[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE POLAR SECURITY CUTTER: AN
UPDATE ON COAST GUARD ACQUISITIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME
SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 18, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-87
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-456 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee, Chairman
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi,
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Ranking Member
Michael Guest, Mississippi Eric Swalwell, California
Dan Bishop, North Carolina J. Luis Correa, California
Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
August Pfluger, Texas Shri Thanedar, Michigan
Andrew R. Garbarino, New York Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Glenn Ivey, Maryland
Tony Gonzales, Texas Daniel S. Goldman, New York
Nick LaLota, New York Robert Garcia, California
Mike Ezell, Mississippi Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
Anthony D'Esposito, New York Robert Menendez, New Jersey
Laurel M. Lee, Florida Thomas R. Suozzi, New York
Morgan Luttrell, Texas Timothy M. Kennedy, New York
Dale W. Strong, Alabama LaMonica McIver, New Jersey
Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Elijah Crane, Arizona
Stephen Siao, Staff Director
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
Sean Corcoran, Chief Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME SECURITY
Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida, Chairman
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Shri Thanedar, Michigan, Ranking
Nick LaLota, New York Member
Laurel M. Lee, Florida Robert Garcia, California
Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee Timothy M. Kennedy, New York
(ex officio) Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
(ex officio)
Vacancy, Subcommittee Staff Director
Alex Marston, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Carlos A. Gimenez, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Transportation and Maritime Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Shri Thanedar, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Transportation and Maritime Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Witness
Vice Admiral Thomas G. Allan, Jr., Deputy Commandant for Mission
Support, United States Coast Guard:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
EXAMINING THE POLAR SECURITY CUTTER:
AN UPDATE ON COAST GUARD ACQUISITIONS
----------
Wednesday, December 18, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Transportation and
Maritime Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Carlos A. Gimenez
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gimenez, Higgins, LaLota,
Thanedar, and Kennedy.
Mr. Gimenez. The Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security will come
to order.
Without objection, the Chair may declare the subcommittee
in recess at any point.
Today's hearing will review the progress of the Coast
Guard's Polar Security Cutter Acquisition Program.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today we're reviewing the progress--frankly, the lack
thereof--of the Coast Guard's Polar Security Cutter program and
discussing some strategies to ensure the successful completion
of this vital acquisition effort. This issue of is paramount
importance. The United States must be able to operate
effectively in the Arctic to safeguard our Nation's security
and strategic interests in this rapidly-changing region.
While the Arctic has long been a region of immense
importance, it has recently become a key arena for geopolitical
competition. As the ice retreats, new opportunities and
challenges emerge, such as rising shipping traffic, untapped
natural resources, and shifting national security dynamics.
Nations around the globe are positioning themselves to
capitalize on these immense opportunities. Of most concern are
adversarial nations to the United States.
For example, the People's Republic of China, which
continues to pursue its self-declared near-Arctic ambitions, is
rapidly expanding its icebreaker fleet to bolster its influence
in the region. Recent reports indicate that China currently
operates 4 icebreakers with a fifth named Jidi, which
translates to ``polar'' in English, under construction and
expected to be fully operational by 2025. Notably, construction
of the Jidi began in November 2022, and by the time it becomes
fully operational next year, it will have been completed in
under 30 months, 2.5 years.
Meanwhile, Russia commands the world's largest and most
advanced icebreaker fleet, consisting of 41 state-owned
vessels, including 7 nuclear-powered icebreakers, which it uses
to advance economic development and exert geopolitical
influence.
It is concerning that these two countries are actively
working to dismantle both internal and bilateral political and
bureaucratic barriers to strengthen their cooperation on Arctic
issues.
Most recently China's Premier Li Qiang met with Russian
Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, and the two agreed to
intensify their collaboration on Arctic matters, including
shipping and polar vessel technology.
By contrast, the United States has struggled to maintain
even a minimal Arctic presence. The Coast Guard, our Nation's
primary operator in the Arctic, is relying on just one aging
heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, which is already well past
its intended service life, and a single medium icebreaker, the
Healy. This is unacceptable. A nation as powerful, resourceful,
and innovative as ours must rise to the challenge and do
better.
The Polar Security Cutter sought to address this critical
capability gap, yet delays, cost overruns, and mismanagement
have plagued the program from the start. Despite being
announced in 2018--let me repeat that. Despite being announced
in 2018, we're no closer to having an operational Polar
Security Cutter now than we were then. The first Polar Security
Cutter was originally slated to be operational in--well, this
year, 2024. However, based on current estimates, they will not
enter service until 2030 at the earliest.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard now estimates that the
delivery of the first Polar Security Cutter will cost
significantly more than originally anticipated, with the actual
costs likely aligning more closely with the figures outlined in
the Congressional Budget Office's The Cost of the Coast Guard's
Polar Security Cutter report released in August 2024 in
response to requests from Chairman Green and myself on this
matter.
Given the growing geopolitical importance of the Arctic, I
am deeply concerned by this delay and cost overrun. The lack of
progress on this program is a disservice to the women and men
of the Coast Guard who are tasked with executing the mission
under increasingly challenging conditions. It also undermines
our Nation's ability to project power, uphold international
norms, and compete in a region that will only grow more
important in the years to come.
As Vice Admiral Gautier stated to this committee in
November 2023, as a great Nation, we need to be able to respond
at the time and place of our desire, and the Coast Guard needs
to advance and grow our assets in order to achieve that.
While this situation has been frustrating, we can't afford
to dwell on the past failures. Instead, we must focus on the
path forward and ensure that the Coast Guard has the assets it
needs to meet its mission in the polar regions to protect our
national interests.
I am encouraged by my recent discussions with the Coast
Guard, which have provided valuable insights into their on-
going efforts. It is evident that the Coast Guard is
maintaining a strong and collaborative relationship with the
Bollinger Shipyards, working diligently to address key aspects
of the program. Bollinger is making significant progress toward
faithfully executing the PSC program while working with the
Coast Guard to finalize the necessary contract modifications,
which will formally establish new costs and scheduled
parameters.
I am cautiously optimistic about the direction these
efforts are heading and the potential positive impact they
could have on the Polar Security Cutters Program's ultimate
success.
I am also excited about the direction the incoming
administration may take in addressing the urgent need for U.S.
icebreakers. The Trump administration has an opportunity to
prioritize this issue and explore innovative solutions, such as
enhancing cooperations with allied nations to fill immediate
capability gaps. These efforts paired with a clear commitment
to advancing our long-term Polar Security Cutter procurement
plan could significantly strengthen our polar capabilities
while reinforcing U.S. leadership in these strategically vital
regions.
This hearing provides an opportunity to evaluate the status
of the Polar Security Cutter, determine the necessary steps to
sustain and expand recent progress, and looks to hold
accountable those responsible for delivering this critical
capability.
Thank you to our witness, Vice Admiral Allan, for appearing
before the subcommittee today to discuss this important topic.
I look forward to your testimony.
[The statement of Chairman Gimenez follows:]
Statement of Chairman Carlos A. Gimenez
December 18, 2024
Today, we are reviewing the progress--or lack thereof--of the Coast
Guard's Polar Security Cutter program and discussing strategies to
ensure the successful completion of this vital acquisition effort.
This issue is of paramount importance--the United States must be
able to operate effectively in the Arctic to safeguard our Nation's
security and strategic interests in this rapidly-changing region.
