin
America, we will do less and less engagement with our friends
and partners in the region.''
Can you comment a little on whether there has been any
improvement in General Kelly's assessment of last year?
Also, as much as you can, here in open session, what are
the smuggling routes that have seen the greatest increase in
traffic over the past few years, and the measures the Coast
Guard has taken to address those threats?
Admiral Michel. Yes, sir. Well, the figures have gotten a
little bit better because our Commandant has increased the
amount of ships that are available to JIATF South and the Coast
Guard on those Western Hemisphere transit zones, smuggling
routes.
And I greatly appreciate you raising that, because this is
one of the aspects of the Coast Guard that is absolutely
critical. The maritime movement of cocaine--and virtually all
the cocaine either moves by maritime or air, and the vast
majority by maritime at some point of its voyage--is the
tactical advantage that the United States has. And it is the
United States Coast Guard with the international partners, with
the Navy, who provide the tactical advantage.
And you mentioned about 3.3 metric tons that were seized on
that one particular piece. Last year, the United States Coast
Guard seized--just the United States Coast Guard--91 metric
tons of cocaine. All the law enforcement agencies within our
borders--Federal, State, local, tribal, plus all the seizures
at our air, land, and sea borders--and that includes the
Southwest border--put together, multiply that by almost two
times, and that is what the United States Coast Guard got.
I used to be director of JIATF South there, in Key West,
Florida. And when I was there, there was one Coast Guard
boarding team that seized a semisubmersible that had 9.3 metric
tons of cocaine. The typical take at the Southwest border on
any given year is 6 or 8 metric tons. So one Coast Guard
boarding team took down, for cocaine, what was taken down at
the entire Southwest border in a year. And that is not to mean
the people at the Southwest border are not great Americans
doing a great job, but they are tactically disadvantaged
because the Coast Guard boarding team is tactically exposed,
out on the water, because it is necessary for shipment,
concentrated loads of pure cocaine. And that single boarding
team can take that down.
And, oh, by the way, if you take it down on the water
before it gets into Central America, it doesn't create the
corruption and crime and death and destruction that we see with
beheaded bodies and all these other things. Plus you get the
witnesses and the evidence much closer to the head of the snake
of the guys who are starting the chain in Colombia, and trying
to work a kilo down from the Southwest border, or an eighth-of-
an-ounce buy on some street corner in New York City.
So, the Nation--the reason the Coast Guard was created
was--by Alexander Hamilton--was to take advantage of--that
tactical advantage of intercepting things at sea. That is why
the cutter service was created. But you need ships to do the
business. So we are the Nation's forward defense for cocaine.
We defend the streets of America. We defend our neighbors. And
we use that tactical maritime advantage in order to get at it.
And General Kelly is exactly right. We have way more
intelligence than we do ships to actually action that
intelligence. We are trying to buy some of that down. The
Commandant has put additional ships down into the transit zone.
But that is the Nation's defense, and it requires investments
from the Nation in ships in order to get the business----
Mr. Curbelo. So you would say that, despite your successes,
you are still sorely lacking in resources in the area covered
by JIATF South?
Admiral Michel. Absolutely. And I will give you the latest
figures on that. But my guess is, just based on operational--
probably 50 percent of the high-confidence intelligence cases
cannot be acted on because there is no ship available.
Mr. Curbelo. Thank you, Admiral. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Hunter. Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from
Florida is recognized.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I
wanted to thank you from south Florida.
I don't know if you followed this down in Florida. There is
a--this is a great issue for the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, because we have a new rail line coming on
board called All Aboard, which will be a direct route from
Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Orlando. And it will
go up and down 32 times. And it has to go over a couple of
bridges that the boats need to go under. Are you familiar with
that? Yes, yes. It is something.
Well, you have taken on a great responsibility, because I
know that you are--the Coast Guard is trying to figure out the
schedule. And I just would like if you could just state for the
record, from the Coast Guard's perspective, how do you--what is
your policy, relative to the boating industry, in terms of the
movement of those bridges?
Admiral Michel. Well, I appreciate you bringing that up,
because that is a part of the Coast Guard that many people
don't know that the Coast Guard actually does, which is we
administer all bridges over navigable waters of the United
States. And we are--stand as the arbiter for these competing
rights. I mean this is a classic public policy. I don't want to
call it slicing the baby, but you can understand that the
trains need to operate on their schedule at the same time.
Because of the low clearances of the bridges, certain
sailboats----
Ms. Frankel. No clearance in Fort Lauderdale.
Admiral Michel. Right, right. And if there is no clearance,
then, obviously, no boats get by. Some of them are low enough
maybe a motorboat can get under it. But bigger commercial
traffic or sailboats can. It depends on the actual bridges.
But we have got a whole process that we work through with
all the stakeholders on this. And we try to, to the extent
possible, meet people's needs. So we try to keep the openings
predictable and responsive to the traffic that operates in that
water, whether it is recreational traffic or commercial traffic
or otherwise. At the same time, we work with the bridge owner,
so that it doesn't become overly burdensome for them, because
they may have to employ a bridge tender or other types of
things. And they have also got to operate the trains.
But we do an entire regulatory process, including public
outreach, to make sure that we have heard all stakeholders. We
have criteria that we judge against on, you know, when are
adequate opening times, depending on the type of maritime
traffic that comes through, depending on the needs of the train
or surface operator, if it is a surface bridge. But we have a
whole program that takes that.
And this one, I can tell you, is at the upper levels of the
Coast Guard, just because it is very important. It is an
important project for the train operators, to be able to prove
that they can do all this stuff. And we don't want the bridges
to become an unreasonable obstruction to their business. At the
same time, there are maritime operators who use those waterways
for commercial purposes or recreational purposes or otherwise.
