[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF THE COAST GUARD: REVIEW
OF COAST GUARD PROGRAMS AND STRUCTURE
=======================================================================
(119-24)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 5, 2025
__________
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
61-600 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking
Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
District of Columbia Arkansas,
Jerrold Nadler, New York Vice Chairman
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Daniel Webster, Florida
John Garamendi, California Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaott Perry, Pennsylvania
Andre Carson, Indiana Brian Babin, Texas
Dina Titus, Nevada David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Greg Stanton, Arizona Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah
Patrick Ryan, New York Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Mike Collins, Georgia
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio, Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Vice Ranking Member Kevin Kiley, California
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Vince Fong, California
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan
Robert Garcia, California Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Pennsylvania
Laura Friedman, California Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Laura Gillen, New York Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Shomari Figures, Alabama Addison P. McDowell, North
Carolina
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida
------ 7
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Mike Ezell, Mississippi, Chairman
Salud O. Carbajal, California, Ranking Member
Daniel Webster, Florida Chris Pappas, New Hampshire
Brian J. Mast, Florida Marilyn Strickland, Washington
Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan
Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska Robert Garcia, California,
Addison P. McDowell, North Vice Ranking Member
Carolina, John Garamendi, California
Vice Chairman Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex
Jimmy Patronis, Florida Officio)
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Mike Ezell, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Mississippi, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation, opening statement..................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation, opening statement........... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 7
WITNESS
Admiral Kevin E. Lunday, Acting Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard,
oral statement................................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
APPENDIX
Questions to Admiral Kevin E. Lunday, Acting Commandant, U.S.
Coast Guard, from:
Hon. Mike Ezell.............................................. 41
Hon. Marilyn Strickland...................................... 43
Hon. Hillary J. Scholten..................................... 44
Hon. John Garamendi.......................................... 45
Hon. Laura Gillen............................................ 46
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
May 30, 2025
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation
RE: LCoast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Subcommittee Hearing on ``The Future of the Coast Guard: Review
of Coast Guard Programs and Structure''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet
on Thursday, June 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 Rayburn
House Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing
entitled, ``The Future of the Coast Guard: Review of Coast
Guard Programs and Structure.'' The hearing will focus on the
programs and structure of the Coast Guard. The Subcommittee
will hear testimony from the Acting Commandant of the Coast
Guard.
II. BACKGROUND
HISTORY OF THE COAST GUARD
The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard or Service)
traces its roots to August 4, 1790, with the creation of the
Revenue Cutter Service.\1\ On January 28, 1915, the Revenue
Cutter Service consolidated with the Lifesaving Service
(established in 1848) and formally became the Coast Guard.\2\
The Coast Guard later assumed the duties of three other
agencies: the Lighthouse Service (established in 1789), the
Steamboat Inspection Service (established in 1838), and the
Bureau of Navigation (established in 1884).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Coast Guard, History Timeline, available at https://
www.history.uscg.mil/home/history-program/.
\2\ Id.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Section 102 of Title 14, United States Code, the
Coast Guard has primary responsibility to enforce or assist in
the enforcement of all applicable Federal laws on, under, and
over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States; to ensure the safety of life and property at
sea; to carry out domestic and international icebreaking
activities; and, as one of the six armed forces of the United
States, to maintain defense readiness to operate as a
specialized service in the Navy upon the declaration of war or
when the President directs.\4\ Its 11 statutory missions are
codified in the Homeland Security Act of 2002: Ports, Waterways
and Coastal Security; Drug Interdiction; Aids to Navigation;
Search and Rescue; Living Marine Resources; Marine Safety;
Defense Readiness; Migrant Interdiction; Maritime Environmental
Protection; Polar, Ice, and Alaska Operations; and Law
Enforcement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 14 U.S.C. Sec. 102.
\5\ Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, title VIII,
Sec. 888.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard is directed by a Commandant who is
appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to a four-year term.\6\ Admiral Kevin E. Lunday was
nominated as the 28th Commandant of the Coast Guard in May
2025.\7\ His confirmation hearings are forthcoming. The
Commandant selects a Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast
Guard, who is the principal advisor on enlisted personnel
matters. Master Chief Heath Jones assumed the duties of the
14th Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard on May 19,
2022, and a new Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard
will be selected this year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 14 U.S.C. Sec. 302.