While the Arctic has long been a region of immense importance, it
has recently become a key arena for geopolitical competition.
As the ice retreats, new opportunities and challenges emerge such
as rising shipping traffic, untapped natural resources, and shifting
national security dynamics. Nations around the globe are positioning
themselves to capitalize on these immense opportunities. Of most
concern are adversarial nations to the United States.
For example, the People's Republic of China, which continues to
pursue its self-declared ``near-Arctic'' ambitions, is rapidly
expanding its icebreaker fleet to bolster its influence in the region.
Recent reports indicate that China currently operates 4
icebreakers, with a fifth, named Jidi, which translates to ``Polar'' in
English, under construction and expected to be fully operational in
early 2025.
Notably, construction of the Jidi began in November 2022, and by
the time it becomes fully operational next year, it will have been
completed in under 30 months.
Meanwhile, Russia commands the world's largest and most advanced
icebreaker fleet, consisting of 41 state-owned vessels, including 7
nuclear-powered icebreakers, which it uses to advance economic
development and exert geopolitical influence.
It is concerning that these 2 countries are also actively working
to dismantle both internal and bilateral political and bureaucratic
barriers to strengthen their coordination on Arctic issues.
Most recently, China's Premier Li Qiang met with Russian Prime
Minister Mikhail Mishustin, and the two agreed to intensify their
collaboration on Arctic matters, including shipping and polar vessel
technology.
By contrast, the United States has struggled to maintain even a
minimal Arctic presence. The Coast Guard, our Nation's primary operator
in the Arctic, is reliant on just 1 aging heavy icebreaker, the Polar
Star, which is already well past its intended service life, and a
single medium icebreaker, the Healy.
This is unacceptable. A nation as powerful, resourceful, and
innovative as ours must rise to the challenge and do better.
The Polar Security Cutter sought to address this critical
capability gap, yet delays, cost overruns, and mismanagement have
plagued the program from the start. Despite being announced in 2018, we
are no closer to having an operational Polar Security Cutter now than
we were then.
The first Polar Security Cutter was originally slated to be
operational in 2024; however, based on current estimates, it will not
enter service until 2030, at the earliest.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard now estimates that the delivery of the
first Polar Security Cutter will cost significantly more than
originally anticipated, with the actual cost likely aligning more
closely with the figures outlined in the Congressional Budget Office's
The Cost of the Coast Guard's Polar Security Cutter report, released in
August 2024 in response to a request from Chairman Green and myself on
this matter.
Given the growing geopolitical importance of the Arctic, I am
deeply concerned by this delay and cost overrun.
The lack of progress on this program is a disservice to the women
and men of the Coast Guard, who are tasked with executing the mission
under increasingly challenging conditions.
It also undermines our Nation's ability to project power, uphold
international norms, and compete in a region that will only grow more
important in the years to come.
As Vice Admiral Gautier stated to this committee in November 2023,
``as a great nation, we need to be able to respond at the time and
place of our desire and the Coast Guard needs to advance and grow our
assets in order to achieve that.''
While this situation has been frustrating, we cannot afford to
dwell on past failures. Instead, we must focus on the path forward and
ensure that the Coast Guard has the assets it needs to meet its
missions in the polar regions and protect our national interests.
I am encouraged by my recent discussions with the Coast Guard,
which have provided valuable insights into their on-going efforts. It
is evident that the Coast Guard is maintaining a strong and
collaborative relationship with Bollinger Shipyards, working diligently
to address key aspects of the program.
Bollinger is making significant progress toward faithfully
executing the PSC Program while working with the Coast Guard to
finalize the necessary contract modifications, which will formally
establish new cost and schedule parameters.
I am cautiously optimistic about the direction these efforts are
heading and the potential positive impact they could have on the Polar
Security Cutter program's ultimate success.
I am also excited about the direction the incoming administration
may take in addressing the urgent need for U.S. icebreakers. The Trump
administration has an opportunity to prioritize this issue and explore
innovative solutions, such as enhancing collaboration with allied
nations to fill immediate capability gaps.
These efforts, paired with a clear commitment to advancing our
long-term Polar Security Cutter procurement plan, could significantly
strengthen our polar capabilities while reinforcing U.S. leadership in
these strategically vital regions.
This hearing provides an opportunity to evaluate the status of the
Polar Security Cutter, determine the necessary steps to sustain and
expand recent progress, and looks to hold accountable those responsible
for delivering this critical capability.
Thank you to our witness, Vice Admiral Allan, for appearing before
the subcommittee today to discuss this important topic. I look forward
to your testimony.
Mr. Gimenez. Now I will yield to the Ranking Member for his
opening statements.
Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Chairman Gimenez for calling
today's hearing. Thank you, Vice Admiral Allan for joining us
today.
Today's hearing follows the hearing that this committee
held in May to examine the Coast Guard's shipbuilding efforts
and other acquisition programs. At that hearing, we discussed
the importance of the Arctic Region to U.S. interests. In the
Arctic, a changing climate and melting ice caps have allowed
for increased shipping, energy exploration, economic
competition, and power projection.
Russia and China have amplified their presence in the
region, including through joint military exercises, yet the
Coast Guard has been challenged to maintain a regular presence
in the Arctic due to a lack of modern icebreakers. The Coast
Guard has only one heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, and one
medium icebreaker, the Healy. The Coast Guard continues to
carry out commendable projects to extend the service life of
these cutters, but nevertheless, they are aging and
insufficient to meet the Coast Guard's long-term needs.
In 2016, the Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy jointly
established the Polar Security Cutter, or PSC, Program to begin
the process of acquiring American-made heavy icebreakers. In
2019, the Coast Guard awarded a contract for the initial PSC to
be delivered in late 2024. We are here in late 2024, and the
Coast Guard is only now beginning construction of the cutter.
We understand some of the reasons for the delay, from
underestimating the complexity of the ship design due to the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and impacts on the supply chain.
Some of these factors were under the Coast Guard's control, and
some were not.
Going forward the key is for the Coast Guard to learn from
the past and establish a reasonable schedule of cost estimates
for the PSC program and then stick to them. Doing so will allow
Congress to plan for the budgetary demands of the PSC program
and continue our bipartisan support.
I look forward to receiving an update from Vice Admiral
Allan today on the next phase of the PSC Program. I also look
forward to hearing more details on the Coast Guard's plan for
the commercially-available icebreaker it recently acquired to
help fill icebreaking needs while we await the delivery of the
first PSC. The Coast Guard's mission in the Arctic is critical,
and we must ensure the service deploys the capabilities it
needs.
Vice Admiral, thank you again for being here.
I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thanedar follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Shri Thanedar
December 18, 2024
Today's hearing follows the hearing this subcommittee held in May
to examine the Coast Guard's shipbuilding efforts and other acquisition
programs. At that hearing, we discussed the importance of the Arctic
region to U.S. interests.
In the Arctic, a changing climate and melting ice caps have allowed
for increased shipping, energy exploration, economic competition, and
power projection. Russia and China have amplified their presence in the
region, including through joint military exercises.
Yet the Coast Guard has been challenged to maintain a regular
presence in the Arctic due to a lack of modern icebreakers. The Coast
Guard has only 1 heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, and 1 medium
icebreaker, the Healy.