Ms. Frankel. Well, especially in Fort Lauderdale, to the
west of the bridge are most of the repair yards for the boats
and the yachts. It is about a $39 billion industry there. So
when the boats can't get under that bridge, it is a huge
economic impact.
On the other hand, we do want the railroad--the train to
succeed.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Frankel. This is really a hard one. You know, so I
guess you are very brave. You have no choice but to take it on.
But I am glad it has trickled up to you, because this is a very
serious issue for--especially for Fort Lauderdale. And up in
Jupiter they have a similar issue there. So I will be following
it closely.
Admiral Michel. Well, I appreciate it, ma'am. And we have--
the beauty of it is we have great contacts down at the local
level, and we have great experience with working through these
processes. So we have actually got processes that encourage
that public input.
Ms. Frankel. Right.
Admiral Michel. And we have a great track record. Not
perfect, but a great track record of being able to find deals
that people can live with, and folks can get their business
done, and not get in each other's way too much.
Ms. Frankel. All right. Well, thank you for your
cooperation. We will stay in touch.
I yield back.
Mr. Hunter. Thank the gentlelady.
OK. Admiral, thank you very much for being here. It was
good to talk to you yesterday. Basically, the crux of this
hearing is to ask a couple of things, and to find out what we
can do for you, the Coast Guard, that the Coast Guard is either
not doing for itself, or not communicating to your leadership
or the administration.
You guys took a massive cut, massive acquisition funding
cut. You are the only department in Homeland Security that got
cut the way that you did. Every other department in Homeland
Security got more money. So I guess I would start--just the
opening question for the whole hearing is, why do you think
that is? I mean why would you get cut, and--when it--especially
when you have ships that are 30, 40, 50 years old, where it is
actually cutting down on your ability, even by your own
metrics, to accomplish the missions that you have been given?
Why would they cut you?
Admiral Michel. Well, I can't make any comparison versus
other parts of the Department of Homeland Security, and how
they may or may not----
Mr. Hunter. We already did it for you. And you were the
only ones to get cut. So trust me.
Admiral Michel. Right. So I can't do that comparison work,
because I just don't sit in a chair high enough for that. And
here is what I will say, sir----
Mr. Hunter. No, but I do. But I am telling you that is what
happened. So you don't have to do it, we have already done it.
Right? You were the only ones who got cut that way, out of the
entire department.
Admiral Michel. Well, I mean, yes. You have analyzed the
budget, yes, sir. So I will tell you that the biggest cut that
we took was in our acquisitions account, and our acquisitions
account which is, in my opinion, was one of the most critical
accounts--because, as you and I have talked about before, that
is what recapitalizes our aging assets--what I can say is that
account is always at risk, because those are very expensive
items that work through those accounts.
Now, as I have described before, those items are 30-, 40-,
50-year-old items. But getting them in a particular budget yet
has always been challenging. So, the entire time I have been
working with the AC&I account for the recapitalization of our
fleet, that always is a very difficult object to move forward.
And we are at about $1 billion right now. Our prior Commandants
have testified that $1.5 billion to $2 billion is what we need
for a responsible and efficient recapitalization. We obviously
aren't at those numbers. We will work at the billion-dollar
level, but those are always very tough sells, because they are
very expensive assets.
Mr. Hunter. So let me ask you this. If we just passed the
President's budget request for you as-is, what would you stop
building next year, or this year?
Admiral Michel. Well, the budget, as it currently stands in
fiscal year 2016, will allow us to continue with the Fast
Response Cutter, including the recompetition of the Fast
Response Cutter, which is supposed to occur in 2016. So we
would be on track for that. It finishes out the work on the
National Security Cutter, and we would be on track for that.
The Offshore Patrol Cutter, there is $18 million in the
fiscal year 2016 budget. We need another $70 million to do the
detailed design work. Now, we have been told that there will be
an internal reprogramming within DHS to give us that $70
million. If we don't get that $70 million, then we are going to
fall behind on the OPC, and it is going to get pushed further
to the right. We have been told we are going to get that
internal reprogram.
If we get that, we can keep the OPC on track, understanding
that, even if the OPC remains on track, as we have currently
set it out on what our projected budgets are--and I know you
have got our latest capital investment plan--the ships it
replaces, the 270-foot class, will be over 35 years old when
they come off the line, and the 210s will be over 55. And that
is if everything stays on track.
Mr. Hunter. And so you are saying--let me get this
straight--with the President's request, if we don't add any
money to the President's request, you can still finish out the
FRC line, finish the last NSC, and even start with the OPCs.
That is what you think?
Admiral Michel. No, sir. Keep on track the FRCs. Remember,
there are going to be 58 of these----
Mr. Hunter. Keep on track the FRCs.
Admiral Michel. We are up to 32----
Mr. Hunter. Twenty-something left.
Admiral Michel. Right. And the recompete will be for hulls
33 through 58. But that will keep that line on track, and it
has got six FRCs. So it doesn't complete the program, but it
keeps it on track. It does complete the NSC program, and that
would be at eight, and--which is the program of record.
The OPC, as I said before, there is an identified $70
million gap for the detailed design work. But we have been told
that that will be taken care of through an internal reprogram.
Mr. Hunter. Through DHS?
Admiral Michel. Correct.
Mr. Hunter. OK. All right. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garamendi. Let's just run through what Mr. DeFazio
started. This is page 9, I think, of it, a 2013 performance
measure summary. All of the ones on the left-hand side have
been met, and we appreciate that. Thank you for doing that. The
handful on the right-hand side, not met. Let's just run down
through those quickly, and a quick why-not-met. What do you
need to move from the right to the left? I don't know if you
have--do you have this?
