    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   REBUILDING COAST GUARD INFRASTRUCTURE TO
                    SUSTAIN AND ENHANCE MISSION CAPABILITY

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

                                    (117-34)

                                 REMOTE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                    COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 16, 2021

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
         transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                                 transportation

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    47-240 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,               SAM GRAVES, Missouri
      District of Columbia               DON YOUNG, Alaska
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
    RICK LARSEN, Washington                  Arkansas
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      BOB GIBBS, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California           SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
        Georgia                          JOHN KATKO, New York
    ANDRE CARSON, Indiana                BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    DINA TITUS, Nevada                   GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
    SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    JARED HUFFMAN, California            MIKE BOST, Illinois
    JULIA BROWNLEY, California           RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida         DOUG LaMALFA, California
    DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey     BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
    ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California        BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    MARK DeSAULNIER, California          MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
    ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland             Puerto Rico
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    GREG STANTON, Arizona                PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
    COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas               TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair   DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
    JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois   JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey
    ANTONIO DELGADO, New York            MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
    CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          TROY E. NEHLS, Texas
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             NANCY MACE, South Carolina
    SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
    JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts      BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
    CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia           CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
    KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii              MICHELLE STEEL, California
    MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
    NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
    MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
    TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
                                    ------                                7

            Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation

                      SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Chair
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              BOB GIBBS, Ohio
    JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts,     DON YOUNG, Alaska
      Vice Chair                         RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
    SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
    ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California        JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey
    ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland           NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
    CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
        Officio)
                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
      Maritime Transportation, opening statement.....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Ohio, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
      Maritime Transportation, opening statement.....................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................    35
    Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................    36

                                   WITNESSES

    Vice Admiral Paul F. Thomas, Deputy Commandant for Mission
      Support, U.S. Coast Guard, oral statement......................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Heather MacLeod, Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice,
      U.S. Government Accountability Office, oral statement..........     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Vice Admiral Paul F.
      Thomas, Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, U.S. Coast Guard    37

     REBUILDING COAST GUARD INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUSTAIN AND ENHANCE MISSION
                                   CAPABILITY

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2021

                      House of Representatives,
                        Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
                               Maritime Transportation,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
    room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon.
    Salud O. Carbajal (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present in person: Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Larsen, Mr.
    Gibbs, Mr. Young, and Mr. Gallagher.
        Members present remotely: Mr. Weber, Dr. Van Drew, and Mrs.
    Steel.
        Mr. Carbajal. The subcommittee will come to order.
        I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
    declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
    subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
    today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        As a reminder, please keep your microphones muted unless
    speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I
    will request that the Member please mute their microphone.
        And to insert a document into the record, please have your
    staff email it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
        With that, I will proceed with my opening statement.
        Good morning and welcome to today's Coast Guard and
    Maritime Transportation Subcommittee hearing on rebuilding
    Coast Guard infrastructure to sustain and enhance mission
    capability. We will hear from the Coast Guard Deputy Commandant
    for Mission Support, Vice Admiral Paul Thomas, and GAO Acting
    Director of Homeland Security and Justice, Ms. Heather MacLeod.
        With infrastructure a national focus, today's hearing will
    highlight the need to invest in Coast Guard infrastructure,
    including $429 million in the recently enacted Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act and $650 million more for shoreside
    infrastructure in the Build Back Better Act, which is currently
    under consideration.
        As a sea service that is often stationed in remote
    locations and subject to extreme weather conditions, the Coast
    Guard is and always will be on the front lines. And as an
    agency whose roots date back to our Nation's founding,
    including the U.S. Lighthouse and Lifesaving Services, its
    shoreside facilities are steeped with maritime history that
    define our early Nation. With this comes a key challenge: aging
    infrastructure.
        Under constant attack by wind, waves, rain, sea-level rise,
    flooding, and storms, many of the Service's facilities are in
    critical condition. In 2019, GAO found that 45 percent of the
    Coast Guard's shore infrastructure assets were beyond their 65-
    year service life. The Service is operating with a nearly $3
    billion facility maintenance, repair, and recapitalization
    backlog.
        For reference, the Service estimates its shoreside facility
    inventory at $21 billion. On average, 10 to 15 projects are
    added to the backlog per year amounting to approximately $300
    million to $450 million. It is imperative that Congress stop
    the annual growth of the backlog to sustain operations.
        Not only does this impact the quality of mission-supporting
    facilities, but it threatens the health and safety of our
    servicemembers should critical failures occur at their housing
    and childcare facilities, or duty stations. Further, outdated
    facilities could be a demoralizing force over time, leading to
    lower workforce recruitment and retention.
        The Service reversed its position on the GAO's 2019
    recommendation to employ asset line models for predicting the
    outcomes of investments, analyzing tradeoffs, and optimizing
    decisions among competing investments. I am eager to understand
    why and hear the Coast Guard's plan to address this information
    gap, and that should say why the Coast Guard has decided to go
    in a different path on that issue.
        The Service's data and IT infrastructure are similarly
    aging and in need of investment. While the Service has
    prioritized what it calls a tech revolution, its tech and data
    systems remain far behind the curve. The Service has been
    operating on 1990s-era hardware and software, which, according
    to Commandant Schultz, is at the ``brink of catastrophic
    failure'' and could affect communications between cutters and
    shoreside units.
        The Coast Guard currently operates with a $300 million
    annual IT shortfall. In March 2021, the Service released its
    first data strategy, and in May 2021, its first cloud strategy.
    I look forward to hearing updates on these strategies and any
    progress on the tech revolution. I am eager to hear how the
    Coast Guard prioritizes investments in its shoreside
    facilities, IT networks, and data systems across the Service.
        Congress just passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act, which, again, includes $429 million for Coast Guard
    infrastructure. I commend Chair DeFazio's work on this historic
    bipartisan legislation, which provides vital investments in the
    country's infrastructure.
        Aging, failing, and condemned infrastructure presents an
    operational and mission-critical challenge. But this is also a
    great opportunity to invest in the Coast Guard to ensure it is
    resilient against more frequent and severe climate change
    hazards in the future. I look forward to a productive
    conversation on shoring up the Coast Guard's aging
    infrastructure.
        [Mr. Carbajal's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in
    Congress from the State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Coast
                       Guard and Maritime Transportation
        Good morning, and welcome to today's Coast Guard and Maritime
    Transportation subcommittee hearing on ``Rebuilding Coast Guard
    Infrastructure to Sustain and Enhance Mission Capability.'' We will
    hear from the Coast Guard Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, Vice
    Admiral Paul Thomas, and the GAO's Acting Director of Homeland Security
    and Justice, Ms. Heather MacLeod. With infrastructure in national
    focus, today's hearing will highlight the need to invest in Coast Guard
    infrastructure, including $429 million in the recently enacted
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and $650 million for shoreside
    infrastructure in the Build Back Better Act, which is currently under
    consideration.
        As a sea service often stationed in remote locations and subject to
    extreme weather conditions, the Coast Guard is and always will be on
    the front line. And as an agency whose roots date back to our nation's
    founding, including the U.S. Lighthouse and Lifesaving Services, its
    shoreside facilities are steeped with maritime history that define our
    early nation. With this comes a key challenge: aging infrastructure.
    Under constant attack by wind, waves, rain, sea-level rise, flooding,
    and storms, many of the Service's facilities are in critical condition.
        In 2019, GAO found that 45 percent of the Coast Guard's shore
    infrastructure assets were beyond their 65-year service life. The
    Service is operating with a nearly $3 billion facility maintenance,
    repair, and recapitalization backlog. For reference, the Service
    estimates its shore facility inventory at $21 billion.
        On average, 10 to 15 projects are added to the backlog per year
    amounting to approximately $300 to $450 million. It is imperative that
    Congress stop the annual growth of the backlog to sustain operations.
        Not only does this impact the quality of mission-supporting
    facilities, but it threatens the health and safety of our
    servicemembers should critical failures occur at their housing and
    childcare facilities or duty stations. Further, outdated facilities
    could be a demoralizing force over time, leading to lower workforce
    recruitment and retention.
        The Service reversed its position on the GAO's 2019 recommendation
    to employ asset line models for predicting the outcome of investments,
    analyzing trade-offs, and optimizing decisions among competing
    investments. I am eager to understand why and hear the Coast Guard's
    plan to address this information gap.
        The Service's data and IT infrastructure are similarly aging and in
    need of investment. While the Service has prioritized what it calls a
    ``Tech Revolution,'' its tech and data systems remain far behind the
    curve. The Service has been operating on 1990s-era hardware and
    software, which, according to Commandant Schultz, is at the ``brink of
    catastrophic failure'' and could affect communications between cutters
    and shoreside units. The Coast Guard currently operates with a $300
    million annual IT shortfall. In March 2021, the Service released its
    first Data Strategy, and in May 2021, its first Cloud Strategy. I look
    forward to hearing updates on these strategies and any progress on the
    ``Tech Revolution.''
        I'm eager to hear how the Coast Guard prioritizes investments in
    its shoreside facilities, IT network, and data systems across the
    Service. Congress just passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act, which included $429 million for Coast Guard infrastructure. I
    commend Chair DeFazio's work on this historic legislation, which
    provides vital investment in the country's infrastructure. Aging,
    failing, and condemned infrastructure presents an operational and
    mission critical challenge, but this is also a great opportunity to
    invest in the Coast Guard to ensure it is resilient against more
    frequent and severe climate change hazards in the future.
        I look forward to a productive conversation on shoring up the Coast
    Guard's aging infrastructure.

        Mr. Carbajal. With that, I would like to recognize Ranking
    Member Gibbs.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chair Carbajal.
        And thank you to our witnesses for being here today, and it
    is great to see the Vice Admiral here in person.
        In the 19 years since it signed the Integrated Deepwater
    System contract, the Coast Guard has made great strides in
    recapitalizing its oceangoing cutters and aircraft. However,
    there is a long way left to go, particularly with the
    acquisition of the Offshore Patrol Cutter, the OPC.
        Unfortunately, the Coast Guard is not only facing the
    acquisition bill for the OPC and new polar and Great Lakes
    icebreakers, but also a mounting maintenance and
    recapitalization bill to repair and replace aging shoreside
    infrastructure and the cost of nearly completely replacing the
    Coast Guard's faltering IT infrastructure.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today what
    processes the Coast Guard should implement to quantify its
    shoreside needs so that members of the Coast Guard and their
    families have safe places to work and live, the Service is able
    to carry out its increasingly complex missions, and shoreside
    facilities have an acceptable level of resilience to survive
    natural disasters.
        I am particularly interested in learning the annual level
    of investment that would be necessary to prevent the
    maintenance and recapitalization backlog from growing every
    year, and whether the Service has the data necessary to make
    such a calculation.
        I would also like to dig into the relationship between the
    unfunded priority list, the UPL, and the overall unfunded
    backlog. For instance, have items on the UPL undergone more
    rigorous review to determine their importance to mission
    capability and their readiness to move forward?
        The Coast Guard's tech revolution, as it is characterized
    by the Commandant, is in its infancy. I look forward to
    learning how the Service intends to piggyback off existing
    programs for which they have already paid development costs.
    The composite hull vessel which the Coast Guard did not build,
    the electronic health records, logistics information
    management, and state-of-the-art ship-to-air-to-shore
    communications systems, none of which the Coast Guard ever
    implemented, prove that the Coast Guard does not have the
    resources or the internal expertise to develop such systems on
    its own.
        Finally, I look forward to learning how the Service plans
    to stay current once it implements its tech revolution. IT
    systems change so rapidly, and the Service must, at the same
    time, both plan for the future and catch up with the present.
        [Mr. Gibbs' prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from
    the State of Ohio, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
                            Maritime Transportation
        Thank you, Chair Carbajal, and thank you to our witnesses for being
    here today.
        In the 19 years since it signed the Integrated Deepwater System
    contract, the Coast Guard has made great strides in recapitalizing its
    ocean-going cutters and aircraft. However, there is a long way left to
    go, particularly with the acquisition of the Offshore Patrol Cutter
    (OPC).
        Unfortunately, the Coast Guard is not only facing the acquisition
    bill for the OPC and new polar and Great Lakes icebreakers, but also a
    mounting maintenance and recapitalization bill to repair and replace
    aging shoreside infrastructure and the cost of a nearly completely
    replacing the Coast Guard's faltering IT infrastructure.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses what processes the
    Coast Guard should implement to quantify its shoreside needs so that
    members of the Coast Guard and their families have safe places to work
    and live, the Service is able to carry out its increasingly complex
    missions, and shoreside facilities have an acceptable level of
    resilience to survive natural disasters.
        I am particularly interested in learning the annual level of
    investment that would be necessary to prevent the maintenance and
    recapitalization backlog from growing every year, and whether the
    Service has the data necessary to make such a calculation.
        I would also like to dig into the relationship between the Unfunded
    Priority List (UPL), and the overall unfunded backlog. For instance,
    have items on the UPL undergone more rigorous review to determine their
    importance to mission capability and their readiness to move forward?
        The Coast Guard Tech Revolution, as it is characterized by the
    Commandant, is in its infancy. I look forward to learning how the
    Service intends to piggyback off existing programs for which others
    have already paid development costs. The composite hull vessel which
    the Coast Guard did not build, the electronic health records, logistics
    information management and state-of-the-art ship to air to shore
    communication systems--none of which the Coast Guard ever implemented--
    prove that the Coast Guard does not have the resources or internal
    expertise to develop such systems on its own.
        Finally, I look forward to learning how the Service plans to stay
    current once it implements its Tech Revolution. IT systems change so
    rapidly the Service must at the same time both plan for the future and
    catch up with the present.