The Coast Guard continues to carry out commendable projects to
extend the service life of these cutters, but nevertheless, they are
aging and insufficient to meet the Coast Guard's long-term needs.
In 2016, the Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy jointly established the
Polar Security Cutter, or PSC, program to begin the process of
acquiring American-made heavy icebreakers. In 2019, the Coast Guard
awarded a contract for the initial PSC, to be delivered in late 2024.
Yet here we are in late 2024, and the Coast Guard is only now beginning
construction of the cutter.
We understand some of the reasons for the delay, from
underestimating the complexity of the ship design, to the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic and impacts on the supply chain. Some of these
factors were under the Coast Guard's control, and some were not.
Going forward, the key is for the Coast Guard to learn from the
past and establish reasonable schedule and cost estimates for the PSC
program--and then stick to them. Doing so will allow Congress to plan
for the budgetary demands of the PSC program and continue our
bipartisan support.
I look forward to receiving an update from Vice Admiral Allan today
on the next phase of the PSC program. I also look forward to hearing
more details on the Coast Guard's plans for the commercially-available
icebreaker it recently acquired to help fill ice-breaking needs while
we await the delivery of the first PSC.
The Coast Guard's mission in the Arctic is critical, and we must
ensure the Service develops the capabilities it needs.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Ranking Member Thanedar.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
December 18, 2024
The Coast Guard's Polar Security Cutter, or PSC, program represents
the first effort to construct a heavy icebreaker in the United States
in nearly 50 years. When Congress first appropriated funding toward
this project, we knew it would be a long and expensive effort. We also
knew it was a necessary effort.
The Arctic region has grown in global importance, and the Coast
Guard's icebreaking capabilities are critical to protecting U.S.
interests in the region.
As waters warm due to climate change, ice caps will continue to
melt, making waterways more hazardous.
As maritime traffic increases, the Coast Guard must have an
icebreaking fleet capable of conducting search-and-rescue missions in
the region, maintaining freedom of navigation, and responding to the
presence of our adversaries.
In addition, the Coast Guard must maintain its ability to support
scientific research endeavors in the Antarctic.
Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has struggled to meet budgets and
deadlines for the PSC program, which is now in breach of its
acquisition program baseline.
The Coast Guard has grappled with an inexperienced U.S. industrial
base unprepared to produce complex ship designs, as well as the impacts
of the COVID-19 pandemic which have increased the costs of labor and
materials.
Since the subcommittee's hearing on Coast Guard acquisitions in
May, I know the Coast Guard has been hard at work to develop new cost
and schedule parameters for the PSC program going forward.
I look forward to seeing the formal approval and adoption of a new
acquisition program baseline for the PSC program. I hope the Coast
Guard will learn from recent challenges and prevent any further
breaches of acquisition parameters from occurring. I also look forward
to seeing the Coast Guard deploy its recently purchased commercial
icebreaker.
The Coast Guard must move expeditiously to operationalize that
icebreaker to help fill the capability gaps caused by PSC program
delays. The Coast Guard's icebreaking mission is essential to
protecting U.S. interests in the Arctic and to our national security.
Mr. Gimenez. I am pleased to have a distinguished witness
before us today on this critical topic. I ask that our witness
please rise and raise his right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Gimenez. Let the record reflect that the witness has
answered in the affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated.
I would now like to formally introduce our witness. Vice
Admiral Allan serves as the deputy commandant for mission
support for the United States Coast Guard.
Thank you Vice Admiral Allan for being here today. You're
now recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your opening
statements.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL THOMAS G. ALLAN, JR., DEP-
UTY COMMANDANT FOR MISSION SUPPORT, UNITED STATES
COAST GUARD
Admiral Allan. Good morning, Chairman Gimenez, Ranking
Member Thanedar, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee.
I'm pleased to be here to update you on the on-going
efforts to recapitalize the Nation's fleet of polar
icebreakers. I ask that my written testimony be entered into
the record.
Mr. Gimenez. Without objection.
Admiral Allan. The Coast Guard is a unique instrument of
national power, supporting national security and strategic
objectives around the globe. We are working hard to meet
growing mission needs in the Arctic and Antarctica. The polar
regions are experiencing an ever-increasing rate of change
requiring systems of assets and infrastructure to enable Coast
Guard operations in some of the harshest and most remote
environments on earth.
As deputy commandant for mission support, I'm focused on
delivering solutions that equip our people with assets, tools,
and support which will ensure U.S. presence and mission
capabilities in the high latitudes. With the strong support of
this subcommittee, the service has prioritized acquisitions and
modernization programs to meet national demands.
I'm clear-eyed about this challenge we face in
recapitalizing the Nation's fleet of polar icebreakers. Put
simply, the polar icebreakers are the foundation for U.S.
operational surface presence and influence in the polar
regions. The polar security cutter is the best and quickest way
to provide the multi-mission heavy polar icebreaking capability
the Nation needs to deliver assured year-round access and to
meet national and Homeland Security mission demands in the high
latitudes.
The Coast Guard is working with the U.S. Navy as part of an
Integrated Program Office to design and deliver at least 3
heavy icebreakers we call Polar Security Cutters. The Navy
support is critical as the United States seeks to construct its
first heavy polar icebreaker in nearly 50 years at a time when
the demand for new maritime assets exceeds national
shipbuilding capabilities.
Together the Coast Guard and Navy are collaborating with
Bollinger Mississippi Shipbuilding to build the first Polar
Security Cutter. Alongside our partners in the maritime
industrial base, we are working to address unique challenges of
producing a large complex ship like the Polar Security Cutter.
We are nearing the end of a long and complex process to modify
the contract, formalize costs, and schedule requirements before
production activities can begin. Thanks to your enormous
efforts from dedicated people, I am very pleased to report that
we are on track for a production decision from the Department
of Homeland Security this week.
As we work to advance the acquisition of the Polar Security
Cutter, we're also executing service life extension activities
on the Coast Guard cutter Polar Star, which departed Seattle
for its annual deployment to Antarctica in support of Operation
Deep Freeze.
We are planning a major maintenance availability on the
Coast Guard Cutter Healy, and we just awarded a contract to
acquire the United States' only commercially available polar
icebreaker as part of our Arctic bridging strategy.
The physical, operational, and geopolitical environment
near the poles is changing rapidly. Our presence in these
regions has shaped national security in high latitudes for over
150 years and is central to the U.S. whole-of-Government
approach to securing and preserving our national interests.
Continued support for a modernized capable polar fleet along
with increased Coast Guard capability capacity in general will
fortify the Nation's position in the critical Arctic and
Antarctic domains. Coast Guard presence and leadership is
essential to maintaining a coalition of like-minded partners to
ensure that these regions remain peaceful, stable, prosperous,
and cooperative.
I appreciate the subcommittee's continued bipartisan
support, and I look forward to our continued work together on
advancing these vital efforts in the high latitudes.
Thank you for your time and support on the matter today,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Allan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas G. Allan, Jr.
18 December 2024
introduction
Good morning, Chairman Gimenez, Ranking Member Thanedar, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for your continued
oversight and strong support of the U.S. Coast Guard. I am honored to
appear before you today to update you on our on-going efforts to
recapitalize the Nation's fleet of polar icebreakers. The United States
is an Arctic nation with Antarctic interests, and the Coast Guard has
been a key leader and interagency and international partner in
advancing maritime safety, security, and stewardship in our Arctic
homeland and throughout the high latitudes for over 150 years. Through
routine presence, meaningful engagements, and deliberate actions that
strengthen maritime governance, the Coast Guard provides a full suite
of mission capabilities and services to promote a peaceful, stable,
prosperous, and cooperative Arctic and Antarctic during a time of great
regional change.