Admiral Michel. I have a different document. Maybe you and
I can talk about--I think we are talking about the same thing,
but--well, you can just go down the list. I think I have got
them covered here, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. OK.
Admiral Michel. I will have staff here look for the paper.
Mr. Garamendi. Average number of commercial passengers
deaths and injuries.
I think it would be easier--you will be able to find them
quicker on our list.
Admiral Michel. So this was the 5-year average number of--
--
Mr. Garamendi. Right.
Admiral Michel. Which, commercial mariner deaths or----
Mr. Garamendi. Commercial passenger.
Admiral Michel. The commercial passenger deaths, OK. So,
our--let's see. Our fiscal year 2014 target was less than 254,
and our fiscal year 2014 results were at 306. And our fiscal
year 2015 target is 304. So we were supposed to have had less
than an average of 254, and we were up at 306 for commercial
passenger deaths.
Mr. Garamendi. And injuries. So I----
Admiral Michel. And injuries. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Maybe we got a cruise ship out there that
had an epidemic of flu or bad food or whatever.
Admiral Michel. It could be a number of different things,
because commercial passengers exist in different things. So
they are small passenger vessels that operate on the Nation's
waterways, ferries, and those type of things, and then there
are also larger cruise ships--typically, is what you are
talking about for passenger----
Mr. Garamendi. I think the issue here is are you able to do
the inspections?
Admiral Michel. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. No, we are not behind
on any issuance of certificate of inspections, particularly for
passenger vessels, which are always on the Coast Guard's radar,
because the public has an expectation that a common carrier is
going to meet their standards.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. Let's move on down the line. We are
getting into Mr. DeFazio's Oregon coast here, and that has the
percentage of people in imminent danger saved in maritime
environment. You didn't meet your metric. Was this the shortage
of the equipment that we just talked about?
Admiral Michel. Yes, sir. There is two captured in there,
the percentage of the people in imminent danger saved in the
maritime environment, our goal is 100 percent, and won't ever
be anything less than 100 percent, not from the Coast Guard.
And we were able to--79.4 percent. I can tell you, having
looked behind that, it is an inability to meet the 2-hour
standards, particularly in certain offshore environments, and
also in weather conditions.
I will give you an example. Up on the Great Lakes--I was
just up at Air Station Traverse City, up in Michigan, and they
operate the HH-65 helicopter. And it meets the 2-hour
standards, but it doesn't have any deicing capability. And in
certain--and it doesn't have a very long range. So, in certain
scenarios, it becomes harder to actually get to people who fall
in the ice. And--or otherwise endangered up on the Great Lakes.
And we have been looking at trying to get more capable
helicopters up there, but there is just not enough helicopters
in the inventory right now. It is a project--it is one of my
projects that I am working on right now to try to get
additional capability.
But that is an example of where an equipment shortfall or
mismatch could be remedied, if we were to have the flexibility
in our system to reassign assets that sometimes we have and
sometimes----
Mr. Garamendi. Our chairman spoke a moment ago about us
helping you meet your requirements. If you could match these
shortfalls of your metrics to specific shortfalls of equipment
or personnel or whatever, it then helps us with the argument.
And helicopter, you talk about that earlier, but you put it in
a general nature, now you are down to a specific icing
situation. So if you could do that, it would help us make the
argument.
I am going to move on down to----
Admiral Michel. Yes, sir, I will do that.
Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. Security compliance rate for
high-risk maritime facilities. We have moved way down to ports,
waterways, and coastal security. High-risk maritime facilities.
I assume these must be like--I suppose oil depots, things of
that sort?
Admiral Michel. Yes, high-risk maritime facilities would be
exactly that description. I am looking at my sheet here to find
out where the actual number is. And I wish I could tell you the
number there, because I don't think that that number is
anything but just a few percentage points off. And those are
the types of facilities that we hold to a very high standard.
And those facilities, I am telling you, we do not have a lack
of assets in order to actually determine that compliance rate.
So my guess is it is because of strict enforcement procedures.
And, again, I wish I had the sheet here to tell you how
many percentage points we missed that by----
Mr. Garamendi. I am putting you in a real bind, so----
Admiral Michel. Here it is. This is what I wanted to--my
staff just gave it to me. So our goal was 100 percent, and we
got 99.3 percent. So we missed .7 percent of those, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. All right. We will move on down to
percentage of undocumented migrants. We talked about this
earlier. Again, it may be----
Admiral Michel. Right. Our--again, we just missed by a
couple percentage points. Our goal was greater than 74.1, and
we were at 72.8. And again, I can tell you, having worked on
migrants for a while, that is primarily a resource challenge,
and also a maritime domain awareness challenge. A lot of these
migrants come through on very small pangas and yolas, either
through the Straits of Florida, or through the Mona Pass, or
those type of areas. And sometimes they just slip through. And
if you had better coverage out there, either with the aircraft
or sensor systems or additional surface vessels, you could buy
down that. But again, you know, I think we only missed it by a
percentage point or so.
Mr. Garamendi. I thought we might come to that. Over on the
Armed Services Committee some of our work deals with ISR,
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. In the new NDAA--I
haven't shared this with the chairman yet, but I represent
Beale Air Force Base. And we have spent a lot of time with
drones and ISR assets there. The Navy is getting a new asset
called the--it is a Global Hawk, naval version.
Admiral Michel. I think that is Triton, is that right?