        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chair Carbajal, and I yield back.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ranking Member Gibbs.
        I would like now to welcome the witnesses, Vice Admiral
    Paul Thomas, Deputy Commandant for Mission Support for the
    United States Coast Guard, and Ms. Heather MacLeod, Acting
    Director of Homeland Security and Justice for the United States
    Government Accountability Office. Thank you both for being here
    today, and I look forward to your testimony.
        Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
    included in the record. Since your written testimony has been
    made a part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you
    limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
        With that, Vice Admiral Thomas, you may proceed.

    TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL PAUL F. THOMAS, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR
    MISSION SUPPORT, U.S. COAST GUARD; AND HEATHER MacLEOD, ACTING
       DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT
                         ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Admiral Thomas. Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs,
    members of the subcommittee, good morning and thank you for
    this opportunity to speak with you today about the Coast
    Guard's efforts to sustain and recapitalize our shore and IT
    infrastructure, infrastructure that you know is critical to our
    Service readiness and enables our mission execution.
        I have to start by thanking this Congress, and this
    committee in particular, for your resolute support of the women
    and men of the United States Coast Guard. As you mentioned, our
    Service is in the midst of the most significant surface and air
    asset recapitalization since World War II.
        The ships and aircraft we are building today will guard our
    Nation's shores for generations to come. But as our Commandant
    says, every Coast Guard mission begins and ends at a shore
    facility, and we must do better at building the infrastructure
    necessary to support this fleet of the future.
        You have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to
    modernizing Coast Guard infrastructure as evidenced by this
    hearing today and by recent investments in our Coast Guard.
    While Coast Guard personnel take intense pride in their efforts
    to support our operations, we continue to face challenges
    related to maintenance and recapitalization of our
    infrastructure.
        Geographically dispersed across the Nation and around the
    globe, Coast Guard units range from large, operational, and
    industrial facilities in urban areas to small, tactical units
    in remote locations. Each of these facilities poses a unique
    maintenance challenge, and many are aging at a rate that
    stresses our ability to maintain or recapitalize them.
        From 2017 to 2020, the Government Accountability Office
    undertook studies that examined how the Coast Guard manages its
    $21 billion real property inventory. The recommendations
    provided by the GAO shined a light on areas where we need to
    improve, and it led to our ongoing modernization of our civil
    engineering program and processes.
        While our infrastructure challenges cannot be solved
    overnight, I can assure you that we are taking steps right now,
    largely based on the GAO recommendations, which will ensure the
    Coast Guard maintains the readiness that the Nation needs and
    deserves for its maritime first responders.
        With your help, we are investing in modern resilient
    facilities that reduce risk to our people, our assets, and our
    missions. We are working to execute the nearly $1.2 billion in
    supplemental appropriations that Congress provided in the wake
    of the 2017 and 2018 hurricane seasons, and the nearly $2
    billion major shore infrastructure appropriations that have
    been made since 2018.
        Because critical infrastructure to support our modern fleet
    extends beyond traditional brick-and-mortar facilities, in
    2020, the Service embarked upon a technology revolution.
    Designed to bring the Coast Guard into the 21st century, this
    effort is empowering our people with reliable, mobile, and
    integrated technology. Bolstered by funding in the CARES Act,
    we were able to maintain mission readiness during the global
    pandemic through investments in hardware, software, and network
    upgrades.
        From mobility applications underway cutter connectivity,
    the strategic investments we are making now and must continue
    to make in the future across our IT systems ensure that we
    remain ready, resilient, and responsive.
        The Coast Guard is also making investments in our most
    important resource, our people. Thanks to Congress, we can now
    access the Coast Guard housing fund and reinvest proceeds from
    divested properties into family housing needs. Over the past
    several years, we have emphasized improvement in construction
    projects for Coast Guard-owned housing, and we have resourced
    those projects through the housing fund. From Jonesport, Maine,
    to Kodiak, Alaska, we are constructing family housing units
    that are modern and adequately sized and serve our members and
    their families very well. The Coast Guard remains semper
    paratus, always ready, to answer our Nation's call. And
    reliable, resilient, modern infrastructure remains a
    cornerstone to Service readiness.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify today and
    for your steadfast support of our Coast Guard, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [Admiral Thomas' prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Paul F. Thomas, Deputy Commandant
                     for Mission Support, U.S. Coast Guard
        Good afternoon Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
    to testify today and thank you for your continued support of the United
    States Coast Guard.
        The Coast Guard is a global maritime Service that provides
    capabilities to meet diverse and expansive national security needs.
    Possessing unique authorities that allow us to execute our organic
    missions, the Coast Guard operates daily with partner nations, local,
    state, and other Federal agencies to carry out law enforcement,
    regulatory, and emergency response missions. We maintain over 45,000
    aids to navigation and oversee the Marine Transportation System, which
    accounts for more than $5.4 trillion annually in American economic
    activity and supports over 30 million jobs. Additionally, as a member
    of the U.S. Armed Forces, the Coast Guard supports Department of
    Defense operations by providing Joint Force capabilities for the
    Homeland and around the globe.
        The demand signal for the Coast Guard has never been higher. The
    Coast Guard serves on the front lines for a Nation whose economic
    prosperity and national security are inextricably linked to its
    maritime interests. In this capacity, the Coast Guard protects and
    defends more than 95,000 miles of U.S. coastline and inland waterways,
    saves thousands of lives per year, and safeguards America's 3.4 million
    square nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, the world's largest. Our
    cutters and aircraft are operating around the globe to protect American
    interests. But to effectively and efficiently meet the increase in
    operational demands, the Coast Guard must rely upon a robust mission
    support element that ensures our men and women are ready to answer the
    call. Shore infrastructure is a vital component of that mission support
    because every Coast Guard mission begins and ends at a shore facility.
        Managing the Department of Homeland Security's largest shore asset
    portfolio, the Coast Guard's sustainment of both new and aging
    facilities in a fiscally constrained environment presents unique
    challenges and requires strategic tradeoffs. We are making incredible
    headway on recapitalizing our operational assets such as cutters and
    aircraft, but that progress requires making hard decisions about our
    shore infrastructure.
        As the Coast Guard modernizes into the 21st century, we must ensure
    that our infrastructure, like our assets and people, are literally
    prepared to weather any storm. As we work to build infrastructure
    resiliency, we must acknowledge this is not limited to only piers and
    buildings, but also servers, towers, and sensors that constitute our IT
    infrastructure system.
        The Coast Guard is committed to ensuring the safety and resiliency
    of our facilities to meet mission demands. Based on the nature of our
    missions, Coast Guard facilities are located in areas prone to
    hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. The
    Nation's reliance upon the Coast Guard to serve as a first responder
    after those disasters, underscores the importance of our facilities
    remaining ready for operations. Since the last Congressional hearing on
    the Service's shore infrastructure in 2019, the Coast Guard has
    proactively addressed climate related risks by engineering our new
    construction to be environmentally resilient. In alignment with the
    Department of Homeland Security Risk Management and Resilience
    Framework, the Coast Guard is working to identify critical missions and
    infrastructure at risk, assess vulnerabilities and liabilities, and
    determine solutions to execute resilience readiness. All new shore
    infrastructure projects follow configuration standards for new building
    design and construction, using updated International Building Codes to
    include seismic, wind loading, and flood resistant design and
    construction. For the Coast Guard, resilient infrastructure is not just
    simply maintenance and construction, it is about building shore plants
    that will enable the Coast Guard to fulfill its statutory
    responsibilities while protecting National interests.
        Environmental stewardship is a hallmark of Coast Guard operations
    and a vital piece of addressing shore infrastructure needs. We are on
    the leading edge of integrating resilient and energy efficient projects
    and account for 92 percent of all facility energy reductions across the
    Department since 2003. We also lead the Department in leveraging Energy
    Performance Contracts, resulting in energy savings, onsite resilient
    energy generation, replacement of leaking roofs with solar power roofs,
    and the ability of sites to shelter-in-place while remaining
    operationally ready. As an example, in 2020, the Coast Guard Academy
    completed an infrastructure project funded through energy cost savings
    to increase the resilience and efficiency of the campus' 87-year-old
    infrastructure, resulting in a 43 percent reduction in energy
    consumption, and a 15 percent reduction in water consumption. Despite
    these achievements, the Coast Guard continues to operate in and from
    aging and degraded shore facilities, over half of which are beyond
    their service life. When funded for critical repairs and
    recapitalization, the Service rebuilds to 21st century resiliency
    standards that ensure the Coast Guard can respond in crisis.
        In addition to traditional shore facilities, the Coast Guard is
    also investing in modernized, reliable, and resilient IT
    infrastructure. In 2020, the Commandant announced the Service would
    embark on a ``Tech Revolution,'' designed to bring the Coast Guard into
    the 21st century by empowering our people with reliable, mobile, and
    integrated technology. With Congress' support, we implemented a
    structured, ``Whole-of-Service'' approach to ``deliver today's
    solutions today'' and ensure that we have a mission-ready workforce.
    The 2020 Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
    provided over $85 million, which the Coast Guard used to make
    investments towards crucial modernization efforts, from hardware and
    network upgrades that facilitated remote work and telehealth
    capabilities, to modern data analytics tools. Additionally, our C5I
    Service Center is building modern software development infrastructure,
    to speed the deployment of mobile, secure applications. As we prepare
    for the future, the Coast Guard must maintain the momentum of the Tech
    Revolution's emphasis on IT infrastructure by modernizing enterprise
    network architecture and improving service delivery to government and
    industry stakeholders.
        Currently, the Coast Guard is undergoing the largest
    recapitalization of its surface fleet since World War II. Our legacy
    cutters have served admirably but are well past their designed service
    lives. As we send new assets to sea, we must ensure that the logistics
    and support infrastructure is in place to sustain mission readiness. In
    cities like Seattle, Washington; Kodiak, Alaska; and Charleston, South
    Carolina; the Coast Guard is investing in strategic homeports that will
    support our modernized assets while taking advantage of commonalities
    across platforms. By clustering assets, the Coast Guard is able to
    provide a wider-range of depot-level maintenance and common repair
    activities necessary to field the assets of the future while reducing
    costs. We cannot rely on the buildings of the past to achieve the
    benefits of the future. From piers and runways, to unaccompanied
    personnel and family housing units, the shore infrastructure
    investments the Coast Guard is making today will ensure the Service's
    men and women remain at the highest levels of readiness to answer the
    Nation's call tomorrow.
        As we modernize our fleet, we must also modernize our workforce. We
    must ensure that our training centers are equitable and capable of
    providing meaningful skills that translate to the fleet to meet the
    demands of a more technologically advanced workforce. The COVID-19
    pandemic exposed the infrastructure limitations of the Coast Guard's
    sole enlisted accession point, Training Center Cape May, New Jersey. As
    a result, the Coast Guard recognized the need to accelerate planning
    for more resilient infrastructure that is capable of continuing recruit
    throughput necessary for workforce replenishment. Currently, Phase I of
    this project is undergoing survey and design efforts as current
    barracks and classroom facilities are in desperate need of
    recapitalization. As this project progresses, we will continue to add
    modern facilities that will house and train our future workforce. We
    are also recapitalizing barracks and industrial support facilities at
    the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to ensure the Coast Guard's future leaders
    can learn in a safe, accommodating environment. Additionally, at our
    training centers in Petaluma, Mobile, and Yorktown, we are building
    facilities capable of accommodating advanced training aids and
    simulators for our newest cutters, boats, aircraft, and IT systems.
        Like all Federal Agencies operating within the reality of a
    constrained fiscal environment, the Coast Guard makes strategic
    tradeoffs each year to prioritize the most critical near-term
    operations and direct support activities while maintaining momentum on
    recapitalization efforts for capital assets and infrastructure.
    Operational facilities like bases, sectors, small boat stations, and
    aviation facilities, as well as family housing and support facilities
    are among the projects that we must balance based on mission demands.
    As we identify infrastructure projects, those determined to be the
    highest priority are incorporated into the Coast Guard's Annual Budget
    Submission. Until a few years ago, that budget submission was our only
    way to communicate infrastructure needs to Congress. However, in 2018,
    Congress authorized the Coast Guard's annual Unfunded Priorities List
    and provided the Service an additional medium to highlight vital
    projects that need our attention. Our Fiscal Year 2022 Unfunded
    Priorities List includes $120 million in critical facility improvements
    to support new cutters, $131 million in housing, family support, and
    training facility needs, $158 million for improvements and
    recapitalization of operational facilities, and $19.5 million to
    support operational assets and maritime commerce. As evident by recent
    budget and Unfunded Priorities List submissions, the Coast Guard is
    committed to addressing our shore infrastructure deficiencies.
        The Coast Guard must also continue to seek strategic opportunities
    to divest infrastructure that no longer supports current mission needs.
    As our assets modernize, we are examining the future of the Service to
    make informed decisions about force laydown.
        In 2021, Congress took a big step and helped us address one of our
    most pressing operational concerns; housing for our people, by allowing
    the proceeds from divested property and infrastructure to be reinvested
    back into Coast Guard unaccompanied personnel and family housing
    projects. This provides us the flexibility to address deficiencies and
    motivation to seek divestures where possible. To date, over $92 million
    has been reinvested in critical housing infrastructure that will
    benefit the work-life balance of our personnel. In doing so, the
    Service is pursuing an optimal shore facility inventory balance while
    simultaneously supporting our Service members and their families.
        The Coast Guard's ability to address its shore infrastructure
    backlog would not be possible without the support of Congress. In 2018
    and 2019, the Coast Guard completed $152 million worth of shore
    infrastructure recapitalization projects, improving the physical
    condition and resilience of facilities in Massachusetts, New York, New
    Jersey, North Carolina, California, Oregon, and Hawaii. We awarded $73
    million in construction contracts for projects in Maine, Virginia,
    South Carolina, Texas, California, Alaska, and Guam. In 2020 and 2021,
    that amount more than doubled as the Coast Guard received $350 million
    to begin the buildouts of operational hubs in Seattle and Charleston,
    move the National Capital Region Air Defense Base from Reagan National
    Airport to Joint Base Andrews, and recapitalize housing for Station
    Eastport in Maine. Again, much like with our asset recapitalization,
    the investments in shore infrastructure we are making today will pay
    dividends for the Nation for decades to come.
        Coast Guard shore infrastructure readiness is a critical component
    of the Service's ability to execute our 11 statutory missions. As the
    Commandant has stated, ``Every Coast Guard mission begins and ends at a
    shore facility.'' Your stalwart support of our shore infrastructure
    needs, and that of the Administration, ensures the Coast Guard will
    continue to be Semper Paratus, Always Ready, to answer the Nation's
    call.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and for
    all that you do for the men and women of the United States Coast Guard.
    I look forward to your questions.