Recapitalizing the Nation's sole operational heavy polar icebreaker
is a critical national security imperative. Simply put, our adversaries
are present in the high latitudes. They are working to disrupt the
rules-based international order and infringe on America's sovereign
interests. If we do not continue to invest in heavy polar icebreaker
acquisition, we risk undermining our interests in the region. Our
single operational heavy polar icebreaker is nearly 50 years old and
while we are working to extend its service life, that is not a long-
term plan. Despite setbacks, the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program
has worked hard to overcome obstacles, and I am confident that it
remains the quickest and most cost-effective way to deliver the first 3
new heavy polar icebreakers America needs to assure our interests in
the Arctic and Antarctic.
The high latitudes are experiencing markedly increased geostrategic
activity, amongst partners and competitors alike. In and near the U.S.
Arctic, the Coast Guard is observing increased presence by the People's
Republic of China (PRC) and Russia, which are engaged in unilateral and
combined military and coast guard activities, as well as increased
research vessel presence. Internationally, the Coast Guard and our
partners are increasing activities and engagements that support our
common goals.
The Coast Guard has the right combination of authorities, mission
expertise, and partnerships to address polar equities head-on. However,
the Service needs significant investment to modernize and grow our
capabilities to keep pace with rapidly-evolving challenges and to
advance our Nation's interests, and we appreciate the trust and support
of Congress and the American people. The Service will continue to
prioritize actions that safeguard U.S. interests and serve Americans
while promoting safe, secure, and environmentally responsible maritime
activity.
investing in arctic capabilities
A peaceful, stable, and prosperous Arctic and Antarctic that are
increasingly open to human activity require sound rules-based
governance and responsible behavior in accordance with international
norms. As the National Strategy for the Arctic Region states, we
continue to ``expand U.S. engagement and leadership, pursue new
partnerships and arrangements that advance shared interests, and
prepare for increased and evolving activity in these regions.'' With
our unique combination of authorities--as an armed force, a law
enforcement agency, a regulatory agency, and a humanitarian service--
the Coast Guard is an ideal instrument for the Nation to responsibly
engage in these unique maritime environments. However, given the vast
and unforgiving reaches of the high latitudes, the Coast Guard needs
more capable modern assets and resources.
The Coast Guard's broad operations and wide-ranging activities are
executed in some of the globe's most expansive, remote, and unforgiving
maritime environments. We are the only Federal agency responsible for
ensuring surface vessel access to polar regions. Our vast
responsibility supports myriad national security, scientific, and
strategic objectives, and requires commensurate investment. To maintain
operational readiness while we recapitalize and build the capacity and
capability necessary to meet increasing polar challenges, the Coast
Guard requires predictable, consistent, and expanded investment. To
keep pace with the ever-increasing rate of change, we must provide our
workforce with modern assets, systems, and infrastructure to support
mission execution. In line with this direction, and with strong
Congressional support, the Service continues to pursue a multibillion-
dollar portfolio of acquisition programs established to deliver
capabilities to meet these national demands.
Highlighting the importance of the investments in polar
icebreakers, the United States, Canada, and Finland recently formalized
and signed a Memorandum of Understanding advancing the Icebreaker
Collaboration Effort (ICE) Pact. While ICE Pact will not directly
impact the on-going PSC acquisition, this trilateral arrangement is
intended to strengthen the shipbuilding industry and industrial
capacity of each nation and build closer security and economic ties
among our countries through information exchange and mutual workforce-
development focused on building polar icebreakers. The Coast Guard is
supporting United States interagency efforts to craft the framework of
this agreement and looks forward to working with our trilateral
partners and interagency partners to advance our Nation's icebreaking
capacity through collaboration.
polar icebreaking
Heavy polar icebreakers are the foundation of U.S. operational
presence and influence in the polar regions. These multi-mission
cutters provide assured, year-round access not only for Coast Guard
missions, but also in support of critical activities that protect key
U.S. interests in the high latitudes. The Coast Guard faces gaps in
capability that challenge our ability to operate reliably and meet
mission needs. For instance, the Coast Guard has assessed that
achieving a persistent presence in the Arctic (which includes year-
round cutter presence in both the East and West Arctic) and a seasonal
Antarctic presence would require a fleet mix of 8 to 9 icebreakers--
including both heavy and medium types. Today we rely on an aging and
limited ice-breaking fleet comprised of 1 heavy and 1 medium
icebreaker.
With the strong support of Congress, we are moving forward with the
acquisition of the Nation's first new heavy polar icebreakers in nearly
half a century. When fully operational, PSCs will provide the global
reach and icebreaking capability necessary to project U.S. presence and
influence, conduct Coast Guard missions in the high latitudes, and
advance our national interests.
Through an Integrated Program Office (IPO), the Coast Guard and
Navy are leveraging each services' experience and expertise in large,
complex vessel acquisition programs. The Coast Guard and Navy remain
committed to attaining the necessary design maturity prior to beginning
production activities. Detail design activities are nearly complete,
and long lead-time material for the lead ship has been delivered to the
shipyard. The IPO adopted an innovative and incremental approach to
support early production, Prototype Fabrication Assessment (PFA), which
is based on Navy best practices. By prioritizing work on up to 8 low-
risk modules, PFA allows the shipbuilder to progressively build
workforce capability, test new processes and equipment, and reduce
production risk. Six modules are currently under construction. These
modules have achieved near-100 percent design maturity and present very
low risk of re-work. All these efforts are aimed to begin PSC
production as soon as possible.
We are following through on the commitment that my predecessor made
to the subcommittee when he testified on this subject earlier this
year. The Coast Guard will seek a production decision from the
Department of Homeland Security by the end of 2024.
Earlier this year, the Coast Guard notified Congress that the PSC
program would exceed cost and schedule thresholds. The program is
working closely with Bollinger Shipyard, who assumed the PSC contract
from VT Halter Marine in 2022. The Service is nearing the end of the
long and complex process of reviewing their proposal and, following
Bollinger's acquisition of the shipyard from VT Halter Marine,
negotiating the contract modifications necessary to formally establish
new cost and schedule parameters in the updated acquisition program
baseline. This work is occurring in parallel with on-going program
activities to support delivery of the PSC fleet as quickly as possible.
To maintain heavy polar icebreaking capability until the PSC class
is delivered, the Coast Guard will continue an innovative service life
extension on Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star, the Nation's only
operational heavy polar icebreaker, in 2025. The cutter recently
completed the 4th of 5 planned annual work periods, which will enable
continued operation of the aging cutter.
Likewise, the Service has initiated a service life extension
program for Coast Guard Cutter Healy, the Service's only operational
medium polar icebreaker, which was commissioned in 1999. The 5-year
phased production builds upon the lessons learned from Polar Star's
service life extension and is planned to be completed between 2026 and
2030. This effort will recapitalize a number of major systems while
addressing significant operational degraders to maintain the Coast
Guard's required medium icebreaking capability.