\7\ E-mail from Coast Guard Liaisons to H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure Staff (May 21, 2025) (on file with Comm.).
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPACTS OF COAST GUARD UNDERCAPITALIZATION
The Coast Guard has endured chronic undercapitalization for
decades, jeopardizing the Service's ability to carry out its
missions. Recognizing that many of its assets were nearing the
end of their service lives or were technologically
insufficient, in 2007, the Coast Guard approved a program of
record to modernize its surface, air, information technology
(IT), and shoreside infrastructure, which has subsequently been
updated.\9\ Unfortunately, many of these assets were then
operated well beyond their planned service life because funds
to carry out the recapitalization were not forthcoming. The
Coast Guard is more than 17 years into this recapitalization
program and though significant progress has been made, heavy
icebreakers and medium endurance cutters are aging out before
they can be replaced. In addition, two of the Coast Guard's
primary aircraft, the Eurocopter MH-65 Dolphin, and the Alenia
C-27J Spartan, are slated to be retired from service.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-17-654T, Coast Guard
Recapitalization: Matching Needs and Continued Resources To Strain
Acquisition Efforts (2017), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/
690/685201.pdf.
\10\ Budget Hearing--Fiscal Year 2025 Request for United States
Coast Guard: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Homeland Security of the H.
Comm. on Appropriations, 118th Cong. (May 1, 2024) (statement of
Admiral Fagan, U.S. Coast Guard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Coast Guard has successfully undertaken some of
the steps outlined in its original recapitalization vision,
such as the procurement and deployment of the Fast Response
Cutter (FRC), programs such as the Offshore Patrol Cutters
(OPC), Polar Security Cutters (PSC), rotary wing aircraft and
shoreside infrastructure remain dangerously behind schedule due
to inadequate funding requests, and equally inadequate
appropriations. These shortcomings have created serious
capability gaps in the ability of the Service to field the
assets needed to fulfill its mission demands.\11\ Most
alarmingly, as the Coast Guard has been forced to temporarily
place assets out of service as a consequence of underfunding,
lack of manpower, and deferred maintenance. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) found that Coast Guard operational
hours have fallen across all missions while costs have
increased.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-17-654T, Coast Guard
Recapitalization: Matching Needs and Continued Resources To Strain
Acquisition Efforts (2017), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/
690/685201.pdf.
\12\ E-mail from GAO to H. Comm. on Trans. and Infrastructure Staff
(May 15, 2025) (on file with Comm.).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LFigure 1: GAO Chart \13\
FORCE DESIGN 2028
On\\ April 3, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Secretary Kristi Noem announced Force Design 2028 (FD2028), the
Trump Administration's vision for the future of the Coast
Guard.\14\ On May 21, 2025, Secretary Noem provided an
Executive Report on Force Design 2028, which outlined the goals
of the initiative as: \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
\14\ U.S. Coast Guard, Coast Guard Force Design 2028, available at
https://www.mycg.uscg.mil/News/Article/4145599/coast-guard-force-
design-2028/.
\15\ U.S. Coast Guard, Force Design 2028 Executive Report (2025),
available at https://www.uscg.mil/leadership/Commandants-Initiatives/
ForceDesign2028/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) LEstablishing a Coast Guard Service Secretary that will
have authorities similar to those of the civilian leadership of
other military services. The position would report to the
Departmental Secretary and establish the strategic direction
for the Coast Guard.
2) LAgency reorganization that serves to streamline
processes, integrate capabilities, and eliminate redundancies.
3) LInvesting in people, including modernizing the
workforce, building up the Coast Guard reserve, and investing
in the Officer Corps.
4) LInvesting in technology to improve maritime
surveillance, replacing antiquated technology merchant mariners
rely on, and improving the Service's logistics and human
resources.
5) LImproving and streamlining acquisition processes to
improve efficiency and accountability.
III. FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET FOR THE COAST GUARD
On May 2, 2025, President Trump released an initial
``skinny budget'' for FY 2026.\16\ While limited in detail, the
Budget proposes a $43.8 billion increase for DHS, with
increases primarily driven through reconciliation process
investments. The Budget states this funding will allow the
Coast Guard to ``modernize the fleet and facilities of the
Coast Guard.'' \17\ Currently, no details on specific funding
request amounts for Coast Guard programs are available. On May
8, 2025, the Coast Guard submitted its FY 2025 Spend Plan to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, details of which
are outlined in a chart which has been included in Appendix
I.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Letter from Russell T. Vought, Director, Off. of Mgmt. &
Budget, Exec. Off. of the President to Senator Susan Collins (May 2,
2025) available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/
05/Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf.
\17\ Id.
\18\ Email from Coast Guard Liaisons to H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure (May 9, 2025) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. RECONCILIATION INVESTMENTS
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Reconciliation Committee Print was approved by the Committee on
April 30, 2025 and was included in H.R. 1, the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act, which was passed by the House of
Representatives on May 21, 2025.\19\ The measure appropriates
$21.2 billion to recapitalize the Coast Guard's afloat and air
assets and to rebuild the Service's crumbling shoreside
infrastructure and facilities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Press Release, H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, T&I
Committee Approves Budget Reconciliation, (Apr. 30, 2025), available at
https://transportation.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=408584; H. Comm. on Rules, Committee
Print 119-3, (May 18, 2025), available at https://rules.house.gov/
sites/evo-subsites/rules.house.gov/files/documents/rcp_119-3_final.pdf
[hereinafter Committee Print 119-3].
\20\ Committee Print 119-3, supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For surface assets, the measure appropriates $4.3 billion
for Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs) and $1 billion for Fast
Response Cutters (FRCs). This funding is intended to procure
additional FRCs. FRCs have proven to be a reliable workhorse
for the Coast Guard as the Service decommissioned the last of
the 110-foot Island Class Patrol Boats, with a handful of the
87-foot Marine Protector Class Coastal Patrol Boats remaining.
The funding is also intended to fund nine OPCs to complete the
first two phases of the OPC program of record. To support the
Service's National security measures to project sovereignty in
the Arctic, the measure provides $4.3 billion for the Polar
Security Cutter and nearly $5 billion for the Arctic Security
Cutter Program and domestic icebreakers.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reconciliation measure also makes significant
investments in the Service's air assets. The measure provides
$571.5 million for fixed wing assets, $1.283 billion for rotary
wing assets, and $140 million for long-range unmanned aircraft
systems.\22\ The fixed wing funding is intended to support the
acquisition of three new, fully missionized HC-130J aircraft to
complete the Service's program of record of 22 aircraft.
Funding for rotary wing assets is intended to support fleet
growth of the MH-60T program.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard requires substantial enhancements to its
shoreside infrastructure to facilitate new assets and more
complex mission sets. Currently, limitations in existing
physical infrastructure have hindered newer platforms from
utilizing the full scope of Coast Guard capabilities. Moreover,
due to years of underinvestment, the Coast Guard's shoreside
infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. GAO estimates that
it will cost at least $7 billion to address the Service's
backlog of shoreside projects, with half of the Service's
facilities beyond their intended service life.\24\ The number
is likely higher, as GAO's estimate does not include 234
projects for which the Coast Guard has not developed estimates,
nor has the number been adjusted for inflation. The Coast Guard
notes that based on the Service's $24 billion property
portfolio, and accounting for the poor conditions of current
property, the Service requires between $500 million to $1
billion annually to meet its shoreside investment needs.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ GAO, GAO-25-107581, Coast Guard Shore Infrastructure: More
Than $7 Billion Reportedly Needed To Address Deteriorating Assets (Feb.
25, 2025).