        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Admiral Thomas.
        We will now proceed. Ms. MacLeod, you may proceed.
        Ms. MacLeod. Chair Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    be here today to discuss our recent and ongoing work on the
    condition and management of the Coast Guard's infrastructure.
    My testimony includes information from our work on these issues
    and the Coast Guard's progress in implementing recommendations
    we have made in these areas.
        Coast Guard infrastructure assets are vast and include more
    than 20,000 facilities at over 2,700 locations. It has often
    been stated that Coast Guard missions begin and end at a Coast
    Guard facility. Good management of these facilities is critical
    to the success of Coast Guard operations.
        However, our work has raised concerns, including challenges
    the Coast Guard faces in addressing its aging and vulnerable
    infrastructure. For example, our work identified that almost
    half of the Coast Guard's shore infrastructure is beyond its
    service life, resulting in costly recapitalization,
    construction, and maintenance project backlogs.
        And as of 2019, these backlogs totaled more than $2.6
    billion. In fact, in 2018, the Coast Guard estimated that it
    would take almost 400 years to address the $1.77 billion
    backlog of major projects it reported for that year. Also, it
    is likely that the estimated costs to address the backlog are
    understated.
        This is particularly concerning, not only because of the
    amount of time needed to address the backlog, but because of
    other potential impacts. For example, we have identified that
    deferring maintenance can lead to higher costs in the long run
    while also posing risks to safety, security, readiness,
    staffing resources, and mission execution.
        GAO has made recommendations to improve the Coast Guard's
    shore infrastructure management efforts, including reporting
    its needs more completely and accurately. Coast Guard concurred
    with all of these recommendations and in some cases has taken
    steps toward addressing them. Some of these steps include
    prioritizing critical infrastructure and incorporating
    resilience planning.
        For example, the Coast Guard has a process to classify all
    of its real property under a tier system and establish minimum
    investment targets by a tier. Recent Coast Guard guidance
    prioritizes expenditures on shore infrastructure, such as piers
    or runways over administrative buildings.
        And as Vice Admiral Thomas noted, the Coast Guard
    incorporated resilience into shore infrastructure planning,
    better positioning itself to prepare for, recover from, and
    successfully adapt to adverse events. These are promising
    steps.
        And the Coast Guard could further improve management of its
    infrastructure with additional action in the following four
    areas, including employing models for predicting the outcome of
    investments and analyzing tradeoffs to achieve cost savings.
    Using such models would help the Coast Guard prioritize
    investments across its shore infrastructure portfolio, more
    efficiently managing resources by disposing of unneeded assets.
    Given the Coast Guard's competing acquisition, operational, and
    maintenance needs, and project backlog, this could help to
    mitigate some of its resource challenges.
        Reporting shore infrastructure information more completely
    and accurately in congressionally required plans and budget
    requests. This additional detail could help the Congress
    prioritize funding to address the Coast Guard's shore
    infrastructure backlog.
        Lastly, ensuring investments in data infrastructure address
    its mission and user needs. For example, we found past Coast
    Guard efforts to upgrade a key data system, MISLE, did not
    deliver some planned functionalities. Relatedly, we now have
    preliminary work reviewing a range of Coast Guard IT
    infrastructure and cybersecurity issues. This work indicates
    there may be gaps in how the Coast Guard has applied policies
    in meeting practices to management of its IT infrastructure and
    the associated workforce.
        In closing, Coast Guard has taken some positive steps, but
    could do more to improve the management of its vast and aging
    infrastructure. This includes ensuring they have sound
    processes to prioritize projects and analyze tradeoffs among
    projects. GAO will continue to follow up with the Coast Guard
    on these issues.
        This completes my prepared statement, and I would be happy
    to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.
        [Ms. MacLeod's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Heather MacLeod, Acting Director, Homeland
          Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office
       Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Better Manage Shore Infrastructure
                                 what gao found
        In 2019, GAO found that almost half of the Coast Guard's shore
    infrastructure was past its service life and the extent of costs to
    address its maintenance and recapitalization (major renovations)
    project backlogs may be understated. GAO also found that Coast Guard
    data showed at least $2.6 billion in costs to address its backlogs for
    its $18 billion portfolio of shore infrastructure.
        The Coast Guard has taken initial steps toward improving how it
    manages its infrastructure. For example, in 2019 GAO found weaknesses
    in how the Coast Guard prioritized shore infrastructure investments.
    GAO recommended that it incorporate resilience--the ability to prepare
    and plan for, absorb, and recover from, or successfully adapt to
    adverse events--into its risk management. In 2021, the Coast Guard
    revised how it prioritizes infrastructure investments, including
    incorporating resilience into planning by, for example, identifying the
    infrastructure most critical to mission operations.
        The Coast Guard continues to face challenges in ensuring that its
    infrastructure investments meet mission and user needs. For example, in
    2019 GAO found that the Coast Guard has not provided accurate
    information to Congress about its requirements-based budget targets for
    shore infrastructure in its budget requests and its project backlogs.
    Specifically, Coast Guard recapitalization targets for shore assets
    were at least $290 million annually, but its budget requests for fiscal
    years 2012 through 2021 ranged from about $5 million to about $99
    million annually (see figure).\\ GAO previously recommended
    that the Coast Guard include supporting details about competing project
    alternatives and report trade-offs in congressional budget requests and
    related reports. The Coast Guard agreed with GAO's recommendation. GAO
    continues to follow up on the status of the Coast Guard's actions in
    response to this and other prior GAO recommendations aimed at improving
    the Coast Guard's management of its infrastructure.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \\ Editor's note: See figure 3 on page 17.

                                   __________
        Chair Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and Members of the
    Subcommittee:
        I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent and ongoing
    work on the condition of the U.S. Coast Guard's shore and information
    technology (IT) infrastructure, and recommendations we have made to
    help improve its infrastructure management. The Coast Guard, a
    component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), maintains
    physical assets at over 2,700 locations where it owns or leases more
    than 20,000 facilities, including piers, boat stations, air stations,
    runways, and housing units. In addition, the Coast Guard relies on its
    IT assets, which include over 400 IT systems. In particular, the Coast
    Guard uses the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement system
    to track and report mission results for nine of its 11 missions.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Under 6 U.S.C. Sec.  468(a), the Coast Guard's 11 statutory
    missions are (1) marine safety; (2) search and rescue; (3) aids to
    navigation; (4) living marine resources; (5) marine environmental
    protection; (6) ice operations; (7) ports, waterways, and coastal
    security; (8) drug interdiction; (9) migrant interdiction; (10) defense
    readiness; and (11) other law enforcement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In my testimony today, I will discuss (1) the condition of the
    Coast Guard's shore infrastructure, (2) actions the Coast Guard has
    taken to improve its management of shore infrastructure, and (3)
    challenges the Coast Guard faces to ensure that shore and IT
    infrastructure investments meet mission and user needs.
        This statement is primarily based on four reports we issued from
    October 2017 through July 2020, as well as selected updates to those
    reports that we conducted through October 2021 regarding Coast Guard
    efforts to address our previous recommendations.\2\ To perform our work
    for these reports, we analyzed relevant Coast Guard documents and
    management processes, as well as applicable budgets, laws, policies,
    and data for managing Coast Guard shore infrastructure. We also
    interviewed Coast Guard officials responsible for managing shore
    infrastructure and a key data system. Further details on the scope and
    methodology for these reports are available within each of the
    published products. In addition, for our selected updates through
    October 2021, we reviewed Coast Guard documentation and interviewed
    officials about actions taken to address recommendations from our
    previous reports.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Close Stations Identified
    as Overlapping and Unnecessarily Duplicative, GAO-18-9 (Washington,
    D.C.: Oct. 26, 2017); Coast Guard Shore Infrastructure: Applying
    Leading Practices Could Help Better Manage Project Backlogs of at Least
    $2.6 Billion, GAO-19-82, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 21, 2019); Coast Guard
    Shore Infrastructure: Processes for Improving Resilience Should Fully
    Align with DHS Risk Management Framework, GAO-19-675 (Washington, D.C.,
    Sept. 25, 2019); and Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Ensure Investments
    in Key Data System Meet Mission and User Needs, GAO-20-562 (Washington,
    D.C.: July 16, 2020).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This statement also includes preliminary observations from ongoing
    work related to Coast Guard IT infrastructure management efforts, which
    we expect to publish in multiple reports in 2022. For these forthcoming
    reports, we reviewed Coast Guard policies, procedures, and practices
    related to IT infrastructure and acquisitions; cybersecurity risk
    management; cloud computing; and cyberspace workforce. We compared
    these policies, procedures, and practices with evidence of the Coast
    Guard's actions to implement them. For each of the key areas of review,
    we interviewed knowledgeable Coast Guard officials.
        We conducted the work on which this statement is based in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
    standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
    sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
    findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the
    evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
    conclusions based on our audit objectives.
      Almost Half of the Coast Guard's Shore Infrastructure Is Beyond Its
                                  Service Life
        We found in February 2019 that the condition of the Coast Guard's
    shore infrastructure was deteriorating and that almost half (45
    percent) was past its service life--resulting in recapitalization and
    new construction and deferred maintenance backlogs.\3\ As of 2019,
    these backlogs totaled at least $2.6 billion. The Coast Guard owns or
    leases 20,000 facilities, which consist of various types of buildings
    and structures that are organized into five product lines and 13 asset
    types, known as asset lines.\4\ For example, within its shore
    operations asset line, the Coast Guard maintains over 200 stations
    along U.S. coasts and inland waterways to carry out its search and
    rescue operations, as well as other missions, such as maritime
    security. In 2018, the Coast Guard graded \5\ its overall shore
    infrastructure condition as a C minus,\6\ on the basis of criteria it
    derived from standards developed by the American Society of Civil
    Engineers. Table 1 shows information about the number of assets,
    replacement value, service life of, and condition grades assigned by
    the Coast Guard for each of its asset lines for fiscal year 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ GAO-19-82. According to the Coast Guard, its overall shore
    inventory has a 65-year service life, and its asset service life ranges
    from 6 to 75 years, depending on the type of asset.
        \4\ According to Coast Guard guidance, a building is generally
    defined as a fully enclosed structure that is affixed to the ground, in
    which personnel work or live or where equipment is stored. Buildings
    include regional operations centers, aircraft hangars, and houses. A
    structure is generally defined as any other construction affixed to the
    ground that does not meet the definition of a building. Structures
    include helicopter landing pads, docks, and aircraft runways.
        \5\ The Coast Guard assigned each asset line a letter grade to
    provide a snapshot of what the Coast Guard considered the condition of
    its shore infrastructure to be for that year. Considering eight
    attributes adapted from standards used by the American Society of Civil
    Engineers, the Coast Guard looked at (1) Capacity, (2) Funding, (3)
    Operations and Maintenance, (4) Resilience, (5) Condition, (6) Future
    Need, (7) Public Safety, and (8) Innovation. As noted by the Coast
    Guard's fiscal year 2018 shore infrastructure reports, these
    infrastructure grades provide a broad basis for performance analysis
    and consider how well the Coast Guard is able to achieve mission
    objectives in relation to its dependencies on shore infrastructure.
        \6\ According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, an ``A''
    denotes generally excellent condition; a ``B'' denotes good to
    excellent condition; a ``C'' denotes mediocre/fair to good condition
    but showing signs of deterioration and increasingly vulnerable to risk;
    a ``D'' denotes poor to fair condition and mostly below standard; and
    an ``F'' denotes failing/critical, unfit for purpose, and in an
    unacceptable condition, with widespread advanced signs of
    deterioration.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Table 1: Asset Numbers and Replacement Values, Percent of Assets
     Operating Past Service Life, and Condition Grades of Selected Assets,
          for Fiscal Year 2018, as Determined by the U.S. Coast Guard