Mr. Garamendi. It is--yes, it is. And they will be
operating that out of what I call Camp Malibu, otherwise known
as Point Mugu, in Ventura. It will be operating, I suspect, in
naval exercises off San Diego and various kind of training
exercises and the like. I want you to look into working with
the Navy on getting the information that they don't need, but
they do have on ships and pangas and other things that are
operating there. They are probably going to meet everything
from night to daytime, and maybe doing it almost all the time.
And so I am going to work this into the NDAA, so that we
can cross-fertilize here. And you might have ISR assets
available off the southern California coast that you don't even
know about today. Or maybe you do know about it.
Admiral Michel. Yes, sir. Well, I think you mentioned this
to me last time at the other hearing, so I already put feelers
out to do that. And, just coincidentally, I am flying to San
Diego this afternoon to meet with--when she comes in with about
12 metric tons of cocaine. And my host there will be the sector
commander, who is actually a very close friend of mine, and he
also participates in the regional coordinating mechanism there.
And I am going to reiterate to him the importance of the
opportunity you have identified, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. We will work on the--with the chairman's
help, work on the NDAA side, to make sure that they are aware
of the opportunity that they have to help you.
OK, there was another issue, and General Kelly was
mentioned. And his work and your work interact. And you
mentioned just a moment ago the lack of assets in the
Caribbean.
One of the assets that was discussed at a previous hearing
some time ago was the ability to have a ship available to you
on which you could position your aircraft--helicopters,
principally. I assume that remains a problem. Could you discuss
that shortage of equipment, particularly the kind of equipment
that would be necessary to further interdict drugs? And I think
particularly off the Central America coast.
Admiral Michel. Yes, sir. So, about 80 percent of the flow
now moves by go-fast boats, which are speed boats, very high-
powered, with engines, most of which operate at night. And the
only way you can really interdict those is to shoot the engines
out of them, and that is done via helicopter and a highly
trained gunnery crew on that helicopter.
So, in order to get to about 80 percent of the flow--and
most of that is what we call littoral flow, where it operates
relatively close to shore on both the eastern Pacific side and
the Caribbean side, you need to have the ability to position
those airborne use-of-force assets if you are really going to
get at that threat stream. So that requires flight decks and,
even better, mobile flight decks.
So, you know, you can look at ideas like barges. But if
they are not mobile, bad guys find out where they are very
quickly, and they just don't go there any more. Mobile flight
decks that are attached to things like Coast Guard cutters or
Navy ships with good sensor capabilities, good command and
control networks, that is really the name of the game, the
ability to do day, night, airborne use of force from mobile
flight decks, from ships with sophisticated sensors, and
command and control capabilities. That is the Cadillac, that is
the proven formula for operating against most of the
traffickers down there.
So, I have heard General Kelly mention--and there are
places for a--for staging bases. And if someone were to offer
one up, I am sure General Kelly could find a use for it. But
the real nugget is, as I described, those flight deck-equipped
ships. That is what we really need in order to get at that
business, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. I think we ought to explore something less
than a Cadillac, and see if some sort of a semimobile platform,
which might be a barge with a tug, or maybe some sort of a
mobile barge, or some ship--perhaps a naval ship that is less
than a Cadillac--might be available.
We understand the flight deck, we understand the fueling.
But I would like you to look into this in a more--and
particularly with General Kelly on South Command, as to what
might be useful, but not a Cadillac. We are not going to find a
Cadillac any time soon, but we might be able to find a
semimobile flight deck for you in some way. So we will work on
it.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the extra time.
Mr. Hunter. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Zeldin, recognized.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon,
Admiral. I represent the First District of New York, which is
on the East End of Long Island. Our congressional district is
almost completely surrounded by water. Actually, I don't know
if Carlos Curbelo or I--which one is closest to having a
district completely surrounded by water. It is home of some of
the most scenic beaches and boating destinations, a very heavy
Coast Guard presence, obviously, all around the First
Congressional District.
As the high season--we also have--we are also home of the
106th Air Rescue Wing. As the high season rapidly approaches,
it is inevitable that the search-and-rescue capability of the
Coast Guard will be called upon to help save lives of stranded
boaters and swimmers off of eastern Long Island. I just wanted
you to take this opportunity to let me know how you feel about
the current search-and-rescue capabilities of this critical
mission in a time when the Coast Guard is being called upon to
do so much in other areas, such as the migrant interdiction.
Admiral Michel. Well, sir, I can tell you, as far as your
district goes, you are actually very well situated. And I know
for a fact that you are--completely meet our 2-hour standards,
either from helicopters or stations. There are a number of
surface stations that operate in that area, there are a number
of air stations that overlap that area. And, even better, you
are a full recipient of Rescue 21, which is our system that is
designed to take the search out of search and rescue. It is
very much an ISR-type system that actually allows us to
determine where situations of distress are, pinpoint those
locations, and immediately dispatch the assets. So you are in
pretty good shape.
You know, you have got your district, and I have got the
entire national SAR system that I have to operate. And it has
gotten so much better over the years, largely because of
increased knowledge and increased ability to pinpoint those
boaters, instead of just having to randomly search out there.
And boaters have been a part of it, too. They have got--they
are more connected, and have more communication devices than
they have ever had in the past. And each one of those devices
that they take with them provides us with an opportunity to
determine the--that they are in distress, and to determine
location, and then send an asset actually out to do the
business.
So, we are in good shape. There is more work that can--
obviously, can be done over time. But I am really proud of
what--the strides that we have made in our search-and-rescue
system.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Admiral. And thank you, Chairman,
for holding this hearing. Very helpful, and I--please thank all
of your men and women who are serving us very honorably,
especially in my home congressional district. So thank you.
Admiral Michel. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hunter. Ms. Frankel, do you have anything else you
would like to ask? OK.