In addition to the on-going maintenance and service life-extending
work of the Service's current fleet and with the subcommittee's
support, the Coast Guard awarded a contract on November 20, 2024, to
acquire and reactivate a commercially-available polar icebreaker. The
purchase of a commercially-available polar icebreaker is an effective
strategy to increase operational surface presence in the near term and
add long-term national capacity in the Arctic. Under the authority
granted by the Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 and
augmented by the temporary correction in the current continuing
resolution, the Coast Guard recently took delivery of the Aiviq, which
is the only available U.S.-built icebreaker that meets the Service's
requirements.
Following delivery of this icebreaker, the Coast Guard's initial
activities will be directed at achieving initial operational capability
for deployment to the Alaskan Arctic no later than the summer of 2026.
A series of phased modifications will occur between annual Arctic
operations to achieve full operational capability. We look forward to
adding this important medium icebreaker to our fleet, furthering our
ability to meet increasing demands in the Arctic.
conclusion
The physical, operational, and geopolitical environment near the
poles continues to change rapidly, driving demand for U.S. investments,
to include Coast Guard presence, influence, and services. The Coast
Guard has shaped national security in the high latitudes for over 150
years and is central to a U.S. whole-of-Government approach to securing
national, State, and local interests in the polar regions.
Continued support for a modernized and capable polar fleet and
increased Coast Guard capacity and capabilities will fortify the
Nation's position in the increasingly critical Arctic and Antarctic
domains. Coast Guard leadership is essential in maintaining a coalition
of like-minded partners to shape those domains as peaceful, stable,
prosperous, and cooperative regions. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today and for your on-going support to the members
of the Coast Guard.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Vice Admiral, for being here today.
I'll recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Everybody else will be by order. We will have our shots at you.
Vice Admiral, how long have you been in your position?
Admiral Allan. I've been in this position since June of
this year.
Mr. Gimenez. Your predecessor, how long was that person in
your position?
Admiral Allan. He was in there 3 years before me.
Mr. Gimenez. Three years.
The person before that?
Admiral Allan. Two years before that.
Mr. Gimenez. Two years before that.
So, in 2 years, 3 years--and you've been there 1 year--half
a year?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir, coming up on 1 year.
Mr. Gimenez. A year. OK. So, in 6 years, they've had 3
people in that position.
Are you in charge of all of the acquisitions for ships, et
cetera, in the Coast Guard?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. Is this the billet in charge of acquisitions,
et cetera, for all the ships in the Coast Guard?
Admiral Allan. Say that last part again.
Mr. Gimenez. I'm saying is this position, the one that you
hold----
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. OK. Is that the one position that's in charge
of all the acquisitions, et cetera, for the people in the Coast
Guard, the ships, et cetera, in the Coast Guard?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir. So I oversee all the workings of
it. The vice commandant is the acquisition executive.
Mr. Gimenez. So we had--in 6 years, we've had 3 people.
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. It's not much continuity.
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. OK. How about the people underneath you? How
long do they stay there normally?
Admiral Allan. So, sir, we are made up of military and
civilians, so a lot of our civilians have been there for long
periods of time. Our military flags rotate every 2 years. Our--
lower than the flags are about 3 to 4 years.
Mr. Gimenez. So, Admiral, the one thing that I have a big
problem with, huge problem with is are icebreakers--is this
something new? Nobody has ever invented one; nobody has ever
built one before?
Admiral Allan. The last time we built one in the United
States was----
Mr. Gimenez. No, I'm not saying us. I'm saying, is it
something new, brand-new? Somebody--nobody has ever heard of an
icebreaker before? We're inventing a new wheel?
Admiral Allan. So, sir, I'd say, when you talk about that,
there's a lot of differences in icebreakers from the heavy to
the ones that are breaking harbor ice. So you can almost think
of it as an Escort to the Ford-350.
Mr. Gimenez. None of our allies operate heavy icebreakers?
Admiral Allan. Canada actually is looking to build a heavy
icebreaker, yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. They don't operate one?
Admiral Allan. They operate one, yes.
Mr. Gimenez. OK. The Fins, do they operate any icebreakers?
Admiral Allan. I do not think they operate any heavy
icebreakers, but they operate a lot of icebreakers in and
around the fjords.
Mr. Gimenez. My frustration, Admiral, is 6 years since this
program has been authorized and we still don't have a final
design. I mean, it only took us 9 years to get to the moon.
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. OK. So I just don't--I don't see how you can--
there's any excuse for that, to be honest with you. I don't
care about anything else. You may have picked the wrong
shipyard, and maybe they had problems, and you have to go
somewhere else, and then there's another contract and all that.
But, during that time, your ship should have been designed.
Admiral Allan. All right. So, sir, I would say, to your
point--I'm not here to offer you any excuses because excuses
are always bad. What I'm here to talk to you a little bit about
is we are at that final phases of design, and we are ready to
move forward.
Mr. Gimenez. I think the problem--the reason I asked you
about how many people have had your position and how often they
change----
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez [continuing]. Because there's an aura of
plausible deniability. There's nobody to be held accountable. I
want to know, ``Hey, who is that individual that failed to
design this ship? Who is that?''
Admiral Allan. You can blame me, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. How can I blame you? You weren't here in 2018.
Admiral Allan. I'm working with that----
Mr. Gimenez. You've been here for a year, and yet I can't
blame the person before you because that person was only there
3 years, right?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. Maybe I'll blame that person, OK, or how about
the person before that?
Admiral Allan. I think what we're looking to do, sir, is
show you that we've learned, that we've moved forward, and that
we have the opportunity to build a Polar Security Cutter, a
heavy icebreaker by 2030.
Mr. Gimenez. I think what I'm trying--the point I'm trying
to make is not just about the Coast Guard. This is a problem
with our entire defense industry and the entire--I know you're
not the Pentagon. All right.
Admiral Allan. Right, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. But the way that we procure things, the way
that we construct things. The Chinese, I just gave you an
example that they'll be from construction to delivery is 2.5
years.
Admiral Allan. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gimenez. We haven't even finished design, and we're now
waiting another 5 years at least until we get this icebreaker.
Why would it take the Chinese 2\1/2\ years to build an
icebreaker and us it takes 5 years, plus another 6 years for
the design, 11 years to put something in operation in an area
as critical as the Arctic?
The Russians, you know, they already have 41 icebreakers
running around. We're lucky to have 2.
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. You know, there's something wrong here. OK.
You know, I told you, you know, Admiral, that I wasn't going to
be kind because there's nothing to be kind about. This is
unacceptable, especially the security risk that this poses to
the United States. The procurement methodology and the way this
is going, this is just totally unacceptable.
So, you know, maybe, on my second round of questioning,
I'll ask what you're going to do about it, and what's going to
happen, but my time has expired.
I now recognize the Ranking Member from Michigan, Mr.
Thanedar.
Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Chairman. I do share some of your
concerns and your frustrations.
I understand--I'm glad to hear that the Coast Guard has
made progress in its efforts to construct the first PSC. I
understand the Coast Guard expects to negotiate contract
modifications in the near future to formally establish new
costs and scheduled parameters for the construction of the
cutter. These parameters are intended to keep the contractors
on track. But, realistically, if there is a breach of the
contract, it will be difficult to pull support for the program
while construction is under way.
What assurance can you provide Congress that the Coast
Guard and its contractor will abide by the new costs and
scheduled parameters once they are agreed to?