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Percent
                                                                                              of assets
                                                                                    Percent   operating
                                                        Number of    Replacement   of assets  more than      2018
                        Asset line                        assets     value ($ in      past     5 years    condition
                                                                      millions)     service      past     grade \b\
                                                                                    life \a\   service
                                                                                               life \a\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aviation..........................................        334           2,570         63         35           D
    Base services.....................................      4,180             880         50         33          C-
    Civil works.......................................      6,665           1,872         55         33           C
    Community services................................      1,135           1,394         68         37          D+
    Housing...........................................      2,901           2,923         28         26          B-
    Industrial........................................         52             467         57         38          D-
    Sector/district...................................        459           2,029         27         16           C
    Shore operations..................................      1,056           1,951         38         19           B
    Technology........................................      1,910             835         24         15          D+
    Training facilities...............................        174             421         35         25          C+
    Waterfront........................................      1,577           2,494         55         26          C-
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................................     20,433          17,835         46         29          C-
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Coast Guard documents. GAO-22-105513
    Note: Table excludes two asset lines--fixed and floating aids to navigation and signal equipment--which are used
      to mark federal waterways to safeguard maritime safety and commerce.
    \a\ The Coast Guard does not have complete service life data on all of its assets. For example, the Coast Guard
      does not have data on the remaining service life for 16 percent of its aviation assets.
    \b\ According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, upon which the Coast Guard based its grades, an ``A''
      denotes generally in excellent condition; a ``B'' denotes good to excellent condition; a ``C'' denotes
      mediocre/fair to good condition but showing signs of deterioration and increasingly vulnerable to risk; a
      ``D'' denotes poor to fair condition and mostly below standard; and an ``F'' denotes failing/critical, unfit
      for purpose, and in an unacceptable condition, with widespread advanced signs of deterioration. The formula
      the Coast Guard uses to assign grades is based on a number of factors, including the results of its facility
      inspections, and the percent of assets past service life is independent of the grade calculation. According to
      Coast Guard officials, some of its 2018 data on shore infrastructure may not be complete if field inspectors
      did not identify and record problems at facilities they inspected. As a result, condition grades could be
      overly positive.

        The aging and deteriorating condition of the Coast Guard's shore
    infrastructure has led to deferred construction projects and
    maintenance backlogs. With almost half of its infrastructure past its
    service life, and given recent Coast Guard funding requests for its
    shore infrastructure, it will take many years for the agency to address
    these backlogs. For example, in 2018 the Coast Guard estimated that it
    would take almost 400 years to address the $1.774 billion
    recapitalization and new construction backlog it reported for that
    year--assuming an overall 65-year service life and that funding would
    continue at the fiscal year 2017 appropriations level.\7\ This time
    frame estimate excluded the Coast Guard's $900 million deferred depot-
    level maintenance backlog, which had increased to $958 million, as of
    August 2021.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ The number of years it would take to address the backlog is
    dependent on appropriated amounts, which have varied considerably.
        \8\ Deferred depot-level maintenance consists of major maintenance
    tasks that are beyond the capability of an individual unit, such as
    replacing exterior doors and windows.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, the size and estimated costs of the Coast Guard's backlogs
    may be understated. In February 2019, we found that 205 projects on the
    Coast Guard's recapitalization and new construction backlog lacked cost
    estimates compared with 125 projects with cost estimates.\9\ Officials
    explained that they had not prepared cost estimates for these projects
    because the estimates were in the preliminary stages of
    development.\10\ As we reported in 2019, these information shortcomings
    are consistent with previous findings and recommendations that the DHS
    Office of Inspector General has made.\11\ We describe the status of our
    2019 recommendation below.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ GAO-19-82. In 2017, the Coast Guard removed 132 projects from
    its backlog that it determined were no longer necessary based on
    mission change, alternative solutions, or the need being met through
    another project. We did not assess the process the Coast Guard applied
    to remove projects from its list. The Coast Guard was not able to
    identify the estimated total cost for projects it removed.
        \10\ In 2018, list of unfunded priorities, the Coast Guard's
    projected costs for individual shore projects with cost estimates
    ranged from $2 million to approximately $95 million per project. We did
    not evaluate the Coast Guard's cost estimating practices.
        \11\ In 2008, DHS's Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that
    Coast Guard funding for shore infrastructure was well below the
    industry standard--at 0.03 percent rather than the 2 percent standard
    for 2003-2006--and that, as a result, the Coast Guard had to use
    maintenance funds to execute Procurement, Construction, and Improvement
    projects, which the OIG reported could cause a critical situation with
    the structural integrity of Coast Guard shore facilities, and which, if
    uncorrected, could compromise the Coast Guard's overall operational
    capability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Coast Guard Has Taken Initial Steps to Improve Its Management of
                              Shore Infrastructure
        Our previous reports have identified various steps the Coast Guard
    has taken to begin to improve how it manages its shore infrastructure.
    Some of these steps align with leading practices for managing public
    sector backlogs and key practices for managing risks to critical
    infrastructure. These include identifying risks posed by the lack of
    timely investment, identifying mission-critical facilities, and
    beginning an assessment of shore infrastructure vulnerabilities.
    Specifically, the Coast Guard has done the following:
          Identified risks posed by the lack of timely investment.
    In February 2019, we found that the Coast Guard had a process to
    identify, document, and report risks to its shore infrastructure in its
    annual shore infrastructure reports for fiscal years 2015 through
    2017.\12\ These reports identified the types of risks the Coast Guard
    faces in not investing in its facilities, including financial risk,
    capability risk, and operational readiness risk. For example, as shown
    in figure 1, the Coast Guard has maintenance facilities that require
    refurbishment because they cannot accommodate newer, taller boats. The
    Coast Guard met this leading practice to identify risk in general
    terms--for example, in terms of increased life cycle costs, or risk to
    operations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ According to leading practices, agencies should identify the
    types of risks posed by not investing in deteriorating facilities,
    systems, and components because this is important for providing more
    transparency in the decision making process and for communicating with
    staff at all organizational levels. See GAO, Federal Real Property:
    Improved Transparency Could Help Efforts to Manage Agencies'
    Maintenance and Repair Backlogs, GAO-14-188 (Washington, D.C., Jan. 23,
    2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Figure 1: Coast Guard Maintenance Facilities Requiring Refurbishment
              because They Cannot Accommodate Newer, Taller Boats
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          Source: GAO. GAO-22-105513.

          Identified mission-critical and mission-supportive shore
    infrastructure. In February 2019,\13\ we found that since at least
    2012, the Coast Guard had documented its process to classify all of its
    real property under a tier system and had established minimum
    investment targets by tier as part of its central depot-level
    maintenance expenditure decisions.\14\ These tiers--which range from
    mission-critical to mission-supportive assets--were incorporated into
    guidance that Coast Guard decision makers are to follow when
    deliberating project funding and to help them determine how to target
    funding more effectively. For example, Coast Guard guidance for fiscal
    years 2019 through 2023 prioritized expenditures on shore
    infrastructure supporting front-line operations, such as piers or
    runways, over shore infrastructure indirectly supporting front-line
    operations, such as administrative buildings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ GAO-19-82.
        \14\ GAO, Federal Real Property: Improved Transparency Could help
    Efforts to Manage Agencies' Maintenance and Repair Backlogs, GAO-14-188
    (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2014). Leading practices state that
    agencies should identify buildings as mission-critical and mission-
    supportive to help establish where maintenance and repair investments
    should be targeted, to ensure that funds are being used effectively.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Incorporated resilience into shore infrastructure
    planning. In July 2021, the Coast Guard revised how it prioritizes
    shore infrastructure investments by aligning its processes for
    incorporating shore infrastructure resilience--the ability to prepare
    and plan for, absorb and recover from, or successfully adapt to,
    adverse events--into its shore infrastructure planning. Previously, in
    September 2019, we identified weaknesses in the Coast Guard's processes
    for incorporating resilience into its infrastructure risk management,
    including considering the extent to which infrastructure projects are
    the most critical to assuring that the Coast Guard could carry out its
    missions. For example, we found that the Coast Guard had not considered
    whether certain aircraft runways and other structures were vulnerable
    to flooding following a severe storm, or which were at greatest risk
    for flooding.
             We recommended that the Coast Guard revise its processes for
    improving shore infrastructure resilience, and the Coast Guard agreed
    with our recommendation. In July 2021, the Coast Guard informed us that
    its 2021 through 2025 civil engineering work plan prioritizes actions
    to identify the most operationally critical infrastructure. These are
    important initial steps toward incorporating resilience into shore
    infrastructure planning, which we will continue to monitor. As we have
    previously reported, by aligning its processes for improving shore
    infrastructure resilience with DHS's recommended risk management
    framework for critical infrastructure, the Coast Guard will be better
    positioned to reduce its future fiscal exposure to the effects of
    catastrophic natural disasters.\15\ See figure 2 for an example of
    incorporating resilience into a Coast Guard facility.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ GAO-19-675.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Figure 2. Coast Guard Station in Sabine Pass, Texas, Damaged by
         Hurricane Ike in 2008 and Rebuilt in 2013 to Be More Resilient
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        LEFT: Station Sabine Pass, Hurricane Ike, category II damage to
                                    station.

        RIGHT: Station Sabine Pass rebuilt to withstand 100 year flood,
                      category III hurricane wind speeds.

                    Source: U.S. Coast Guard. GAO-22-105513.

           Coast Guard Could Further Improve Management of Shore and
                               IT Infrastructure
        Although the Coast Guard has taken actions to begin to improve its
    shore infrastructure management, it continues to face challenges in
    ensuring that its investments meet mission and user needs for shore and
    IT infrastructure management. In particular, we found that the Coast
    Guard could improve its shore and IT infrastructure management in the
    following four areas:
          Employ models for predicting the outcome of investments
    and analyzing trade-offs. In February 2019, we found that a 2017 Coast
    Guard Aviation Pavement Study employed a model that determined the
    Coast Guard could more efficiently prioritize its investment in
    aviation pavement.\16\ A subsequent Coast Guard aviation pavement plan
    recommended actions to use the study results and potentially save $13.8
    million. However, the Coast Guard has not employed such modeling to
    prioritize investments to all of its shore infrastructure lines,
    potentially missing opportunities to identify and achieve additional
    cost savings. As a result, we recommended that the Coast Guard employ
    models for its asset lines that would predict investment outcomes,
    analyze trade-offs, and optimize decisions among competing investments.
    The Coast Guard agreed with our recommendation. As of April 2021,
    officials told us they are assessing modeling tools used by the
    Department of Defense and others, and plan to begin using models by the
    end of September 2023. We will continue to monitor actions the Coast
    Guard is taking to address our recommendations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ To ensure that investment decisions are aligned with agency
    missions and goals, agencies should employ models to predict the future
    condition and performance of its facilities as a portfolio, according
    to leading practices. Leading practices state that agencies should
    align real property with mission needs. GAO-19-82.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Dispose of unneeded assets. In October 2017, we found
    that disposing of unneeded assets, such as closing unnecessarily
    duplicative boat stations \17\ that were identified by the Coast Guard
    using a sound analytical process, could potentially generate $290
    million in cost savings over 20 years.\18\ Specifically, the Coast
    Guard analyzed its nearly 200 stations and identified 18 unnecessarily
    duplicative boat stations with overlapping coverage that could be
    permanently closed without negatively affecting the Coast Guard's
    ability to meet its mission requirements, including its 2-hour search
    and rescue response standard.\19\ The Coast Guard has made multiple
    attempts in previous years to close such stations but was unable to do
    so due to congressional intervention and subsequent legislation
    prohibiting closures.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ In 2010, federal law required that within departments and
    throughout the government, we identify programs, agencies, offices, and
    initiatives with duplicative goals and activities and report annually.
    Pub. L. No. 111-139, Sec.  21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. Sec.  712
    Note. See GAO's Duplication and Cost Savings web page for links to the
    2011 to 2017 annual reports: http://www.gao.gov/duplication/overview.
        \18\ GAO-18-9. In February 2019, we reported that leading practices
    state that agencies should efficiently employ available resources,
    limit construction of new facilities, and that facilities that are not
    needed to support an agency's mission should be disposed of whenever it
    is cost effective to do so. GAO-19-82.
        \19\ Coast Guard guidance calls for its stations to plan to arrive
    to the scene of the search and rescue distress cases within their area
    of responsibility within 2 hours. U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard
    Addendum to the United States National Search and Rescue Supplement to
    the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual,
    COMDTINST M16130.2F (Washington, D.C.: January 2013).
        \20\ Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act, 1989, Pub. L. No. 100-457, 102 Stat. 2125, 2126
    (1988). Id. at Sec.  350, 102 Stat. 2125, 2156. See also, 14 U.S.C.
    Sec.  910. See Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
    Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-281, Sec.  225(b), 128 Stat. 3022, 3039
    (2014). See also, 14 U.S.C. Sec.  912. In 1990, we reported that the
    Department of Transportation's Inspector General recommended that the
    Coast Guard close 21 stations, and the Coast Guard recommended
    additional closures. See GAO, Coast Guard: Better Process Needed to
    Justify Closing Search and Rescue Stations, GAO/RCED-90-98 (Washington,
    D.C.: Mar. 6, 1990). We have reported on the Coast Guard's efforts to
    close stations over many years. In 1994, we reported that the Coast
    Guard had created a new process for determining the need for boat
    station changes. We also found that the new process included detailed
    criteria to evaluate the appropriate need for stations, such as boating
    and economic trends and the availability of alternative search and
    rescue resources. The Coast Guard then unsuccessfully attempted to
    close stations in 1995 using this process, and again in 2008. GAO,
    Coast Guard: Improved Process Exists to Evaluate Changes to Small Boat
    Stations, GAO/RCED-94-147 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 1994); See also,
    GAO-18-9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             In February 2019, we recommended disposing of unneeded assets
    to more efficiently manage resources and better position the Coast
    Guard and Congress to address shore infrastructure challenges. The
    Coast Guard agreed with our recommendation. In April 2021, Coast Guard
    officials told us that they planned to consolidate four stations with
    larger adjacent stations as part of the fiscal year 2021 appropriations
    omnibus, in a step toward disposing of the 18 unnecessarily duplicative
    stations it identified in 2013. However, as of October 2021, officials
    have told us that the Coast Guard reconsidered the planned disposition
    of some unnecessarily duplicative stations and no longer plans to
    consolidate them. Given the Coast Guard's competing acquisition,
    operational, and maintenance needs, and its existing backlog of
    recapitalization and new construction projects, closing unnecessarily
    duplicative stations could help to mitigate some of its resource
    challenges.
          Report shore infrastructure information more completely
    and accurately. In February 2019, we found that the Coast Guard could
    increase budget transparency for shore infrastructure by accurately
    reporting project backlogs and costs in congressionally-required
    plans.\21\ For example, we found that the Coast Guard had not provided
    complete information to Congress in its Unfunded Priorities Lists of
    shore infrastructure projects, including information about trade-offs
    among competing project alternatives, as well as the impacts on
    missions conducted from shore facilities in disrepair.\22\ This
    information could help to inform decision makers of the risks posed by
    untimely investments in maintenance and repair backlogs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ GAO-19-82. According to leading practices, agencies should
    structure maintenance and repair budgets to differentiate between
    funding allotted for routine maintenance and repairs, and funding
    allotted to addressing maintenance and repair backlogs.
        \22\ The term ``unfunded priority'' means a program or mission
    requirement that (1) has not been selected for funding in the
    applicable proposed budget; (2) is necessary to fulfill a requirement
    associated with an operational need; and (3) the Commandant of the
    Coast Guard would have recommended for inclusion in the applicable
    proposed budget, had additional resources been available or had the
    requirement emerged before the budget was submitted. See 14 U.S.C.
    Sec.  5108.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             We also found that the Coast Guard had not provided accurate
    information about its requirements-based budget targets for shore
    infrastructure in its budget requests. According to the Coast Guard, a
    requirements-based budget is an estimate of the cost to operate and
    sustain its shore infrastructure portfolio of assets over the life
    cycle of the asset, from initial construction or capital investment
    through divestiture or demolition.\23\ We found that Coast Guard
    targets for recapitalization of shore assets exceeded $290 million
    annually. However, its budget requests for fiscal years 2012 through
    2021 ranged from about $5 million to about $99 million annually, and
    allotments ranged from about $5 million to about $266 million annually.
    (see fig. 3).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ According to Coast Guard officials, its requirements-based
    budget planning is based on industry standards and that it aligns with
    the National Academy of Sciences benchmarks for sustainable facility
    and infrastructure management. National Research Council of the
    National Academy of Sciences, Stewardship of Federal Facilities: A
    Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nation's Public Assets (Washington,
    D.C.: National Academies Press, 1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Figure 3: Coast Guard Allotments for Shore Procurement, Construction,
       and Improvements from its Appropriations and Shore Infrastructure
           Requirements-based Budget, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2021
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Coast Guard documents. GAO-22-105513.