OK, let's go through--I want to know, too, how you
prioritize the missions that you do, based on the budget that
you have.
Admiral Michel. Well, we have gone through some of the
performance measures, and, obviously, those are on my task----
Mr. Hunter. We have a hearing, I think, next month, where
the GAO looks at the way that you do your own metrics. Right?
So we have a hearing on that, because you guys do--you
obviously hold yourselves to high standards, but it is always
hard in the box, when you are in the box, to gauge how you are
doing in the box. Right? It is good to have somebody else.
But not necessarily the performance standards, but how do
you--when you move stuff around, you say, ``Look, we need to
spend more time on this right now, we don't have enough to do
this,'' give me an example of what you have done in the last 6
months, for example, where you have had to move stuff and
reprioritize.
Admiral Michel. I will give you a specific example. And
this goes to General Kelly's issues. So the instability down in
Central America is causing all kinds of problems. Just a
symptom of this was 50,000 or so unaccompanied children showing
up at our border. You know, their parents thought it was better
to turn their children over to coyotes for a potential life in
the United States, rather than live in a country like Honduras,
with a murder rate that is unbelievable.
As a matter of fact, just as it stands right now, if you
are a boy born in Honduras today, you have got a 1 in 9 chance
of being murdered before the age of 25. And that is, in large
part, created because of the transnational criminal
organizations that are creating corruption, instability, lack
of rule of law in that area. And our Commandant felt it was
very important, and he tasked me with moving assets into the
transit zone to have a more significant presence to get at that
75 percent of the targets that the Nation may never get another
whack at again. And he told me, ``Work with our area commanders
to figure out where we are going to take risk in other mission
sets.'' And we came up with a plan.
We were able to--I am not going to talk specific numbers. I
can talk to you afterwards about specific numbers, but I don't
want the narcos to know exactly the numbers we have downrange
right now. But a significant increase in the amount of surface
vessels, flight deck-equipped ships sent down there, and they
were taken from other mission sets. They were taken from--for
example, we were going to send a ship up to Arctic Shield to
work up off the north coast of Alaska to ensure that we had a
national presence up there for the increased human activity
that is occurring in the Arctic.
That ship is not going to go there now. We may ultimately
divert, if Shell decides they want to drill, and we are going
to have to take a look at that. But we took additional risks
there. We took additional risk in the offshore fisheries set,
and tried to replace that with some additional knowledge and
monitoring capabilities, so that we could free up a ship there.
Our Commandant turned down multiple requests from combatant
commanders--I won't--I can tell you which ones, if you want to
ask about them--multiple demand signals from combatant
commanders, and our Commandant said, ``No, we are going to put
our emphasis here, in the Western Hemisphere transit zone.''
And he tasked me with meeting those priorities, and I have
got a finite basket of things, and I juggle those things, and I
try to backfill to the extent possible. But those ships that
are down there, protecting the Nation--not only that, but our
neighbors, they came from other mission areas, and they were
not sitting in port doing nothing. We took additional risk in
those mission sets of fisheries enforcement, marine
environmental protection, and the other things that Coast Guard
cutters do.
Mr. Hunter. So let's say that the CENTCOM combatant
commander asks you for Coast Guard ships to patrol the Arabian
Gulf, for instance, or to protect--do whatever, watch for small
boats under the big ships. Do you take into consideration the
Asia pivot? Is that what you are--or is it a drug-only kind of
thing?
Admiral Michel. No, sir. We take into--all that into
account. As a matter of fact, I was just up testifying on the
cooperative strategy. Matter of fact, you heard--at the hearing
that you held jointly--and part of the sort of agreement
between the Navy and the Coast Guard was, as the Navy pivoted
to the Pacific, and was less able to provide Navy hulls in the
Western Hemisphere, the Coast Guard would try, to the extent
possible, backfill for those hulls here. But we weren't going
to be able to send those hulls over to the Pacific area that we
had done in the past. And I will tell you that the Coast Guard
has got a very relevant role out there in the Pacific. If you
are taking a look at who is operating, and who is doing a lot
of the stuff out there, it is the Coast Guard. Whether it is
China Coast Guard, Philippine Coast Guard, Vietnam Coast Guard,
et cetera. And there is a huge role.
But we don't have the ships right now to be able to send
it. Same thing for the piracy mission that CENTCOM has. And
there is also the Africa Partnership Station that AFRICOM wants
us to do. And there is a huge migrant problem in the
Mediterranean--actually, much bigger than ours, from a maritime
perspective--that UCOM would like us to assist with. But there
is only so much Coast Guard to go around. There is way more
demand out there for Coast Guard than there is for Coast Guard
to back it up. And we have had to tell people no.
Mr. Hunter. So let's go on that. If you guys--you are in a
sea--I mean when is the last NSC going to be done, and the
shipyard closed down? Eighteen? Seventeen?
Admiral Michel. Seventeen or eighteen when it is actually
full up and ready to go. We have already contracted for it,
so--but I think 17 or 18 for--number 8 is online.
Mr. Hunter. And so--I mean you have a few years, then, to
look at--if you kept the line hot, and you could punch out one
more NSC, would that increase your capability?
Admiral Michel. Well, certainly, adding another NSC would
increase our capability. We can't afford it. I mean I can just
tell you flat out, we cannot afford a ninth National Security
Cutter. The Offshore Patrol Cutter, which is our lower end
workhorse that we need, we have got to get that one online, and
we cannot afford another ninth National Security Cutter. We
just don't have the money for it.
Mr. Garamendi. It is operation and maintenance.
