[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 [email protected].
    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]