Admiral Allan. Sir, thank you for the question.
You know, as we talk about where we're going with this and
what we have in place, we have a lot through the Federal
acquisitions processes to make sure that we are tracking every
step of the way, to make sure we understand how they're
progressing on their model, how they're building, and when we
can make payments once they've completed certain milestones.
I would tell you, when we start talking about Bollinger
Mississippi Shipyard, we within the Coast Guard have watched
them deliver our FRCs. They are at number 58-68, and those are
coming off the line with almost zero discrepancies. They also
delivered our 87s.
So we've work with Bollinger before. We know the quality.
We know the people. We're talking to the people down there in
Mississippi, and it is amazing to see the patriotic nature
that's coming out of them as they look for new ways to evolve
and build a cutter that hasn't been built in 50 years in this
Nation.
Mr. Thanedar. What remedies will the Coast Guard have if
there are further delays or cost overruns in the future?
Admiral Allan. So, sir, every step along the way we have
not only meetings within the Coast Guard to make sure that
we're tracking progress and to see how they're doing that, we
provide quarterly briefs up here to the Hill, and then we also
provide quarterly and annual briefs up to DHS. We're working to
ensure that we have good continuity on where we are and where
we're at.
I think, with all the work that's been done, especially in
the last year with design and some prefabbed sections of the
ship to help the shipbuilder learn, we are in a good track so
that, when we begin construction, we'll have something that we
can actually report right away.
So we're working to make sure that here at the beginning
we're going to be on a road for success right from the start.
Mr. Thanedar. Now that the Coast Guard has taken possession
of the ship, what are the biggest hurdles to deploying it
quickly? Is there anything that can be done to expedite its
deployment?
Admiral Allan. So, sir, when you try to build a vessel like
the heavy polar icebreaker, it's going to take time. We think
it's going to take all those 5 years. What we are trying to do
is figure out how we fill that gap, and I think, with the help
of Congress, we are.
So 2 things that we are doing, we're certainly--we've had a
mid-life renewal of the Coast Guard Polar Star that's on its
way to Antarctica. We're looking to do the same thing for
Healy, to keep them in service and meeting the operations we
need.
We also did a search, and we came up with the only U.S.
commercially-available icebreaker, the Aiviq, and we are
putting that into service, as you mentioned in your opening
statement. In fact, we look to do that by the end of this week,
and then we will actually begin to move that to its final
homeport in Juneau, Alaska, with a temporary Birdon location
sometime this summer.
In addition to those things, what we're doing during the
summer when the ice is receding a bit, we're putting our
national security cutters, we're putting our helicopters, and
we're putting our fixed-wing aircraft up in there to increase
the presence and provide protection for our sovereignty in the
Arctic.
Mr. Thanedar. Now, you know, you've had a previous
contractor, right, with a contract that didn't deliver. What's
the current contractor like? What is their estimate of the cost
compared to the last contract?
Admiral Allan. So, sir, I think the other contractor sold
out to Bollinger Mississippi. They took the contract and the
shipyard. Bollinger Mississippi has done a lot of things to
make that right, but they feel like a lot of the labor required
was underestimated.
So, to your question, we think this is going to cost in and
around the amount that the CBO estimated in their report this
past summer.
Mr. Thanedar. So is this 50 percent higher than the last
contract or 20 percent higher? What is it?
Admiral Allan. It's about 50 percent higher, sir, but we're
still negotiating that, and we will finalize those negotiations
in January.
Mr. Thanedar. All right. Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
I now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, thank you for being with us here today.
How are your men, sir, the men under your command? How are
they doing as we're moving into this Christmas season and under
the leadership of your new position, relatively new? You've
been there a few months. How are your men?
Admiral Allan. Sir, thank you for asking about that.
So our teams are incredibly resilient. We've had some tough
years. We are watching some of our assets kind-of deteriorate,
and we're working hard to get them new ones. But, again, I
think, if you look back in their year of review of the Nation,
from the Key Bridge failure to lots of search-and-rescues, our
teams have gone out, and our teams like hard work. They like
tough jobs. I think they're doing well. Thank you very much for
asking.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir. I've always been struck by the
professionalism of the men and women of the Coast Guard, and,
in my humble estimation, the most valuable asset are those men
and women. Deteriorating ships are a significant consideration,
but they're of minor importance if you have deteriorating men
and women.
So I believe we're entering a new era, the incoming Trump
administration and the slim majority of Republican control in
the House and a unified government with Republicans that are
committed to helping the Coast Guard in both Chambers of
Congress and the White House. I believe there will be a new
emphasis on restoring our maritime assets to achieve our
national security goals, and the importance of the role that
the Coast Guard plays can really not be overstated.
So the polar regions offer particular challenges for Coast
Guard patrol and operations clearly because of ice and
incredibly challenging conditions of traversing the sea in the
polar regions. So the delays that you have faced that have been
caused by sort-of failures to navigate through maneuvering
authorities within the Coast Guard and the means by which
designs move forward, contracting challenges, we fully expect
that you and your team will address those things. I'm here to
reassure you that you're going to have a Congress and a White
House that's going to fully support Coast Guard operations,
including in the crucial polar regions.
So I have an optimistic view of these things. I know my
shipbuilders, and they're a bunch of bad asses, and they get
the job done. I need my office to be in regular communication
with you, good sir, and your office. Before the Christmas
season is over, your office will receive a letter from my
office outlining the contact data from my senior staff that's
assigned to help the Coast Guard in all matters and
prioritizing the projects that we seek partnering with in the
coming years under your command.
Regarding the procurement from small shipyards impacted by
inflationary measures, this is an area you could really help,
and I would like you to really answer this question, please. In
what ways can you envision the Coast Guard to improve the means
by which you synchronize your response to the requirements and
requests of ERAs, equitable adjustments, the impacts of
inflation, supply chain interruption, work force interruption,
et cetera? Can you please address how you plan to handle that?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question.
I would say two things. When we start to look at our
industrial base of this Nation, we're not going to be able to
solve the problems we have in this industrial base one contract
at a time, whether that's Navy, whether that's Coast Guard, or
whether that's commercial. We need to make sure we're investing
within those small shipyards and large shipyards to get that
industrial base.
The second thing I'd say, when you look at that, because we
have invested, we look at some of these individual contracts
and prices skyrocketing when the maritime inflation rate over
the last 4 years equals what it was the previous 20 years. So
there's been a lot of cost escalation in there.
That said, we need contractors that are willing to build
tough and complex ships, and if we're not willing to give them
an equitable adjustment when they understand what it takes to
build and make those, then we are not going to have those
shipyards around to help us out. So, yes, sir, we are looking
at that equitable adjustment.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Admiral. You can consider me and my
office at your avail, and we will partner in the coming years.
Sir, thank you.
Mr. Gimenez. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman Gimenez and Ranking Member
Thanedar, for hosting this hearing on polar ice cutting.
Vice Admiral Allan, thank you for being here, for your
testimony, for your service to our country.
Marine commerce in the Great Lakes is vital with tens of
millions of metric tons moved across the Great Lakes and
hundreds of thousands of jobs that are supported here in the
United States. In the winter months, like these months we're in
today, the ice forms up on the Great Lakes. It gets in the way
of commerce. It disrupts supply chains. It poses safety risks
to vessels, and it's a disruptive force, especially in shallow
lakes like Lake Erie in which my community that I live in and
the district that I represent directly abuts, along with Lake
Ontario.