Admiral Michel. It is everything, sir. It is the
acquisition cost, it is the operation and maintenance, and it
is even the facilities that would have to be constructed. I
mean these are bigger ships than existed before, and they need
additional pier space, power considerations, additional
training dollars. I mean this is a very high-end ship. And,
frankly, we don't need a ninth NSC. We need to get the OPC line
underway and start replacing those really old Medium Endurance
Cutters. That is our priority, sir.
Mr. Hunter. But that could change, based on who the
Commandant is. Remember Commandant Papp was talking about an
extra NSC. That was 2 years ago. But it is based on whatever
priorities your leadership has. Right?
And what I am saying, you only have a small window, if you
choose to take advantage of it. If your minds don't change in
the next 2 or 3 years, and you won't have one--but if you do,
you only have a hot line, which mitigates a lot of that cost. I
mean you said it is almost $100 million just to design the OPC.
Right? Just to put it on paper so that they can build it you
are talking about $100 million. Right? Or $70 million.
Admiral Michel. To do the detailed design work, yes, sir.
I talked to Admiral Zukunft. I will speak for him. He says
we can't afford, don't need, don't want a ninth NSC. We need
the Offshore Patrol Cutter. And I can't say that in any clearer
terms, sir. And I can't speak for Admiral Papp, but I work for
Admiral Zukunft right now.
Mr. Hunter. On a second note, on--when it comes to the
FRCs, the FRCs were supposed to be a clean recompete of the
exact same ship that they are--that you already built. Is that
correct?
Admiral Michel. No, sir. We allowed some variability, and
the RFP reflects that. We weren't looking for a complete cookie
cutter down to the bolt level. At the same time, we are not
interested in--really, in having two classes of ships. So we
set some basic parameters.
So the whole form has to be the same. The main propulsion
systems have to be the same. The generators have to be the
same, but we allowed for some flexibility in the auxiliary
systems, because we wanted--we didn't want to just give it to
the shipyard, who is building them now, who is using all that
exact same stuff. We wanted to provide some flexibility to
allow for a decent recompetition amongst partners. So we did
allow for some variability in that second class of ships. But
the basic machinery systems, hull form, those type of things
will have to be consistent, because we don't want to have two
different classes of ships to support----
Mr. Hunter. How about cost? What is your cost threshold,
when it comes to changing the design parameters of a ship, mid-
build?
Admiral Michel. Well, I mean, the cost is going to be
whatever the proposer says, ``I can build the''----
Mr. Hunter. Well, it is not going to be less, right, than
you are doing--I mean if you make changes to an existing ship
that is already being built on a hot line, you don't think the
cost goes down with variations, do you?
Admiral Michel. Well, our desire is that the cost is going
to go down. I mean that is why we would recompete. Not for a
more expensive ship.
Mr. Hunter. OK. But if you are building a ship, and you
make changes to that ship, and let's say that you recompete it
and it goes to a different company that is not making them now,
that has never made them, so they have got to start a brandnew
line, you don't think that will be more expensive than what you
are paying now?
Admiral Michel. My hope is that it isn't. I mean we
purchase and plan----
Mr. Hunter. Well, not your hope----
Admiral Michel [continuing]. So that we can share this
parent craft with other people. And this parent craft has been
built. There is a practice that this parent craft has been
built. The recompete was not designed to cost the taxpayers
more money, and----
Mr. Hunter. But if you make variations, it costs more. I
mean that is always--whether it is an airplane or a ship, if
you make changes it costs money. That is--requirement creep is
a real thing, right?
Admiral Michel. This is not designed--requirement creep.
This is designed to recompete a class of ships for hulls number
33 to 58. Well, I don't want to say it is my hope, but I think
somebody is going to come in here and want to do this work, and
they are going to want to do it at a profitable, yet affordable
price. And that is how we have queued the program up, sir.
Mr. Hunter. I guess the committee, then, had a
misunderstanding of what the recompete was for. We thought it
was for the same ship that we agreed to fund in the first
place, simply having a recompete so you can see if anybody else
can come in cheaper and make it, not for a changing ship that
could change on the whim of whoever is in charge of writing the
requirements for it at that time. I mean that was the--the
committee's understanding was it was a recompete for the same
ship.
Admiral Michel. The basic----
Mr. Hunter. And you are telling me that that is not the
case.
Admiral Michel. Well, it is not going to be an identical
ship. It is going to be substantially the same in the basic
parameters of the ship. But there is some flexibility in some
of the things like the auxiliary equipment systems. We are not
looking for a photocopy of the other vessel, and the RFP is
written that way.
Mr. Hunter. OK. Let's jump over really quick to--part of
your testimony--I mean, basically, what we are looking at is
looking at your missions, how you perform your missions by your
own standards.
In your testimony you mentioned cybersecurity at ports.
There is no law that says the Coast Guard is responsible for
cybersecurity at ports. You all don't have, as far as I know,
any real core competency in doing cybersecurity. You might have
some people--you might have a part of your organization that
does it, but you are not like Cyber Command or anything. So you
are going to--you are talking about taking on a whole other
role as the cybersecurity port people.
Admiral Michel. A number of comments I could make on what
you said there, sir, and I just want to make sure that we are
talking from the same set of facts here. So the Coast Guard has
a number of different responsibilities for cybersafety and
cybersecurity. And we can talk about both aspects.
On the cybersecurity side of the house, as far as regulated
port partners, the Maritime Transportation Security Act places
the responsibility on the Secretary of Homeland Security to
avoid transportation security incidents to the maximum extent
practicable. When you read through what transportation security
incidents are, that includes from whatever source they may come
from. And my JAG has opined that that includes security
breaches that may result in the transportation security
incidents that arise from cyber. And with the maritime industry
being incredibly automated today, you can think about the
various ways that a transportation security incident might come
along through a cyber incident.