\25\ Questions for the Record from Subcomm. Chairman Daniel Webster
to Vice Admiral Paul Thomas, Deputy Commandant for Mission Support,
United States Coast Guard (June 12, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these capability gaps, the reconciliation
measure appropriates $3.15 billion for the design and
construction of necessary shoreside facilities, including
hangers and home ports to support air and surface assets for
which appropriations are provided in this bill.\26\ This
includes $400 million to support aircraft hangers, maintenance
and crew facilities, $2.329 billion for homeports for cutters,
and $425 million for the recapitalization of barracks and a
multi-use training center at the Coast Guard's enlisted
bootcamp.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Committee Print 119-3, supra note 19.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reconciliation measure also includes $1.3 billion to
improve the Coast Guard's depot maintenance facilities,
including $500 million to be used for construction of a ship
handling facility and necessary dredging at the Coast Guard
Yard in Baltimore, Maryland, to provide the facility with the
capability to handle the Service's Offshore Patrol Cutters and
National Security Cutters.
V. WITNESS
LAdmiral Kevin E. Lunday, Acting Commandant,
United States Coast Guard
Appendix I
Coast Guard FY 2024 Enacted to FY 2025 President's Budget Request Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's FY President's FY
Program FY 2024 FY 2025 Enacted 2025 Budget 2026 Budget
Enacted \28\ \29\ Request \30\ Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Support (O&S)..................... $ 10,054,771 $ 10,415,271 $ 10,446,283 $ -
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund $ 277,000 $ 290,093 $ 281,851 $ -
(MERHCF)........................................
Procurement, Construction and Improvements (PC&I) $ 1,413,950 $ 1,413,950 $ 1,564,650 $ -
Research and Development (R&D)................... $ 7,476 $ 7,476 $ 6,763 $ -
Housing Fund ............................ $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ -
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Discretionary........................ $ 11,753,197 $ 12,130,790 $ 12,319,547 $ -
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Retired Pay...................................... $ 1,147,244 $ 1,147,244 $ 1,210,840 $ -
State Boating Safety Grants...................... $ 144,340 $ 140,059 $ 144,480 $ -
Maritime Oil Spill Program....................... $ 101,000 $ 101,000 $ 101,000 $ -
General Gift Funds............................... $ 2,864 $ 2,864 $ 2,864 $ -
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Mandatory............................ $ 1,395,448 $ 1,395,167 $ 1,459,184 $ -
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................ $ 13,148,645 $ 13,525,957 $ 13,778,731 $ -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ \\ \\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-42.
\29\ Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025,
Pub. L. No. 119-4.
\30\ Off. of Mgmt and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2025, available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-
2025-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2025-BUD.pdf.
THE FUTURE OF THE COAST GUARD: REVIEW OF COAST GUARD PROGRAMS AND
STRUCTURE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Ezell
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Ezell. The Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chairman 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, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
I now recognize myself for an opening statement for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE EZELL OF MISSISSIPPI, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ezell. As the Coast Guard prepares to undertake
significant changes, today the subcommittee meets to review the
Service's programs and structure.
I would like to welcome our witness, Admiral Kevin Lunday,
Acting Commandant of the Coast Guard. Sir, it's good to see you
again. I congratulate you on your nomination to serve as
Commandant of the Coast Guard, and I look forward to working
with you closely over the coming years. We certainly enjoyed
having you in Mississippi's Fourth District last week. It was
an honor to host you, and I want to thank you for choosing the
gulf coast as your first official stop.
The Coast Guard is preparing to undergo a significant
period of change and modernization. At the Coast Guard Academy
graduation last month, Secretary Noem announced Force Design
2028, the Trump administration's vision for the future of the
Coast Guard.
As you know, this initiative includes five main points:
establish a Service Secretary so that the Coast Guard has the
same representation as other military services, as reflected in
my bill, H.R. 2546, the Secretary of the Coast Guard Act of
2025; reorganize the Service to streamline processes, better
integrate capabilities, and eliminate redundancies; invest in
the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard; invest in
technology to improve efficiency and capability; and improve
and streamline the acquisition process.
Admiral, I was encouraged by your support for this vision,
and I look forward to hearing more about this plan, how the
Coast Guard will implement it, what resources you will need,
and what changes in authorities the Service will require. As
the Coast Guard carries out these efforts, it is the
subcommittee's expectation that you will work with us and keep
us updated on the initiatives that move forward.