The Great Lakes region really relies upon these
icebreakers, these ice cutters. Without these icebreakers, our
economy takes a massive hit. It's concerning that the fleet has
significantly aged and has actually been depleted from 20 ships
down to 11 ships currently. As you know, there was a decrease
in funding that was asked for from $55 million ultimately to
what was allocated to $20 million.
Can talk about the risk that's posed by that $35 million
shortfall for the icebreaker program?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir. So, when you start talking about
the Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw, we almost referred to her as
one of our newer cutters, but she's 20 years old, and she is
the only cutter that is providing the kind of cuts within the
Great Lakes that allow those big ORE ships to move and keep
commerce going.
We also have a system ships between our 225-foot buoy
tenders and our 148-foot icebreaking tugs, and those--that
system provides some capability for us in the, what we would
call milder winters. We get into heavy winters, we would
probably need to meet the demands of that to Mackinaw-like
icebreakers. Right now, we have good relationships with Canada,
and Canada has some bigger icebreakers in there, and we work
with them to keep that ice cleared because they have some of
the same challenges.
But, to your point, we needed $55 million to get the new
icebreaker get ready and headed toward where we need to
establish a program office and start design. We got $20
million, so we're short.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. You're short. What would $55
million accomplish?
Admiral Allan. So, sir, it would stand up our program
office. We're already doing some things on indicative design
for what an icebreaker up in the Great Lakes would look like,
but it would allow us to push that forward, and it would allow
us to get ready to have a design so that we could start to go
toward not only indicative design but award a contract for
final design and build.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me be clear, this is the Great Lakes I'm
talking about, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, fed through Canada, the
Welland Canal, up through the St. Lawrence Seaway, out to the
Atlantic. This is shipping for the entire Eastern Seaboard and
Northeast of the United States into the Midwest. This has a
tremendous impact on our national economy that needs to be
resolved.
There have been funds that have been authorized and
appropriated for construction of a new icebreaker but haven't
passed the first hurdle yet for approval. What's causing the
delay?
Admiral Allan. So, sir, we were asked to start a program
office by January 1 of 2025, and we will have that in place. It
will be a small office that begins to take that indicative
design, which we took some risk at going at with Coast Guard
resources, but it will be able to build on that to get to where
you're talking about, to be able to provide that kind of
icebreaking for the Great Lakes.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, I appreciate that.
I urge Congress and the United States Coast Guard to
prioritize modernizing and expanding the fleet of icebreakers
for the Great Lakes. Additional icebreakers for the Great Lakes
are absolutely essential to move our economy, to grow our
economy, for economic vitality throughout our entire Nation as
I've mentioned already.
So we're looking forward to working with you to get this
program fully funded and to expedite the implementation, the
construction implementation of these icebreakers.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gimenez. The gentleman from New York yields back.
I now recognize another gentleman from New York, Mr.
LaLota.
Mr. LaLota. Not enough New Yorkers on Homeland Security,
Chairman. But thank you for hosting this meeting.
Admiral, how are you, sir?
Admiral Allan. Really good. Thank you.
Mr. LaLota. Admiral, is the United States a maritime
nation?
Admiral Allan. It is absolutely a maritime nation, and our
GDP relies on those goods that are flowing into the country.
Mr. LaLota. Perfect answer.
Is being a maritime nation important to both our strategic
military interests as well as our economic interests, Admiral?
Admiral Allan. Absolutely. It provides us strategic
advantages not only for what we're doing for security of this
Nation but the economics that move in and out everywhere from
into the heartland and to those things heading overseas and
into our ports.
Mr. LaLota. Is part of being a successful maritime nation
include having a presence in the Arctic?
Admiral Allan. It absolutely does because, again, we have
50 States. Alaska is up there, and Alaska is a border State
with the Arctic that has waters that are being--where we have
the PRC and Russians we know are operating in some of our EEZ,
Economic Exclusive Zones. I'm sorry.
Mr. LaLota. Admiral, to be successful in the Arctic, is it
necessary to have icebreakers?
Admiral Allan. Yes.
Mr. LaLota. How many icebreakers do we have?
Admiral Allan. We have one heavy icebreaker, the Polar
Star. We have a medium icebreaker, the Healy. We just purchased
the old Aiviq that we will be renaming the Storis when we take
it over and commission it this summer.
Mr. LaLota. Does that make it 3, Admiral?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaLota. Exactly how many icebreakers does China have?
Admiral Allan. China has right now 4, and they're in
construction for 2.
Mr. LaLota. How about Russia?
Admiral Allan. Russia has 55 with construction for 10.
Mr. LaLota. So 3 for us, 4 for China--you said 55 for
Russia?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaLota. How would you describe the operational
capability of our icebreakers?
Admiral Allan. So I would say the operational capability of
the Polar Star, it was built in the early '70s. We've had to
refurbish that. It was supposed to be good for a life of about
30 years, so we are now up to almost 50 years with that. It is
providing what we need. It's breaking 19 feet of ice. It's
going to go into McMurdo and be able to resupply it, and it
will be able to do that on its own. It's got the capabilities
we need.
The newer icebreakers won't be--will break ice in a
different way, but it will be even more effective with new hull
designs and engines.
Mr. LaLota. On the Chinese 4, how would you describe their
operational capability?
Admiral Allan. So I would tell you that they are trying to
build heavy icebreakers like we have. They have heavier
icebreakers, but right now they're down in Antarctica with 2,
and they need 2 for self-rescue.
Mr. LaLota. On the 55 Russian ones, how would you describe
those?
Admiral Allan. So they have 7 heavy icebreakers, including
some that are nuclear-powered. They have certainly a lot of
coasts and the ports that they're clearing on that northeast
passage to have their own commerce flow, but they've got a
tremendous icebreaking capability.
Mr. LaLota. So we have 3. The Chinese have 4. The Russians
have 55. Would you agree that the Russians and the Chinese, at
least collectively, have a greater icebreaking capability in
the Arctic than we do?
Admiral Allan. I would.
Mr. LaLota. What are we going to do about that, Admiral?
Admiral Allan. So I think we are going to do 2 things. We
are going to deliver to the Nation this Polar Security Cutter
that we are working right now with Bollinger Mississippi
Shipyards that's due in 2030. Right after that, with the help
of Congress in funding, because we need funding if we are going
to invest in the Arctic and Antarctic, we will build 2 more
that will go off those lines at 2 years after each other. So we
will have a total of 3 of those by the year 2034.
In addition, we've always said that, for us to be capable
of operating there, we need 8 to 9 icebreakers, at least 3
heavies. So we also need to look at how we fill the rest of
that gap that we know is standing back.
Mr. LaLota. If we get to the 8 or 9, will we be still
inferior to our adversaries? Will we be on par, or will we be
superior with the 8 or 9, our icebreaking capabilities cared to
theirs?
Admiral Allan. So, based upon the ports that we have there
and the activity that we're seeing, we are focused on the
sovereignty of our waters, and we think, through a bunch of
different studies and strategic looks, that 8 to 9 will provide
us that capability that we need to project sovereignty and
protect our resources.
Mr. LaLota. I only have about 30 seconds left, Admiral, but
what other capabilities do you require in order to have
strategic dominance in the Arctic?