So, the Secretary--and then delegated to the Commandant--
has responsibilities in this area. And not only that, but also
has authorities in this area to require vulnerability
assessments and security plans for security incidents that come
from cyber. So that--yes, we have not only authority, but
responsibility in cybersecurity for MTSA-regulated partners.
Even beyond that, with the automation in the industry
today--for example, engine control systems, industrial control
systems, and things like that, are all controlled by computers,
many of which are networked. And, even from a security
perspective aside from a safety perspective, the Coast Guard
has to be able to get at that.
So, for example, we have ships right now that are being
pushed patches for their main engine. And the master of the
ship may not even know that his computer software is being
changed on his engine. And we have had a circumstance where an
offshore drilling rig was pushed a patch by an authorized
person, but the patch had a bug in it, caused the offshore
drilling platform to go off-station. And the Coast Guard has
got bunches of responsibilities for regulating safety of
machinery systems on offshore platforms, on ships, on port
infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera.
All these network systems and automation that are being
brought online, the Coast Guard has clear responsibility and
authority in these areas, sir. And I mean I am happy to provide
you background information, but I don't even think this is sort
of--at least, in my world----
Mr. Hunter. I would say----
Admiral Michel [continuing]. Not debatable.
Mr. Hunter. DHS has the authority and the responsibility to
take care of that.
What I am trying to get at here is, though, you keep
telling us all the different things that you are going to be
doing, but none of them you are able to do extremely well,
except save people. I mean that is what your--that is the
number-one thing that you do, and do well, and you have the
assets to do it well. Everything else has kind of fallen by the
wayside a little bit. I mean it is like you said, the number of
ships that SOUTHCOM has, you have increased those, but those
come from somewhere else.
So now, you are going to add cyber into there, where the
Coast Guard is going to be responsible for making sure that the
software patches that get pushed out to drilling platforms are
bug-free? You guys are going to be jack of all trades, master
of none, except for saving people, because I think you are
doing too many things.
I mean are you going to start your own Cyber Command within
the Coast Guard? And what is it going to cost? And how many
people are going to be in it? And where are you going to take
the people from? And where are you going to get the money from?
Admiral Michel. We already have a Cyber Command in the
Coast Guard, actually, sir. There is an admiral who is the head
of Coast Guard Cyber Command, who works directly for me. And we
have--I don't want to talk specific numbers of people--we have
quite a large number of people, and a large investment already
in this. We already have a Coast Guard admiral who is in U.S.
Cyber Command as their J7, and we have a whole staff of people
who work on U.S. Cyber Command.
The Coast Guard is a very unique organization, sir.
Remember, we are the only one in Government that is an armed
force and has all the connections there, a member of the
intelligence community, a law enforcement agency, a regulatory
agency, a humanitarian agency, a transportation agency, an
environmental agency, and all these other things. We operate in
.mil, .gov, and .com, and there is nobody else out there that I
am aware of that does this. The Coast Guard is already deeply
into cyber on a whole bunch of different areas.
As far as our cyber responsibilities for the maritime----
Mr. Hunter. Is there--let me ask you this.
Admiral Michel. Sir.
Mr. Hunter. Is there crossover from Cyber Command on the
military side to you guys?
Admiral Michel. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Always has
been and always will be. The Coast Guard rides on the Defense--
Department of Defense information network. I mean we are .mil
players. But we also have huge responsibilities in Homeland
Security in the .gov realm, and then we have a whole regulated
industry. We are the only one like that, that I am aware of.
And we have got responsibilities in all those areas, including
cybersafety and cybersecurity.
Mr. Hunter. And the ranking member just mentioned, too, we
would like to have--if we could, we would do a classified
hearing on what you guys do on Cyber Command. And I am curious,
too, how you prioritize, and what percentage--what your
breakdown is, when it comes to missions, where you say, ``We
don't have enough of this, but we have enough of something
else,'' meaning you don't have enough boat drivers, for
instance, but you are putting people in Coast Guard Cyber
Command. Right?
I mean they had to come from somewhere. You are dealing
with a finite pool, and I am just trying to understand where
you are hurting or sacrificing to keep putting people out in
these, you know, different organizations, because that is
fairly new, I would guess, what, your Coast Guard Cyber
Command, 5 years old, 10 years old, 2 years old?
Admiral Michel. It is relatively new. And, like anything in
Coast Guard, kind of bits and pieces have been patched together
from previous organizations, or from other parts of the Coast
Guard.
The thing about our Cyber Command things, now, you may just
think it is all just about defending our networks. It is not
all about that. And I don't want to get too much into
classified here, but we use cyberspace also to enhance our
mission accomplishment. So getting at some of the target sets
that we talked about before, whether a transnational criminal
organizations or a search-and-rescue case, are actually aided
by our understanding of what actually goes on in cyberspace.
I don't want to get into too many details. Maybe we save
that for a future classified hearing. But the Coast Guard is
deeply in this area, because of where we sit in Government, and
where our responsibilities are.
Mr. Hunter. The ranking member is recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. The cyber area is really important. I raised
part of this just in ISR, which is arguably cyber. And we
really should have a classified hearing on it and go into it. I
know we did this about 3 years ago. I think it was in this
room, around that table, and we probably ought to go back and
redo that.
There are some questions that I just--I think I had better
get to here. I had my notes, but I just pushed them off to one
side.
I have yet to go to a hearing where we haven't talked about
sequestration. And I think this is something that I am
concerned about as we rewrite the Coast Guard reauthorization,
which we are probably going to do, at least hopefully do this
year. We would like to do this year?