To meet the Trump administration's vision, the Coast
Guard's modernization will require substantial resources to
prepare the Service to meet the needs of future decades.
Unfortunately, in recent years, the Coast Guard has taken up
the motto ``do more with less.'' After years of
underinvestment, the Service is now operating with outdated or
inadequate cutters, aircraft, IT systems, and shoreline
infrastructure facilities that limit its effectiveness. A
recent GAO study confirms what many of us already know and
suspected: We have reached a breaking point. Coast Guard
operational hours have fallen by nearly 20 percent since 2017,
and mission effectiveness is suffering.
Last month, the House approved a budget reconciliation
proposal that makes the largest investment in the Coast Guard's
234-year history. H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,
includes $21.2 billion to purchase cutters, aircraft, and
shoreside assets. Our investment would reduce the rate at which
the Service is downsizing, but the investment must be matched
with sustained, long-term funding if the Coast Guard is to
fully make up recent losses.
Let me be clear, H.R. 1 allows the Coast Guard to carry out
its current program of record. It does not fund the growth
envisioned by the administration, nor does it account for any
new missions. If the administration expects to fulfill its
vision for the Coast Guard, it must submit a budget that
actually supports these goals.
While I am pleased that the President's proposed fiscal
year 2026 budget request provides a modest increase in overall
funding, the request is insufficient to sustain the Coast
Guard's current operations, let alone carry out the President's
vision to grow and strengthen the Coast Guard over the long
term.
Admiral, as you know, the Coast Guard currently owes this
committee more than 50 legally mandated reports, some of which
are years overdue. These reports are not optional. This
committee relies on these reports to conduct the oversight that
the American people expect of us.
Do I have your commitment that going forward, you will work
to get us these reports in a timely manner?
Admiral Lunday. You do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
Before I end my statement, I want to recognize two
individuals. First, the Coast Guard's House liaison, Justin
Nadolny. I know that is probably not the--where are you,
Justin? There you are. Okay. Hey, Justin. I want to recognize
you, Justin. His 2-year assignment with the House is coming to
an end. We will miss you, Justin. Justin has been an enormous
asset to Members, staff, and the Coast Guard, working with us
to strengthen the Service, and I really thank you.
I also want to recognize Commander Nicole Bredariol--
Nicole, where are you?
Commander Bredariol. Back here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ezell. Okay. The subcommittee's Coast Guard Fellow.
During her 2 years serving on the subcommittee, Nicole
contributed in countless ways, and her background as an
operator and attorney proved invaluable.
On behalf of the subcommittee, thank you both for your
service. I wish you fair winds and following seas as you take
on your next assignments.
Admiral Lunday, thank you for being here today, and I look
forward to our discussion.
[Mr. Ezell's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Ezell of Mississippi, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
As the Coast Guard prepares to undertake significant changes, today
the Subcommittee meets to review the Service's programs and structure.
I'd like to welcome our witness, Admiral Kevin Lunday, Acting
Commandant of the Coast Guard. Sir, it's good to see you again. I
congratulate you again on your nomination to serve as Commandant of the
Coast Guard, and I look forward to working with you closely over the
coming years. We certainly enjoyed having you in Mississippi's Fourth
District. It was an honor to host you, and I want to thank you for
choosing the Gulf Coast as your first official stop.
The Coast Guard is preparing to undergo a significant period of
change and modernization. At the Coast Guard Academy graduation last
month, Secretary Noem announced Force Design 2028, the Trump
Administration's vision for the future of the Coast Guard. As you know,
this initiative includes five main points: establish a Service
Secretary so that the Coast Guard has the same representation as other
military services, as reflected by my bill, H.R. 2546, the Secretary of
the Coast Guard Act of 2025; reorganize the Service to streamline
processes, better integrate capabilities, and eliminate redundancies;
invest in the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard; invest in
technology to improve efficiency and capability; and improve and
streamline the acquisition process.