    Notes: Current-year dollars.
    Beginning in fiscal year 2019, the President's budget requests refer to
    Procurement, Construction and Improvements, which previously referred
    to Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvements in the annual fiscal
    year appropriations.
    \a\ Beginning in 2016, the Coast Guard started using a requirements-
    based budget to determine shore infrastructure budget needs and applied
    it for the first time with its fiscal year 2017 submission. According
    to this budgeting approach and Coast Guard officials, the Coast Guard's
    targets for recapitalization of shore infrastructure exceeded $290
    million annually as determined by the U.S. Coast Guard.
    \b\ ``Amount requested'' represents the amount requested in the
    President's budget, as identified in the Coast Guard's fiscal year
    congressional justifications.
    \c\ Values for 2013 reflect sequestration.

             As a result, we recommended that the Coast Guard include
    supporting details about competing project alternatives and report
    trade-offs in congressional budget requests and related reports.
    Without such information about Coast Guard budgetary requirements,
    Congress will lack critical information that could help to prioritize
    funding to address the Coast Guard's shore infrastructure backlogs. The
    Coast Guard agreed with our recommendation, but in July 2021, the Coast
    Guard informed us that while it concurs with the intent of our
    recommendation, addressing it is not feasible. We are in discussions
    with the Coast Guard about this recommendation.
          Ensure that investments in data infrastructure address
    mission and user needs. Our recent and ongoing work on the Coast
    Guard's IT infrastructure indicates that the Coast Guard could better
    apply certain decision processes as it manages investments in these
    systems. Specifically, in July 2020, we found that the Coast Guard
    could better invest in IT infrastructure to address challenges that
    limited its planning and other mission needs.\24\ For example, we found
    that in the Coast Guard's most recent efforts to upgrade a key data
    system--Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement--it did not
    follow key systems development processes nor deliver some planned
    functionalities, such as the ability to remediate duplicate vessel
    records. While these efforts began in 2008, the Coast Guard has since
    initiated further efforts to obtain or develop undelivered
    functionality since the release of the upgraded system in 2015.
    However, in its fiscal year 2019 operational analysis of this system,
    the Coast Guard identified additional major system deficiencies and
    user dissatisfaction that it reported require consideration as it
    pursues system enhancements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ GAO-20-562.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             As a result, we recommended that the Coast Guard take multiple
    actions; key among them was to follow its key systems development
    processes to identify needed enhancements, identify and analyze
    alternatives, and objectively select the preferred solution for its
    Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement system to meet
    approved mission needs. The Coast Guard agreed with all of our
    recommendations and described planned actions to address them. In May
    2020, the Coast Guard notified us that it had decided to replace this
    system. It is too early for us to assess whether DHS and the Coast
    Guard are following the appropriate development steps to ensure that
    the replacement data system they eventually deploy will meets mission
    needs.
             In addition to following up on the status of actions the Coast
    Guard is taking to address the aforementioned issues, we have
    preliminary work reviewing Coast Guard policies, procedures, and
    practices for IT infrastructure, cybersecurity risk management, cloud
    computing, IT acquisitions, and cyberspace workforce. Our preliminary
    work indicates there may be gaps in how the Coast Guard has applied
    policies, procedures, and leading practices to management of its IT
    infrastructure and the associated workforce. For example, our
    preliminary observations suggest that the Coast Guard lacks complete
    and accurate hardware, software, and other equipment. They also suggest
    that the Coast Guard lacks network capacity planning capabilities that
    would assist it in forecasting network traffic demands and categorizing
    and prioritizing different types of data. We will complete our reviews
    of the areas above and publish our results in 2022.