Mr. Hunter. Yes.
Mr. Garamendi. And I just noticed from the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure that we are constantly
decreasing the authorization to match the appropriation. We
have done that almost always, it seems. And it seems to me that
what we are doing is to continue to downsize critical
organizations. In this case, downsizing the--we did it last
time we authorized. The authorization was--I forget what the
number was, but the authorization up here, the appropriation
came down here, and we brought the authorization down to match
the then-appropriation.
And I am raising this issue because it is of deep concern
to me that, over time, we will continually diminish the role of
numerous organizations--in this case, the Coast Guard. And so I
want to bring this issue up. It is, in part, driven by
sequestration, which, over time, downsizes everything.
Could you comment on this, the role or the impact of
authorizations, and then the appropriations? And the chairman
appropriately raised a very significant question about your
appropriation level in the President's budget. So how did all
this play together?
Admiral Michel. Well, let me see if I can take a look at
it.
You know, obviously, the authorizing committee set--gave
the Coast Guard authorities. They also set personnel, they set
authorized--and, over time, there has been a disconnect between
authorizations and appropriations. Or maybe authorizations have
followed appropriations.
Back--if you look kind of at the history, my understanding
of the history is you used to have to have an authorization
before you could have an appropriation, and then they became
kind of separate things. And I guess you are saying maybe they
are coming back in line, but the authorization is following the
appropriation.
I guess my comment on that is that authorization matters.
It matters a lot. It sends a signal. I am concerned, with you,
that if we are sending a signal that less is being authorized,
then that is not a good signal to send. And I take my cues from
you on that, sir.
You know, the actual numbers that the administration would
support in any sort of proposed authorization bill, we would
have to run that through the administration process. But I
think that authorizations do matter, and they definitely send
signals, and they should send signals to appropriators, as
well. I mean, like I said, my understanding of the history was
you weren't supposed to make an appropriation without an
authorization. I am not a historian, but just--I guess just
your average citizen's knowledge----
Mr. Garamendi. I raised this issue, I think, more for us,
my colleagues on this committee, in that we are being driven by
the sequestration. It is downsizing most everything, and
forcing the kind of decisions that the President made about how
to deal with the Department of Homeland Security and who is
going to get cut. And the chairman appropriately raised the
very serious question that it is the Coast Guard that took the
hit.
I want to be aware that last time we authorized the Coast
Guard, we matched the authorization to the then-appropriation,
which was driven by sequestration. We don't have to do that. We
don't have to do that. And when we do that, we downsize, in a
permanent--in a more permanent way. Because, when it comes back
to increasing to meet the needs of the Coast Guard and this
Nation's security, we then have to find the money. We have to
find the offset, which is extremely difficult to do.
So, my concern here--and I guess this is as much for my
colleagues--it is for my colleagues. We must be aware of what
we are setting in place for the next round. And I want us to be
very, very cognizant that when we bring down the authorization,
and we want to build a new offshore cutter, or we want to build
a billion-dollar icebreaker, we have got to increase the
authorization. And that requires an offset. Now, it is bad
enough to get the money for the appropriation. And if I am
wrong about this, then I would love to have a debate. But I
think I am right. And I am troubled by it.
There is a whole series of questions. I do want to go in--I
do want to have that cybersecurity issue, because it covers a
lot of things, some of which I am interested in, which is the
navigational issues, and we can talk about those later. We did
talk about the issue of resources on many of your work,
particularly patrolling off the California coast--or, excuse
me, the west coast--on the marine environment, which I suspect
you are shifting resources. I heard you shifted resources out
of that to deal with other areas.
Of particular interest to me is the integration of the
military assets to assist the Coast Guard. We had a discussion
a moment ago with the chairman about the Coast Guard assisting
the military. They ought to go the other way, also. Military
has a lot of assets that are used off the coast. Could those
assets assist the Coast Guard in the ISR? They are obviously
not going to go out and make arrests for fishing fleets that
are doing the wrong thing, but they might be able to identify
where the fishing fleets are.
So, if we can have a discussion about that, I don't think
this is going to work right now, because I think we are about
to shut down. But I want to have that discussion about how we
integrate the military assets to assist the Coast Guard in its
role. So if you can think that through, and maybe the next time
we get together we can pick that up.
And if there is something that is pending, the chairman and
I are going to write, together with our 52 other colleagues, a
National Defense Authorization Act. And we could tell them to
help you. OK? So let us know.
I am finished. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hunter. Thank the ranking member.
Hey, let's end it this way, Admiral, on a story. Could you
tell us about the first drug bust you had after you left here
and went out and captained a ship?
Admiral Michel. I will tell you this is maybe not the
first, but the first really memorable one. So in the--this
was--I was first assigned to Coast Guard Cutter Decisive in
1985 and I came from the Coast Guard Academy. And we were
scheduled to be on patrol during the whole month of December,
and I had never missed Christmas with my parents ever before,
and they lived in Tampa, Florida--ever before.
And so, we were patrolling the days before Christmas, and
we got an intelligence report about a mother ship that was off
the west coast of Florida, and it was running small boats in,
and things like that. And I was the boarding officer, went on
board that ship. And at that time they just had the bales out
on deck, they didn't even bother hiding it in hidden
compartments, or anything like that. So we arrested all these
dopers, and things like that. We brought that boat in on
Christmas Eve, got specific permission to bring it in to Tampa
on Christmas Eve, and I stepped off that cutter and was able to
spend Christmas with my parents.
And I would also like to say that was the best and my only
gift that I ever got from a narco trafficker, was Christmas at
home with my parents, Christmas 1985, sir.
Mr. Hunter. Good. Well, with that, the hearing is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]