Admiral, I was encouraged by your support for this vision and look
forward to hearing more about this plan, how the Coast Guard will
implement it, what resources you will need, and what changes in
authorities the Service will require. As the Coast Guard carries out
these efforts, it is the Subcommittee's expectation that you will work
with us and keep us updated as the initiatives move forward. To meet
the Trump Administration's vision, the Coast Guard's modernization will
require substantial resources to prepare the Service to meet the needs
of future decades.
Unfortunately, in recent years, the Coast Guard has taken up the
motto ``do more with less.'' After years of underinvestment, the
Service is now operating with outdated or inadequate cutters, aircraft,
IT systems, and shoreside infrastructure facilities that limit its
effectiveness. A recent GAO study confirms what many of us already
suspected: we have reached a breaking point. Coast Guard operational
hours have fallen by nearly 20 percent since 2017, and mission
effectiveness is suffering.
Last month the House approved a budget reconciliation proposal that
makes the largest investment in the Coast Guard's 234-year history.
H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, includes $21.2 billion to
purchase cutters, aircraft, and shoreside assets. Our investment would
reduce the rate at which the service is downsizing, but this investment
must be matched with sustained, long-term funding if the Coast Guard is
to fully make up recent losses.
Let me be clear, H.R. 1 allows the Coast Guard to carry out its
current program of record. It does not fund the growth envisioned by
the Administration, nor does it account for any new missions. If the
Administration expects to fulfill its vision for the Coast Guard, it
must submit a budget that actually supports those goals.
While I am pleased that the President's proposed Fiscal Year 2026
Budget Request provides a modest increase in overall funding, the
request is insufficient to sustain the Coast Guard's current
operations, let alone carry out the President's vision to grow and
strengthen the Coast Guard over the long term.
Admiral, as you know, the Coast Guard currently owes this committee
more than 50 legally mandated reports, some of which are years overdue.
These reports are not optional. This committee relies on these reports
to conduct the oversight that the American people expect of us. Do I
have your commitment that going forward, you will work to get us these
reports in a timely manner?
Before I end my statement, I want to recognize two individuals.
First, the Coast Guard's House Liaison, Commander Justin Nadolny, whose
two-year assignment with the House is coming to an end. Justin has been
an enormous asset to Members, staff, and the Coast Guard, working with
us to strengthen the Service. I also want to recognize Commander Nicole
Bredariol, the Subcommittee's Coast Guard Fellow. During her two years
serving on the Subcommittee, Nicole contributed in countless ways, and
her background as an operator and attorney proved invaluable. On behalf
of the Subcommittee, thank you both for your service. I wish you fair
winds and following seas as you take on your next assignments.
Admiral Lunday, thank you for being here today, and I look forward
to our discussion.
Mr. Ezell. I now recognize Ranking Member Carbajal for an
opening statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SALUD O. CARBAJAL OF CALIFORNIA,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me also, before I start my remarks, wish adieu to
Commander Justin Nadolny. I wish him the best of luck. He has
been an extraordinary representative and liaison from the Coast
Guard. He has represented you well, Admiral Lunday, and before
that, Commandant Fagan.
He has always demonstrated the highest standards of
professionalism. He has a great sense of humor, a little
serious sometimes, but I just want to wish you the best,
Justin, and congratulations on your promotion to captain coming
up, I believe, in a week or so.
So, thank you for your service.
And I also want to recognize Admiral Lunday is a very smart
guy. Today, he brought his lovely wife with him to join us
today, which makes it hard for us to ask him even harder
questions, but I am going to do my best to ask him hard
questions nonetheless.
Welcome.
Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for calling this
hearing today.
Welcome, Admiral Lunday, and congratulations on your
nomination for Commandant.
One thing that is great about this subcommittee is that we
are all on the same page on a very important issue: supporting
the United States Coast Guard. There is no organization like it
in the world. The servicemembers are top notch, and since 1790,
our country is safer because of their service.
I also agree with Secretary Noem when she said that the
Coast Guard has been neglected and underresourced for far too
long. Unfortunately, when I look at the budget, this is another
case of ``watch what I say, not what I do.''