        Chair Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
    respond to any questions you may have at this time.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. MacLeod.
        We will now move on to Member questions. Each Member will
    be recognized for 5 minutes, and I will start by recognizing
    myself.
        Vice Admiral Thomas, I recently had a chance to visit Air
    Station Borinquen in Puerto Rico where many facilities were
    unusable due to hurricane damage. As a result, medical and
    childcare facilities were moved to station housing units.
    Captain Pena and the rest of her crew are doing their best to
    work with what they have, and I am under the impression that
    renovations are being planned for housing, the hangar, and
    other facilities at this location.
        I know that the Coast Guard operates with limited
    resources, but investments made on infrastructure should be
    done responsibly and in a resilient fashion.
        Admiral Thomas, given the facilities maintenance backlog,
    and the poor condition of the Coast Guard's infrastructure, has
    the Service assessed the risks to its infrastructure posed by
    natural hazards, including those driven by climate change? What
    effect does the decrepit infrastructure have on mission
    capability?
        Admiral Thomas. Chairman, thank you for the question, and
    thank you for visiting our team out there at Borinquen, and
    Captain Pena is a capable leader. I am sure you got that
    impression, and I know the crew enjoyed seeing you there.
    Borinquen is an example of one of those places that was
    impacted by the 2018 hurricane season, and funded by the
    supplemental money, so we are executing that money and
    rebuilding that facility.
        But you asked me about our process to assess our
    facilities' vulnerabilities to climate change. We are in phase
    2 of that assessment now. The first phase involved looking at
    all of our key facilities and determining which are vulnerable
    to which types of climate change-related incidents, whether it
    be flooding or fire or sea-level rise. Phase 2 is to go back
    and look real specifically at how resilient those structures
    are to those types of incidents. And then phase 3 would be to
    actually do the engineering to improve the resiliency.
        So, we are working our way through that. That will take
    some time. As you know, when we do recapitalize our
    infrastructure, we do it to the latest standards for both sea-
    level rise and flooding, et cetera. So, when we have a chance
    to build new, we are building resilient. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Carbajal. Admiral Thomas, what about the impact that
    decrepit, deficient infrastructure has on mission capability
    and morale?
        Admiral Thomas. There is no question, our infrastructure is
    critical to our missions, and you can look at places around the
    Coast Guard where we have to do our mission differently and
    less efficiently because we have infrastructure problems. I
    will just give you a couple examples.
        This week, earlier this week at our Coast Guard yard where
    our utilities are over 100 years old and need to be recapped to
    electrical distribution and the steam systems, we lost power
    for a couple of days. We need to recap the distribution system
    there, and that will make some of our ships come out of the
    yard late, which will impact our ability to operate them.
        If you go to Kodiak, Alaska, or you go to Charleston, South
    Carolina, the piers there need to be recapitalized, and they
    require us to operate differently. In Kodiak, if the winds
    exceed about 40 knots, we have to move the ships. In Pensacola,
    where we have two piers that have collapsed, our ships
    sometimes need to get underway when they are not scheduled to
    be underway to free up the piers that we are borrowing from the
    Navy because they need it for one of their ships.
        So, there are absolutely real impacts, but the good news
    is, in Pensacola, in the bill there is $28 million for us to
    recap there; Kodiak, $130 million for a recap there. So, we are
    getting after it, sir, but you are absolutely right, a lot of
    operational impacts.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
        Ms. MacLeod, as part of your testimony, you stated that the
    Coast Guard has given its infrastructure a grade of C-minus on
    average, which the Coast Guard defines as ``mediocre, in fair
    to good condition but showing signs of deterioration and
    increasingly vulnerable to risk.''
        Do you agree with that assessment? And what specific
    actions should the Coast Guard implement to incorporate natural
    hazard and climate change resilience into its infrastructure
    recapitalization, repair, and maintenance projects?
        Ms. MacLeod. Thank you for that question. Yes, the Coast
    Guard has made its own grade in this area and applying the
    industry standards. It is hard to know what the Coast Guard's
    greatest needs and priorities are without more information on
    how it is assessing individual projects.
        As noted, the Coast Guard is making progress in the area of
    resilience in terms of new construction and major renovation,
    and we think those are steps in the right direction, and we
    will continue to monitor them.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I am running out of time, so I
    will now proceed with Representative Young.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.
        And thank you, Admiral, for the testimony.
        I have been a big supporter of the Coast Guard for years,
    and I am proud to say that I have watched the Coast Guard with
    two bases when I first started here 48 years ago. Now we have
    got probably more bases than anyplace in the United States, and
    because we got more water, that helps out.
        But I want to thank you for your comments on Kodiak, and
    that leads me to my question. There is $429 million for
    projects in the infrastructure bill, where I learned--I was a
    traitor and a few other things. But how do you plan on spending
    that money or--you mentioned Kodiak. Are there any other areas
    in Alaska that you would be interested in expanding the role of
    the Coast Guard?
        Admiral Thomas. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
    We are excited about expanding our operations in Alaska. Our
    people love to serve up in that State, and they love to serve
    the people of that State, and we're excited about sending six
    of our FRCs up there. We are working on home ports for those in
    Ketchikan and Kodiak and Sitka and Seward.
        The bill that you mentioned has some money specifically
    marked for an increase in additional housing in Kodiak, which
    is going to be vital as we move OPCs up there. We are going to
    build out that home port. And then future investment in Alaska
    is getting Kodiak ready for the OPCs and the FRCs.
        We have just recently cut the contract that we will make
    Ketchikan a temporary home port for the FRC that will
    eventually end up in Sitka. We expect that home port to be
    built out by fiscal year 2024. That hull gets delivered this
    fiscal year. So, we are moving into Alaska, and we really
    appreciate your support.
        Mr. Young. I appreciate the answer, too. There is a little
    of what you call regional conflict because we are looking at
    icebreakers and other Coast Guard vessels, and some people in
    the lower 48 want them stationed there, which is a long ways
    away and costs a lot of money.
        We have facilities in Alaska, and I am proud to hear that
    you are talking about the housing. That is one of our biggest
    challenges to the Coast Guard corps is making sure we have the
    proper housing for the people that are wizened and children,
    where the crewmen can go out and do the rescue work and the
    identification.
        What about the Saint Paul Island, have you made any
    decisions yet, or are you going to make one on utilizing it as
    operational capacity?
        Admiral Thomas. Yes, we absolutely like to operate out of
    Saint Paul as one of the three or four operating locations that
    we utilize particularly when we know where the fishing fleet is
    going to be and we need to have an enhanced search-and-rescue
    posture.
        As you know, we had a fire at the facility there about 2
    years ago, so we need to rebuild it. That work is contracted.
    It should be completed by this coming spring. And then we have
    a couple issues with the hangar there, which is not Coast
    Guard-owned, but we are negotiating with the landlord to get
    some improvements there. So, we hope to be back into that
    forward-operating location early next year.
        Mr. Young. Now, one of the things that concerns me is that
    for the first time, we have the military, Air Force and Navy--
    and actually, the Navy used to be up there--starting to
    consider the Arctic. Are you all working together as the Arctic
    decisionmaking group, or are you separated programs and one----
        Admiral Thomas. We have----
        Mr. Young. Yes, go ahead.
        Admiral Thomas. Well, yes, we have joint service talks on
    all the areas of operation. In the Arctic, we work most closely
    with Army Corps of Engineers, of course. But our commander, who
    is in the 17th Coast Guard District, is coordinating with his
    peers across the services on a daily basis.
        Mr. Young. Yes, Admiral, the reason for my interest in
    this, for the members of the committee, a lot of activity in
    the Arctic now. But mainly, that is where the minerals are that
    we need to utilize for the new society: graphite, lithium, the
    whole bit is up there. And China is very actively involved in
    the Arctic, and they have nothing to do with it, but they are
    there. And Russia, of course, is way ahead of us in the
    icebreaking capability.
        We hear a lot about icebreakers. I have supported, and I
    want to have an icebreaker, and there is money to build one.
    But the biggest thing we need is the support facilities: Port
    Clarence, even as far north as Barrow; Kodiak you talked about
    already; Saint Paul. I can go down--Nome--because this is the
    big issue and the future of America is the Arctic. And you are
    going to play a major role, like I say, you always have.
        We have given you a lot of responsibilities over the years
    and sometimes haven't funded you, quite a few times. And this
    is our role in this committee to make sure you get the proper
    funding, and your mission is really dedicated to what your
    mission is charged with, rescue, search, and protection. So, I
    do appreciate your work in the Coast Guard. And for those in
    the audience, thank you. And for the Admiral, thank you for
    your testimony.
        And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Admiral Thomas. Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Young.
        We will now move to Representative Larsen.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Admiral, can you address the basic question--the President
    just signed the infrastructure bill, included $429 million to
    the Coast Guard. What is the Coast Guard's plans to invest
    those dollars, and specifically into the subject matter we have
    today, the shoreside infrastructure?
        Admiral Thomas. Thanks for the question, and again, thanks
    for the tremendous support of the Coast Guard. $429 million
    will certainly help us get after this infrastructure backlog. I
    think there is about $130 million or so that is going to go to
    housing improvements and some improvements at our training
    centers. There is about $158 million or so that we are looking
    at major shore infrastructure that supports our cutters, $120
    million that is directed toward improvements or construction of
    new child development centers. So that money will definitely be
    put to good use. I don't know precisely where all those
    projects are yet, sir, but we can certainly, as we develop
    those plans, keep you well-informed.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes, thanks. And there is a lot in my district,
    you should know that.
        Admiral Thomas. Yes.
        Mr. Larsen. Or probably not, but we will figure that out as
    we move forward.
        So, this week in the Northwest, we have had some pretty
    severe storms, extreme weather. And so, as we talked earlier,
    can you walk through the process that your local commanders go
    through to do damage assessments on shoreside infrastructure
    when you have storms like this and what the timeline is for
    making the investment into the repairs?
        Admiral Thomas. Sir, we have been watching from afar the
    developments on the Pacific Northwest and the weather and
    certainly send our sympathies to those who were adversely
    impacted by that weather. We have unfortunately a lot of
    experience in doing damage assessment after weather events on
    coastal facilities.
        The process, the local commanders will do the first
    assessment when they can get back into a unit if they had to
    leave. And then, if there is significant damage or they just
    think they need higher lever assistance, we have damage
    assessment teams that we flow into there, which are experts,
    civil engineers, et cetera. And those assessment teams will
    then call in repair teams to make the first-level repairs in
    order to really stop the damage. But that is the process, sir.
    We have a lot of experience. I have not heard of any damage
    reports yet from the 13th District.
        Mr. Larsen. OK. Thanks.
        And then I want to shift to GAO, if I could, to Acting
    Director MacLeod. In your assessment of critical infrastructure
    up at the Coast Guard, do you calculate or how do you calculate
    climate resiliency into your cost estimates? Is this something
    that is additional? Is it folded in? Is it not counted at all?
        Admiral Thomas. Sorry, sir, the question is for me?
        Mr. Larsen. No, it was for Acting Director MacLeod.
        Ms. MacLeod. Yes, thank you for that question. And when we
    reviewed the Coast Guard's practice in this area, we did find
    some gaps in the analysis here. And as I noted, they are making
    steps in this area, especially for new construction and major
    renovations.
        This is an area that we have seen some progress and will
    continue to monitor for the Coast Guard, but this should really
    be considered for all projects in the analysis of the cost
    estimates, and will really help in the tradeoffs among
    projects, considering the tradeoffs.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you. What standards do you use in order
    to fold in a climate resiliency premium?
        Ms. MacLeod. Well, that is really up to the Coast Guard
    what standards, but they--yes, I could take that question for
    the record in terms of other practices that GAO has done in
    this area, but the Coast Guard is evaluating different models
    for this.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Well, I guess I will go back to
    Admiral Thomas then for the answer to that question.
        Admiral Thomas. Well, sir, when we are recapitalizing,
    building a new facility with significant renovations then we
    use the industry standards for resiliency that are pretty well
    laid out. We use environmental standards in the lead standard.
        What I think you are asking me is as we look at our
    maintenance backlog or our recapitalization backlog how we roll
    in that and we are just in the infancy of doing that, sir. That
    is the vulnerability assessment that I spoke to, and I don't
    know where those numbers will go, sir, once we roll that in.
        Mr. Larsen. OK. That is great to know. I appreciate that.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. We will now move on to
    Representative Gibbs, Ranking Member Gibbs.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman Carbajal.
        The Coast Guard has had a lot of challenges and not really
    a lot of success in developing their IT system over the years,
    especially the failed electronic healthcare and logistics
    management systems being the most spectacular. In both the
    cases, Coast Guard is seeking to use Department of Defense
    systems, which will save development costs and shorten the
    implementation timeframes.
        After years of patching what we call the Marine Information
    for Safety and Law Enforcement, MISLE, a basic tool used by the
    Coast Guard--and we all know it is really a database system to
    store data for pollution incidents, marine accidents, search-
    and-rescue cases, law enforcement activities, tracking Coast
    Guard's regulatory enforcement, et cetera--in May of 2020, the
    Coast Guard decided to replace this system.
        Admiral, does the Coast Guard plan to look for an already-
    developed platform at other Federal agencies or other Armed
    Forces to save time and development costs?
        Admiral Thomas. Ranking Member Gibbs, thank you for the
    question. And there is no doubt you are correct that we have
    struggled with IT acquisitions, and the reason for that is that
    we have not looked at them as operational platforms. That
    changed several years ago. We have now modernized how we
    acquire, how we set requirements, acquire, and sustain our IT
    systems because they are operational assets just like a cutter
    or a ship.
        So, I am happy to report that we have now gone live with
    our electronic medical records across the country. We are the
    first service to achieve that. You asked about how we use other
    services. We are doing some mobile applications for our
    recruiters, for example. We are borrowing an Army program for
    that. We are doing some work for our marine inspectors that
    brings MISLE to mobile. So, we definitely look to our peers for
    solutions that have worked for them and see how we can
    incorporate them, and we will do that as we recapitalize MISLE.
        Mr. Gibbs. Because I think there has been a reluctance in
    the past to change the operational systems, right, or to
    integrate them?
        Admiral Thomas. I am sorry, sir?
        Mr. Gibbs. I think there has been some reluctance in the
    past to--not wanting to change the operational systems?
        Admiral Thomas. Change is always hard. I think we are past
    that, sir, and particularly because we modernized the process
    that we use to develop requirements and then find the solutions
    to those requirements. We are doing it a lot more like we do
    for buying a ship or an airplane, and that is a big
    improvement.
        Mr. Gibbs. And then, of course, I know Ms. MacLeod, in her
    oral testimony, kind of alluded to the challenges of this. And
    the GAO has recommended that the Coast Guard follow its key
    system development processes to identify enhancements and
    analyze alternatives and all that, and the Coast Guard has
    agreed to those recommendations.
        Now that the Coast Guard has decided to replace MISLE, will
    it continue to follow the GAO's recommendations in selecting
    and acquiring the new system?
        Admiral Thomas. Yes, so we are thankful to the GAO for the
    work that they have done for us and the continued engagement as
    we work to implement those recommendations. We have been able
    to close out two of them, and we are working on closing a
    third, which would leave about seven. So, we are not turning
    back. We really have used the GAO report to stimulate a
    modernization effort, particularly in our civil engineering, so
    we will continue to follow those recommendations.
        Mr. Gibbs. It has also come to my attention that the
    committee has been told that the best way to find pre-MISLE
    information is for us to file a Freedom of Information Act
    request. Will information currently in MISLE be available in
    the new version of the system?
        Admiral Thomas. That is absolutely the goal, sir, and
    really, that is part of our data for decision efforts. We are
    trying to build an integrated data environment where all that
    MISLE information would be, and right now, our data is
    accessible vertically only. We need to make it accessible
    horizontally, and that will allow us to answer those types of
    data calls.
        Mr. Gibbs. That is good. I am glad to hear that.
        Also, Vice Admiral, in your testimony, you state, ``As we
    modernize our fleet, we must also modernize our workforce.''
    Obviously, I think everybody here agrees with that. In 2010, as
    part of what was called modernization, the Coast Guard
    implemented structural changes both in the field and in senior
    leadership, and it actually created your position.
        After more than a decade, the Coast Guard has a long way to
    go to complete this modernization of its workforce. On what
    percentage of the Coast Guard workforce have manpower
    requirements analyses been performed and on how many of the
    158-unit types?
        Admiral Thomas. That is an ongoing effort for us, as well
    as the manpower requirements assessments. We worked to really
    refine the tools that we used to get that done. In some areas
    those tools are working very well, in our sector staffing
    model, for example. In others, we are still maturing it, for
    example, on how we man our bases. I don't have an exact
    percentage for you, sir.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Let me ask this final question because I am
    about out of time. When does the Coast Guard plan to complete
    the implementation of the 2018 manpower requirements plan?
        Admiral Thomas. I am sorry, sir? I didn't----
        Mr. Gibbs. OK, you have got the 2018 manpower requirements
    plan completed, when do you plan to have that implemented?
        Admiral Thomas. I will have to take that for the record. As
    I said, that is an ongoing effort. It is a big effort, and we
    have been focusing on getting the right tools in place so the
    assessment itself is valuable.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Gibbs.
        Next, we will move on to Representative Weber.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Carbajal. Representative Weber?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Carbajal. I saw Representative Weber online, so we will
    move on.
        Representative Steel?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Carbajal. Representative Van Drew?
        Dr. Van Drew. I am here.
        Mr. Carbajal. There he is, good. Representative Van Drew,
    you may proceed.
        Dr. Van Drew. Minor technical difficulty there.
        Mr. Carbajal. You may proceed, Representative Van Drew.
        Dr. Van Drew. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
        Good morning, Vice Admiral Thomas, and thank you for
    appearing before the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
    Maritime Transportation to discuss the United States need to
    ensure that our Coast Guard is prepared for the 21st century.
        The U.S. Coast Guard is expanding operations across the
    country, of course, as you know, and across the world. Whether
    executing icebreaking missions in the Arctic Circle or
    conducting search-and-rescue operations off the U.S. shoreline,
    the Coast Guard has a lot to do and plans on doing even more in
    the coming decades.
        We can build all the cutters in the world, but we need
    personnel training to operate those vessels. Most of those
    personnel come through the training center in Cape May, in my
    district, as you know. Training Center Cape May is the Coast
    Guard's sole accession point for its enlisted workforce. Eighty
    percent of the Coast Guard's total workforce is absorbed
    through the Training Center Cape May.
        The facility's existing barracks were constructed in the
    1960s, and they are in serious need of modernization. I was
    really pleased to work with Commandant Schultz to get phase 1
    of the Training Center Cape May recapitalization project listed
    as the Coast Guard's number one housing shore infrastructure
    budget priority for 2021.
        This year, Congress will be appropriating $65 million to
    enable phase 1 of this four-phase project. The barracks
    recapitalization will increase the training center's capacity
    by 1,000 additional servicemembers in a year. This investment
    ensures that the Coast Guard will have the workforce it needs
    to accomplish its mission at home and abroad, and to create far
    greater opportunities also for women in the Coast Guard.
        When the training center was last upgraded, the
    appropriations cycle fell short, and now its facility is short
    an entire barracks. We cannot allow this to happen again. It is
    imperative that this current project not fall short. The
    Congress is funding phase 1 in fiscal year 2022, and I believe
    that we should move to fund phase 2, 3, and 4 over the next 3
    fiscal years, so that the entire project cycle is provided for
    when phase 1 is initiated in 2024. Recent meetings with the
    Coast Guard budget and engineering team confirm that the year-
    over-year approach is feasible and strategic. This project is
    too important for us to take half measures.
        So my question would be, Vice Admiral Thomas, please speak
    on why the Training Center Cape May recapitalization is a top
    priority for the Coast Guard, and how this project will produce
    some more modern and capable Coast Guard workforce and just how
    important it is. It will come out better out of your mouth than
    it actually does mine because you live it, so thank you.
        Admiral Thomas. Congressman Van Drew, thank you for the
    question and thank you for all your support for our facility at
    Cape May. And I know you have visited there several times, and
    that is always appreciated as well. You are absolutely right,
    Cape May is the heartbeat of our Service in terms of where we
    assess new Coast Guard men and women.
        And unlike the other services, or more so than most the
    other services, our men and women seem to stay around in
    service longer. So, we need modern facilities there. One of the
    reasons we need modern facilities there is so that we can
    compete with the other services.
        If you walk on to the training center the Navy keeps up in
    the Great Lakes, you see a state of their facility that is
    really attractive to young people who are looking to find a
    career. That might not be the case at Cape May. But with your
    help, we are going to rebuild those barracks in four phases,
    add some modern facilities that will allow us to do our
    physical training indoors, because right now it doesn't matter
    what that Cape May weather is, our recruits are outdoors. So,
    it is absolutely a Service imperative for us, and we appreciate
    your support, sir.
        Dr. Van Drew. Well, I appreciate you, Vice Admiral, and the
    job that you do. And let me just say, as far as the weather in
    Cape May, it is always sunny and beautiful, so no worries about
    that. And I yield back.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
        Representative Weber?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Carbajal. Representative Steel?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Carbajal. Seeing no more Members going in the first
    round, I will now recognize each Member for an additional 5
    minutes of questions, and I will start by recognizing myself.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, limited access to
    housing forces Coasties to live far away from their duty
    stations oftentimes. Limited childcare infrastructure forces
    Coasties to split parenting duties with their partners, and
    reduces quality family time, and continued facility issues
    degrades the workplace experience.
        The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is an important
    first step to improving the quality of life for Coasties by
    providing funds to address deteriorating facilities. I also