Admiral Allan. So I think that the Commandant would tell
you that we are a $12 million organization. We need to be a $20
million organization to fulfill the duties that the Nation is
asking us to do. Included in that, we would need that by 2033.
Right now, we are a $1.2 billion capital-intensive
organization. We need to be at $3.4 billion immediately to
provide cutters, aircraft, helicopters, ships, and shore
infrastructure to support what the Nation deserves.
Mr. LaLota. Thanks Admiral.
I yield.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you to the gentleman from New York.
I'm going to have a second round of questioning.
So, Admiral, what has the Coast Guard learned? What have
you all learned?
Admiral Allan. Sir, I'm sorry, I'm having a head cold
today. I didn't hear your last question there.
Mr. Gimenez. I'm going to change my question.
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. I see a number of officers behind you. Are
they part of the mission support staff?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir. So my command master chief, head
of all enlisted personnel for DCMS, Master Chief Ingham, is
with me. I've got an aide that tries to keep me on schedule,
and then 2 others that are doing program reviews to make sure
we're spending our dollars and resources where they need to be.
Mr. Gimenez. What's your average stay in mission support?
Admiral Allan. One more time. I'm sorry.
Mr. Gimenez. In other words, how long do they stay in
mission support? The uniform people how long do they stay in
mission support?
Admiral Allan. So myself and the master chief will stay
about 2 years. Everyone else will be about 3 to 4 years.
Mr. Gimenez. OK. So the thing that is constant is basically
your civilian staff?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir. I was just going to say our
civilian staff is that vital piece that keeps continuity from
our SES' to those people at the ground floor that are doing a
lot of work on design.
Mr. Gimenez. Is there a head of that civilian staff,
somebody, the head civilian person there?
Admiral Allan. So, yes, sir. What we do is we identify one
of our senior civilians to represent the civilians on our
leadership council. He's been on that council for over 20
years.
Mr. Gimenez. But that's the only constant that you have in
that section?
Admiral Allan. So all of the civilians. But yes, sir, so
he's one.
Mr. Gimenez. Right. The uniform people rotate through?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. Do you think that's a problem?
Admiral Allan. Sir, I would tell you that when you go out
and you design ships, it's good to know what you design them
for so to understand how they operate, what's required. I think
there's a close connection that the service has provided over a
long period of time to show how operators are helping to bring
the right capabilities to the service.
So, yes, sir, I think there is value. You're right; we have
some lift to do so get everyone back up to the same level when
we do rotations, but that's why we have our civilian staff,
especially within acquisitions.
Mr. Gimenez. But the civilians--I mean--yes, but the
civilians report to you?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. OK. All right. So, again, my concern about the
entire operation is the design issue that you--6 years, and it
still hasn't been designed. I don't see how you can justify
that, to be honest with you. So I'm trying to get to the bottom
of maybe you have a--there's an issue here, because you just
don't design polar cutters. You're designing cutters. You're
designing all kinds of--probably procuring aircraft and
everything, right?
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. You do mission support.
Admiral Allan. Right.
Mr. Gimenez. So, you know, my colleague from Louisiana was
very, you know, eloquent in saying that you need--the men and
women of the Coast Guard are the most important thing.
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. But we owe them. We owe them. We owe them, and
here's what we owe. We owe them--and we must make sure that
they're equipped--they're the best-equipped Coast Guard in the
world.
Admiral Allan. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gimenez. So, in your estimation, are we failing in that
mission, or are we actually succeeding in that mission, keeping
our Coast Guard men and women equipped with the best equipment
in the world?
Admiral Allan. Sir, I would say, going back to what the
Commandant said, we need to be a $20 billion organization to
meet the Nation's needs. We are watching as we have crumbling
infrastructure. We are watching as we are decommissioning ships
because we can no longer maintain them. We're watching as we
try to keep helicopters longer than anyone else, and we can't
maintain them, so they are taking themselves out of commission.
So, no, sir, I don't think we're delivering to the Coast
Guard men and women the assets that they need to be successful.
We are delivering to them the assets that they are making the
Nation successful and by hard work and long hours.
Mr. Gimenez. Well, hopefully, I'll stay on this
subcommittee for the next year and--next 2 years, and I will
have more in-depth conversations with you about the needs and
the shortfalls. I believe that we owe it to our men and women
that are putting and risking their lives every single day to
protect America, we need to make sure that they have the right
equipment and the best equipment because that's what we owe
them.
Admiral Allan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. All right. So, with that, I'll yield the
remainder of my time.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Thanedar.
Mr. Thanedar. Vice Admiral, just a quick question here. I
don't want to take all of my 5 minutes here, but I'm trying to
really understand. I'm a businessperson. You know, I ran small
businesses for many, many years. Planning is important to
survive in small business. Cost controls are important to be
able to get things done efficiently, under cost, in time.
It looks like, you know, something terribly went wrong here
in terms of cost estimation, in terms of planning, designing.
What have we learned? How can we go forward and have a sense of
feeling that we're going to accomplish our mission? Do we
understand enough about what went wrong? How are we going to
address that issue?
Admiral Allan. Sir, thanks for that question.
I think, when you look at this, we have to be a learning
organization, and we have to come to you when we're having
problems with too much oversight or too much red tape. That
said, when you look at this Polar Security Cutter and what it's
doing--and I'd love to get both of you down there to see the
unique problem set with this. We just went through an OPC, the
Offshore Patrol Cutter. It has 15 modules--17 modules--I'm
sorry--to make it into a ship. This one has 85 modules. It's
going to be as big as some of the landing craft that the Navy
has. It is a very complex ship. Now you take 2-inch steel, and
you try to mold that around a hull. That takes time.
But, to your point, we could have done better. I think
we've learned things now that, if we put it into place, we are
going to do better. I'm watching that through our WCCs, which
is our Waterways Commerce Cutter, and how fast that's moving
not only in final design but getting ready to be built in
Birdon. I'm looking at how Austal has taken our OPC design and
quickly moving at about an 18-month process to have production
design and be able to start rolling those off.
So we are learning. We will continue to do it, but I will
tell you this has been a very complex and difficult cutter to
build.
Mr. Thanedar. Has this contractor bid a cutter like this
before?
Admiral Allan. So, when you go into this, we had VT Halter
was the ones that won the initial contract. They had--I'm not
sure on their history on what we're doing, but, again, this is
a very complex cutter, something difficult, something that we
haven't done before.
We are very happy to be working with Bollinger Mississippi
Shipyards who have a proven track record and who are excited
about this opportunity. Went down and got to meet with a guy
named Shawn who walked us around the shipyard. He is taking and
showing how we're doing new welding designs down there that
have never been attempted with this thick of a steel before.
They are incredible people, and I think we got the right people
for the job.
Mr. Thanedar. Well, your men and women in the Coast Guard,
I've been there. I've visited. I've been on the ships. I have
seen them work so hard, and it's not an easy job. So I
understand, and it's important that they have the right tools
for them to do their job.
So I wish you well. Thank you. I know you're in the job for
only a few months, but I think it is so critical that we stay
on top of this and things go according to plan now because we
need the tools that--they need the tools to do their job.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
I thank the witness for the valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions.
The Members of the subcommittee may have some additional
questions for this witness, and we would ask the witness to
respond to those in writing.
Pursuant to committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will
be held open for 10 days.
Without objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]