The overall funding is not as exciting as one would hope.
It does not account for increasing the size of the Service. It
does not account for taking on new missions like those
associated with the Arctic Security Cutter, and most
importantly, it reverses course on recapitalizing the Coast
Guard's shoreside infrastructure.
The Government Accountability Office recently issued a
report that found the Coast Guard's $7 billion estimate for the
shoreside infrastructure backlog is actually much higher. Over
200 projects to date still have no cost estimates, and none
have been adjusted for inflation.
The shoreside infrastructure backlog directly impacts
Coasties and their families. This is real-world stuff. In my
district, a member of the Coast Guard recently fell through the
floor of the Coast Guard's housing as they were taking a shower
because the persistent moisture and mold rotted the floor.
I have brought this to the Coast Guard's attention, and I
hope to hear a report about all the things that are being done
regarding those items that I have pointed out regarding housing
in my district.
We must do better, because this is completely unacceptable.
What is in the administration's first transformational budget
for the Coast Guard infrastructure, you may ask? A cut of 90
percent, a scant $21 million to address a more than $7 billion
backlog.
Budgets demonstrate values and priorities. What are this
Secretary's priorities?
Well, we know that she is planning to follow the
President's lead in obtaining not one but two Gulfstream V jets
to accommodate her travel at a cost of upwards of $54 million.
That is 2\1/2\ times the entire shoreside infrastructure budget
for the Coast Guard.
Budgets show priorities. Talk about fraud, waste, and
abuse!
Fortunately, I believe that my colleagues on this
subcommittee share my interest in providing for servicemembers,
and I will continue to work across the aisle to ensure Congress
provides prudent, robust investments in the Coast Guard.
Another place where I am certainly on the same page with my
colleagues is the importance of the Coast Guard's role in law
enforcement. The first step is enforcing the law and following
the law.
Unfortunately, just last week, the Service sent us a letter
saying that they have zero intention of following a law that is
instrumental to growing the Coast Guard. Why? Because it
conflicts with an Executive order. I know that Admiral Lunday
is an attorney, so I look forward to hearing a legal
justification for that decision.
Does Executive order trump the law or does the law
supersede an Executive order?
I have always been and continue to be a champion for fully
funding the Coast Guard at a level commensurate with their
needs and their service to the country. To be clear, Congress
and every President for the past 20 years has failed to do
this.
Admiral Fagan boldly stated that the Coast Guard is a $20
billion Service and deserves to be funded as such. Despite
their stated interest in reviving and growing the Service, I am
concerned that this administration's actions show that they do
not agree with Admiral Fagan's assessment.
While the prospect of funding through reconciliation is
welcome news, it still falls short and does not provide the
long-term and predictable funding the Coast Guard needs. We
must do better.
Congress and Coast Guard leadership owe it to the Coasties
who serve this country to deliver on these promises.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Carbajal's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Salud O. Carbajal of California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Good morning, and thank you, Chair Ezell, for calling today's
hearing.
Welcome Admiral Lunday, and congratulations on your nomination.
One thing that's great about this Subcommittee is that we're all on
the same page on a very important issue: supporting the United States
Coast Guard. There is no organization like it in the world. The
servicemembers are top notch, and, since 1790, our country is safer
because of their service.
I also agree with Secretary Noem when she said that the Coast Guard
has been neglected and under resourced for far too long. Unfortunately,
when I look at the budget, this is another case of ``watch what I say,
not what I do.''
The overall funding is not as exciting as one would hope. It does
not account for increasing the size of the service. It does not account
for taking on new missions like those associated with the Arctic
Security Cutter. And, most importantly, it reverses course on
recapitalizing the Coast Guard's shoreside infrastructure.
The Government Accountability Office recently issued a report that
found the Coast Guard's $7 billion estimate for the shoreside
infrastructure backlog is actually much higher.
Over 200 projects to date still have no cost-estimates, and none
have been adjusted for inflation. The shoreside infrastructure backlog
directly impacts Coasties and their families.