    hope that the Build Back Better bill, which provides another
    $600 million for Coast Guard infrastructure, is enacted soon.
    This will bring the total investment in the Coast Guard to $1
    trillion [sic].
        Admiral Thomas, how will these investments help the Coast
    Guard recruit and retain its talented servicemembers?
        Admiral Thomas. Well, Chairman, first of all, thank you
    because you are rightly focused on our workforce and their
    families. They are the only way we get our mission done and are
    essential to Service readiness.
        The access to childcare and access to housing challenge for
    the Coast Guard is very different than it is for the other
    services, because we are not a garrisoned force, we don't
    operate out of large bases, so it is harder for us to
    centralize those types of services. We operate in small, remote
    locations.
        So, our ability to support our members and their families,
    whether it be through childcare or housing or access to
    healthcare, is absolutely vital to our ability to recruit and
    to retain. The two are linked. And what we like to do is use
    our entire brand. Our missions are compelling to people to join
    our Service, but our missions combined with world-class support
    to members and their families, that is very compelling. And
    that is why it is so critical to our ability to recruit and
    retain, and we thank you for your continued focus and support.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Coast Guard's technology
    revolution roadmap describes initiatives to improve IT
    infrastructure and cutter connectivity, among other things. The
    Service states it has completed many of the actions to address
    those initiatives, such as improving remote access, doubling
    cutter bandwidth, and increasing cutter connectivity coverage
    areas.
        Admiral Thomas, from your perspective, do you believe that
    those initiatives received adequate funding and have
    accomplished what they were intended to do?
        Admiral Thomas. Again, thanks for the question. The tech
    revolution is an important effort. Someone earlier made the
    point that it really can never end. You never finish because
    tech continues to revitalize or to, you know, need to be
    recapitalized, and so, we know that we are not done and we need
    to push.
        We invested about $100 million in fiscal year 2021, about
    $90 million or so is coming. That is not adequate. We are
    trying to catch up and then we have to keep up, so we need
    recurring--regular, reliable, predictable--recurring IT
    investments that are keeping up with inflation.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
        Ms. MacLeod, I am curious to hear the GAO's perspective on
    whether the Coast Guard receives adequate funding and its
    progress towards tech revolution targets. What are the biggest
    challenges with the Coast Guard's current IT infrastructure,
    and what efforts are underway to mitigate those challenges?
        Ms. MacLeod. So, our work has shown in this area that the
    Coast Guard could be more transparent in its budget requests
    and information. This type of information and additional detail
    could better support budget requests and better document
    tradeoffs and analysis.
        Our work on the Coast Guard IT systems and some of these
    initiatives that we are discussing right now is really in the
    early stages. But we do have a number of studies underway at
    the Coast Guard, as we do in other Federal agencies across the
    Government, looking at how the systems are procured and come in
    online, as well as the sufficiency of the workforce that
    supports this IT revolution. So, we will continue to look at
    these areas. As I said, we have a number of studies underway
    that we will be completing in 2022.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
        Admiral Thomas, if Congress were to provide increased
    funding for Coast Guard IT infrastructure, what would it allow
    the Service to do for its servicemembers operationally?
        Admiral Thomas. Well, regular, reliable funding allows us
    to plan for both improvements in recapitalization of critical
    systems that will put in the hands of our people technology
    that is mobile, that is reliable, and that is integrated, and
    that will unlock their potential to complete our missions in
    ways that we probably can't even think of today.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
        Now I will go to Ranking Member Gibbs.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        Ms. MacLeod, the GAO estimated in 2019 that 45 percent of
    the Coast Guard's shoreside infrastructure was beyond its
    anticipated service life of 65 years, and I can go on and give
    you more statistics. We all know that, the challenges.
        But, I guess, my first question will go to Vice Admiral
    Thomas, and then Acting Director MacLeod. How does the Coast
    Guard compare and prioritize cutter and aviation assets,
    shoreside maintenance, recapitalization needs, and IT
    recapitalization when determining how to carry out your mission
    to the greatest extent practicable?
        Admiral Thomas. Ranking Member Gibbs, thanks for the
    question. Obviously, that is a multidimensional math problem.
    We are talking about trading off--I mean, we are a seagoing
    service. We operate on and above the sea. We prioritize
    recapitalization of our ships and our airplanes so that we can
    conduct our missions.
        When it comes to how do we prioritize our shore
    infrastructure, you consider the complexity of that inventory,
    it ranges from buildings and runways and piers to towers and
    antennas, and then you combine that with our need to maintain
    and recap existing infrastructure as we build new
    infrastructure for the new ships.
        What we have done with regard to our PC&I funding is we
    have really focused the investments in the new facilities
    around kind of what we call centers of gravity in places like
    Charleston and Pensacola and L.A. and Seattle. When it comes to
    our O&S money, we have a process that we have the operators
    meet the engineers, they understand the risk, both in terms of
    engineering and operations, and we prioritize that way, sir.
        Mr. Gibbs. Ms. MacLeod, do you believe the Coast Guard has
    sufficiently strong analysis in place to make these
    comparisons?
        Ms. MacLeod. In our 2019 report, as you mentioned, we did
    find a lack of transparency on how the Coast Guard is
    prioritizing among projects, even to include the various asset
    lines that you just mentioned. So, we did recommend that the
    Coast Guard provide more information on the numbers behind the
    analysis, and how they are prioritizing projects.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. So, I guess I will go back to you, Vice
    Admiral. GAO is requesting more information so they can make a
    better analysis. Do you agree that you are working towards that
    goal?
        Admiral Thomas. Well, we have done a number of things since
    2019 to implement those recommendations, including implementing
    the modeling tools that were mentioned. We expect that to be
    fully implemented by 2024, but that will allow us to understand
    much better what a dollar spent today will avoid in 10 years,
    for example.
        So, we are definitely working toward implementation of
    those. We have improved our prioritization guidance to the
    decisionmakers. We centralize some prioritization that used to
    be decentralized. It is now a centralized headquarter. So, we
    are marching down that road, sir.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Good. I do have a question on process, I
    guess. Is there a standard process by which projects are
    reported from the field and reviewed at the district, area, and
    headquarters to determine which projects are included in the
    administration's annual budget request, which projects are put
    on the unfunded priority list, and which languish from year to
    year?
        If so, how does this process weigh age, importance to
    mission resilience, and health and safety against one another?
    So, you have got to figure out what is the priority, how does
    it work up through the system, off in the field to
    headquarters?
        Admiral Thomas. Yes, well, first, I just want to say thank
    you for that tool that we call the unfunded priority list,
    because it is very helpful for us to communicate with Congress
    what we need, but we can't get to in our base budget. And you
    heard GAO talk about how we tier our assets, and those that are
    most impactful to operations get priority typically.
        The unfunded priority list is a place for us to put other
    important projects that either might not be as impactful to
    operations or are so large that--like, for example, $130
    million for a pier in Kodiak--so large that it would squeeze a
    lot of other projects out of a $280 million budget request. So
    that is how we prioritize, and that is how we use the UPL.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you. I yield back my time to you.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ranking Member Gibbs.
        Before we move on to our next Member, I just want to
    correct the record. In my questioning, I said that the total
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Build Back Better
    was $1 trillion. I know your eyes opened up.
        Admiral Thomas. I was holding you to it.
        Mr. Carbajal. It is $1 billion, not $1 trillion----
        Admiral Thomas. I wrote it down.
        Mr. Carbajal [continuing]. Just for the record.
        With that, I will move on to Representative Weber.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Carbajal. Representative Weber?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Carbajal. Representative Larsen.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Admiral, last month I asked Vice Admiral Buschman for an
    update on expansion of the USCG Base Seattle. He stated that
    Seattle will be a hub for the Coast Guard, but the right assets
    need to be in place for that facility to successfully carry out
    its mission. From a strictly infrastructure point of view,
    where in the process is the Coast Guard with expansion at USCG
    Base Seattle?
        Admiral Thomas. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    Yes, we are excited about making Seattle a hub. We have
    definitely planned to put the three Polar Security Cutters up
    there. We would like to put more cutters. We will have to
    expand the footprint there, and we are working to do that.
        We currently are in the first phase of preparing that
    facility for the PSCs. We are about to start the dredging
    process. We have additional moneys earmarked to rehab the
    piers. But right now, our focus is on finding some swing space
    for those cutters that are currently homeported there so that
    we can come in and dredge the basin, but we definitely plan to
    make Seattle a hub.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes. Can you clarify, you said the three PSCs
    and then you said additional cutters. Do you mean additional--
    --
        Admiral Thomas. Well, we did environmental studies, sir,
    where we said we are going to have three PSCs homeported there
    and up to two other major cutters. We haven't made any
    decisions. Part of that is to see how viable it is. We need to,
    as I said, expand our footprint there if we were to do that.
        Mr. Larsen. So, it could be additional PSCs, it could be
    OPCs, it could be just some cutters generally?
        Admiral Thomas. It is a deepwater port where on the west
    coast, we are going to need to maximize what we put there.
        Mr. Larsen. All right. Yes. So, is expansion at Seattle
    ahead or behind other hubs or other facilities with similar
    uses?
        Admiral Thomas. I think Seattle is on track, sir. There are
    some places where we are probably not going to make our time
    targets, but we will still get those ships in there.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes, that is great. I appreciate that.
        And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
        Thank you, Admiral.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Larsen.
        Next we will move to Representative Weber.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Carbajal. Representative Steel.
        Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including me in
    your subcommittee.
        And I am very grateful because we had the oil spill in my
    district. So, I want to ask Vice Admiral Thomas. According to
    the testimony today, the Coast Guard continues to face
    challenges in ensuring that its infrastructure investment meets
    mission and user needs. Those challenges have been felt hard by
    those who live in my congressional district.
        On Saturday, October 2, 2021, there were reports of an oil
    leak off the coast and the Coast Guard waited 15 hours before
    confirming the oil spill. The Coast Guard claims darkness and
    lack of a proper technology caused them to delay their
    surveillance, leading to the 15 hours of lost time between the
    first official reports and a full confirmation to the public.
        This is completely unacceptable. What essential technology
    is needed to ensure there is never a future delay in
    surveillance?
        Admiral Thomas. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman
    Steel.
        I am not personally involved in that response, though
    having kind of an insider's view from afar, and having worked
    those types of responses before, outside of the 15-hour delay
    that you mentioned, that response seemed to have gone as well
    as possible. The team jelled quickly and incorporated
    volunteers. They used the right equipment. And it is never good
    to be picking up oil off the beach, but they seemed to have
    done that efficiently and effectively.
        With regard to technology, we are constantly--in fact, just
    yesterday I met with the Department of Homeland Security
    Science and Technology Director. We are constantly looking at
    technology that will help us sense and understand the
    environment that we operate in--and for which we are
    responsible--better.
        Are there some technologies that may have allowed us to
    confirm that oil spill quicker? Yes, they absolutely are,
    remote vehicles with the right sensors. And we are moving to
    employ those where it makes sense.
        But I appreciate your concern. We will absolutely learn
    lessons from this particular response and incorporate new
    technology where it makes sense that we do the job more
    effectively.
        Mrs. Steel. Thank you.
        According to Lieutenant Kay Kneen, investigations have
    shown off the coast of Orange County during a storm in January
    2021, a cargo ship's anchor was dragged an unknown distance
    before striking the 16-inch steel pipe. That same pipe leaked
    oil on October 2. Ships entering the port can be sent to 1 of
    60 locations as they wait for an opening. These areas are
    identified by the Coast Guard, and Marine Exchange approved
    these ships to safely drop their anchors. We are talking about
    30 tons of weight.
        If existing pipelines are mapped improperly or moved, how
    can the Coast Guard safely monitor where these anchors are
    dropping? Because we have not just oil pipelines, but shore
    pipelines and cable lines there. Are proper investments being
    made to meet this mission capability?
        Admiral Thomas. Well, the Coast Guard monitors the
    anchorages. We are not really responsible to keep track of the
    pipelines, although we work with our sister agencies to make
    sure we have the updated, most recent locations. The issue of
    port congestion out in the west coast, for example, is a
    maritime transportation system governance issue like many that
    we have dealt with before. And my experience says that the best
    solutions for those types of issues are at their foundation
    industry-led and market-driven with regulation layered in where
    it makes sense in order to provide a level playing field and
    kind of moderate the behavior of outliers.
        That is what I see happening right now in southern
    California, as they are taking action to hold ships well
    offshore, so that the anchorages don't fill up. And that is
    really the best solution to this type of a congestion problem.
        Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much, Representative Steel.
        We will now move on to Representative Gallagher.
        Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
        Vice Admiral Thomas, thank you for being here.
        Recently, the news has been filled with stories about
    supply-chain problems, supply-chain vulnerabilities, supply-
    chain disruptions. But an industrial commodity supply-chain
    concern has received much less attention, and I am talking
    about supplying iron ore to U.S. Great Lakes steel
    manufacturers. As you know, that steel is needed to build Navy
    ships, Army vehicles, U.S.-manufactured cars, trucks, farm
    equipment, appliances, and other equipment.
        Unfortunately, due to a gap between the departure of the
    Coast Guard cutter Alder from Duluth and its replacement's
    arrival, my understanding is that Lake Superior is going to be
    without a Coast Guard icebreaking capacity that would ensure
    the safe movement of iron ore cargo vessels this winter. Also,
    the Coast Guard's current Great Lakes icebreaking performance
    standards do not measure any ice impacts on commercial
    navigation in Lake Superior. So, I guess that leads to two
    questions:
        One, what will the Coast Guard do this winter to ensure
    vital cargoes like iron ore can move through the Great Lakes?
    And two, how will the Coast Guard better track their
    performance of this mission?
        Admiral Thomas. Well, thank you for the question.
        It is not lost on the Coast Guard the economic impact of
    the Great Lakes Waterway system, and so, I appreciate your
    continued focus on ensuring that commerce can flow up there. I
    am not aware of the icebreaker lay down for this winter. That
    is something our district commander would certainly manage. I
    do know that the Ninth District commander has agreements with
    the Canadians, for example, where they figure out together
    where the priorities are for ice break. And the Canadians will
    assist us, and we will assist them.
        But I will have to take it for the record to give you some
    specifics on the Alder and what the Ninth District commander's
    plans are to make up for that operational gap.
        Mr. Gallagher. I will gladly follow up with you on that,
    and I appreciate a commitment to helping me understand the
    issue better.
        I guess, I mean, doesn't it make sense for the Coast
    Guard's icebreaking priorities and performance standards to
    prioritize a region's maritime cargo and their specific impacts
    on its population if it is not delivered due to ice? Perhaps it
    is already being factored in. But, whether it is transporting
    fuel in the Northeast or industrial supplies in the Great
    Lakes, the goal is to ensure interruptions do not occur. Is it
    your understanding that that is factored into the analysis
    right now?
        Admiral Thomas. Sir, it absolutely is. We tier all of our
    waterways. And we take into account the economic activity that
    is on those waterways. And the highest tiers have the highest
    priorities.
        Mr. Gallagher. I appreciate that.
        I think a consistent theme that you have heard on this
    committee, certainly from the ranking member, is that we need
    more icebreakers. We need more icebreaking capability. And I
    appreciate the chairman's comment that we will have $1 billion
    for something, but we need money for icebreakers as well. It
    seems like we have got money for everything except for the
    things we actually need that are vital.
        So, it is my hope that we will continue to work in a
    bipartisan fashion to fund urgent priorities such as
    icebreakers. And I have been, quite frankly, disappointed on
    the lack of urgency with which we have tackled that issue. So
    less of a question to you and more of a statement to myself and
    my colleagues on the committee.
        With that, I yield back.
        Admiral Thomas. Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Gallagher.
        Admiral Thomas, could you elaborate on just the icebreakers
    right now, the status of them briefly, an overview? Because I
    think there is a lot that is waiting in the pipeline. And I am
    just wondering if you could briefly touch on that to elaborate
    on what Representative Gallagher just asked.
        Admiral Thomas. Well, I think Representative Gallagher is
    speaking mostly to our domestic icebreaking capability as
    opposed to the capability that would go to the poles. And there
    is no question that our domestic icebreaking fleet is aging
    infrastructure, and it is a system that needs to be recapped as
    a system. So, we have a larger icebreaker on the Mackinaw, on
    the Great Lakes which kind of does the highways, if you will,
    and the 140s that do the side roads that lead to the
    facilities. And on places like the Hudson River, our 65-footers
    are really old. But they are essential to break ice that
    prevents flooding and allows the delivery of fuel.
        So, no question icebreaking continues to be an important
    service that the Coast Guard offers the Nation, and that
    domestic icebreaking fleet needs to be recapitalized.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
        And I guess for the record I would just say to my good
    friend and colleague, I doubt, Mr. Gallagher, that there is
    funding in the Build Back Better Act that we'll be voting for
    to supply additional resources for this issue.
        So, with that, we will move on to Representative Weber.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Carbajal. Having no more Representatives that want to
    ask further questions, that will conclude our hearing today.
        I would like to thank the witnesses for your testimony
    today.
        I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
    remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
    answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
    writing.
        I would also ask unanimous consent the record remain open
    for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted
    by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
    hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                           Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
          Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chair Carbajal for scheduling this morning's hearing to
    assess the Coast Guard's infrastructure needs, both hard and soft. If
    we expect the Coast Guard to stand ready through an uncertain future
    with unprecedented threats, it is vital that we invest in
    infrastructure to withstand the impacts of climate change and an
    increasingly challenging cyber domain.
        In 2019, this subcommittee held a hearing where we heard from the
    Coast Guard and the Government Accountability Office on the Coast
    Guard's deferred maintenance and repair backlog of $2.6 billion for its
    shoreside infrastructure, housing, and support facilities. The Coast
    Guard now estimates the backlog at $3 billion, with an annual growth of
    10 to 15 projects, amounting to approximately $300 to $450 million. And
    yet, the Coast Guard continues to execute its missions for the American
    people.
        In fact, I think the Coast Guard's willingness to make do with
    whatever resources they are given has put them at a disadvantage
    compared to other services. They don't complain and yet they continue
    to do an excellent job despite all the challenges they are facing. At a
    minimum, Congress must fund shoreside infrastructure at an amount
    sufficient to eliminate annual growth of the backlog to help support
    the Service.
        The fact that at least 45 percent of the Coast Guard's
    infrastructure properties are beyond their 65-year service life should
    be a concern to all of us here today. We have finally passed a
    comprehensive infrastructure bill--the Infrastructure Investment and
    Jobs Act--signed into law just yesterday. For the first time in over 10
    years, many of our roads, bridges, and waterways will receive the
    attention they desperately need, and this bill includes $429 million
    for Coast Guard facilities, an important first step. And as we continue
    to push for the Build Back Better Act, which includes $650 million for
    climate-resilient Coast Guard shoreside infrastructure, it is clear
    this hearing has come at a critical moment.
        Beyond the fact that Coast Guard missions rely on fully operational
    facilities, Coasties and their families live and work across thousands
    of housing and childcare facilities and workstations that require
    infrastructure upgrades. These facilities are falling apart around our
    service members and that is unacceptable.
        Currently, many Coast Guard assets and facilities are vulnerable to
    human-caused climate change--sea-level rise, more intense storms and
    sunny day flooding, and more frequent and longer wildfire seasons.
    We're seeing extreme and shifting climate patterns along our country's
    coasts, and the need to incorporate resilience into these proposed
    infrastructure upgrades is critical. I look forward to hearing more
    about the Coast Guard's strategic plans to address climate change
    impacts.
        As our maritime interests are intrinsically connected to our
    economy and national security, it is imperative to prioritize better
    preparation for the Coast Guard to ensure mission readiness and
    capability. Every Coast Guard mission begins and ends at a shoreside
    facility.
        I recognize that there are restraints which hinder the Coast Guard
    from requesting what funding is fully needed, and that has affected the
    Service's bottom line. However, we can no longer leave the Coast Guard
    by the wayside. I will remain a vocal advocate for addressing this
    shoreside backlog and assisting the Coast Guard in fulfilling its
    missions with the requisite resources.
        I also expect the Coast Guard to step up. Every single branch of
    the Armed Forces has developed a comprehensive plan for addressing
    climate risks within their shoreside capital planning strategy, and we
    are anxiously awaiting the Coast Guard's plan, which is still under
    development. This is a vital tool to prepare the Service for the
    uncertain future impacts of climate change.
        We know that there several viable recapitalization and maintenance
    projects targeting shoreside infrastructure proposed by the GAO. I look
    forward to hearing about these recommendations from Acting Director
    MacLeod.
        Additionally, I hope to hear about the status of the Coast Guard's
    ``tech revolution.'' The Coast Guard itself attests that it is
    operating with a $200 million deficit, as its data systems continue to
    fall behind. I want to hear solutions about what Congress can do to
    fill this gap. It is essential that this agency's workforce has access
    to adequate technological capabilities for mission readiness.
        Through these past few years, we've seen the Coast Guard
    successfully phase in several new classes of cutters with more to come.
    However, it is crucial to provide robust shoreside facilities and
    software upgrades to accommodate these assets. It is pointless to fund
    these new cutters if they'll continue to face the same operational
    challenges. I will continue to work to ensure that the Coast Guard is
    appropriately funded and that the workforce who keep the service
    operating is not neglected.
        I thank Vice Admiral Thomas and Acting Director MacLeod for
    appearing today.

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
         from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chair Carbajal, and thank you to our witnesses for being
    here today.
        Next year, it will be 20 years since the Coast Guard entered into
    what was projected to be a 20-year recapitalization of its ocean-going
    assets.
        The focus on recapitalizing the cutters and aircraft that allow the
    Service to carry out its at-sea mission is understandable. However, it
    has drawn resources away from needed ongoing maintenance and
    recapitalization of shoreside facilities and left no resources
    available for keeping IT systems current.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today what resources
    and timelines are necessary to make Coast Guard shoreside facilities:
          safe to work and live in,
          sufficient to meet the Service's mission needs, and
          sufficiently resilient to withstand natural disasters.

        I also look forward to hearing how the Coast Guard intends to
    upgrade, or, in some areas like with an electronic health records
    system, establish usable 21st century IT systems. Without such systems,
    the Service will be unable to adequately perform its day-to-day safety,
    regulatory, law enforcement and human resource missions.
        Thank you, Chair Carbajal. I yield back.

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

     Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Vice Admiral Paul F. Thomas,
            Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, U.S. Coast Guard

        Question 1.a. The Coast Guard's Aids to Navigation Team (ANT)
    Saugerties is in upstate New York. The men and women there perform
    critical missions for upstate New Yorkers including aids to navigation
    along the Hudson River, ice breaking, and funeral honors. We have heard
    from our colleague Rep. Delgado that ANT Saugerties has significant
    shoreside infrastructure needs, inadequate perimeter security, and
    lacks an on-base boat ramp. Does the Coast Guard recognize the
    immediate infrastructure needs of ANT Saugerties and where are these
    needed improvements on your priorities list?
        Answer. Thank you for your support and advocacy for Coast Guard
    infrastructure needs. The Coast Guard continues to identify and
    validate the infrastructure needs of ANT Saugerties. There is $700,000
    of approved or contracted Depot Level Maintenance projects to include:
    increasing the septic system's capacity, garage reconfiguration, and
    roof replacement and garage insulation.

        Question 1.b. It is my understanding that total facilities upgrade
    on the Coast Guard's Unfunded Priority List only amounts to $429
    million which falls far short of the nearly $3 billion recapitalization
    and maintenance backlog total. Where does ANT Saugerties fall on this
    list?
        Answer. Through your support and advocacy for Coast Guard
    infrastructure needs, Congress appropriated $309 million for projects
    on the Coast Guard's Unfunded Priority List (UPL) for Procurement
    Construction and Improvement (PC&I) investments. Though ANT Saugerties
    projects were not on the Coast Guard's FY 2022 UPL, backlog projects
    for ANT Saugerties' across PC&I, Depot-Level Maintenance (DLM), and
    Organizational-Level Maintenance (OLM) items are important backlog
    items and will be scheduled for completion once additional funding is
    available.

        Question 1.c. Are the investments needed at ANT Saugerties
    Organizational-Level Maintenance (OLM) or Depot-Level Maintenance?
        Answer. ANT Saugerties projects would require additional OLM, DLM,
    and PC&I investments to reduce all existing backlog items.

                                 [all]