This is real world stuff. In my district, a member of the Coast
Guard recently fell through the floor of Coast Guard housing as they
were taking a shower because the persistent moisture and mold rotted
the floor.
We must do better--because this is completely unacceptable.
What is in the Administration's first ``transformational'' budget
for the Coast Guard infrastructure you may ask? A cut of 90 percent. A
scant $21 million to address a more than $7 billion backlog.
Budgets demonstrate values and priorities. What are this
Secretary's priorities? Well, we know that she is planning to follow
the President's lead in obtaining not one but two new Gulfstream V jets
to accommodate her travel at a cost of upwards of $54 million.
That's two-and-a-half times the entire shoreside infrastructure
budget for the Coast Guard. Budgets show priorities.
Talk about fraud, waste and abuse!
Fortunately, I believe that my colleagues on this Subcommittee
share my interest in providing for servicemembers, and I will continue
to work across the aisle to ensure Congress provides prudent and robust
investments in the Coast Guard.
Another place where I am certain my colleagues, and I agree with is
the importance of the Coast Guard's role in law enforcement. The first
step to enforcing the law is following the law.
Unfortunately, just last week the Service sent us a letter saying
that they have zero intention of following a law that is instrumental
to growing the Coast Guard. Why? Because it conflicts with an Executive
Order. I know that Admiral Lunday is an attorney so I look forward to
hearing a legal justification for that decision.
I have always been, and continue to be, a champion for fully
funding the Coast Guard at a level commensurate with their needs and
their service to the country.
To be clear, Congress and every President for the past 20 years has
failed to do this. Admiral Fagan boldly stated that the Coast Guard is
a $20 billion service and deserves to be funded as such.
Despite their stated interest in reviving and growing the service,
I am concerned that this Administration's actions show that they do not
agree with Admiral Fagan's assessment.
While the prospect of funding through reconciliation is welcome
news, it still falls short and does not provide the long term and
predictable funding the Coast Guard needs. We must do better.
Congress and Coast Guard leadership owe it to the Coasties who
serve this country to deliver on these promises.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Sam
Graves, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM GRAVES OF MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Chairman Ezell, and thank you,
Ranking Member Carbajal, for this hearing.
And I welcome our witness. Admiral, it is good to see you
here today. It is good that you are coming onboard.
I hate the fact that we are losing Commander Justin Nadolny
and also Nicole, our Fellow back here, and then we are also
losing Corey Sites, too. So, they have done a wonderful job
being a part of your team and helping us out.
But I do want to congratulate you with everybody else on
your nomination to be the next Commandant of the Coast Guard,
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is very
glad to host you for your first hearing after being nominated,
and I hope you are quickly confirmed in that position.
I would be remiss if I did not tell you just how proud I am
of the jurisdiction, our committee's jurisdiction over the U.S.
Coast Guard. It really means a lot to me, and I know it means a
lot to the members of the committee, too. I look forward to
working with you to establish a Secretary of the Coast Guard,
implement the Force Design 2028 vision, and complete the budget
process, which is going to give historic funding levels for the
Coast Guard.
During my time as chairman, I have had the privilege of
meeting many of the men and women in the U.S. Coast Guard that
serve our Nation and protect our seas and our ports and conduct
lifesaving missions throughout the United States. The
importance of the Coast Guard to our country's security, it
cannot be overstated, and I look forward to working with you,
Admiral, and ensuring that the servicemembers have every tool
at their disposal and everything that they need to successfully
complete their mission.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back, but it is
good to have you.
[Mr. Graves' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri, Chairman, Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Ezell, for holding today's hearing, and welcome
to our witness, Admiral Lunday. Congratulations on your nomination to
be the next Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is very glad to host you for your
first hearing after being nominated. I hope you are quickly confirmed
so that we can get to work. I'm sorry to note that at the same time,
we're losing some good staff from our teams: Commander Justin Nadolny,
Commander Nicole Bredariol, and Corey Sites.
I'd be remiss if I didn't tell you how proud I am of this
committee's jurisdiction over the U.S. Coast Guard--it means a lot to
me and the Members of the Committee. I look forward to working with you
to establish a Secretary of the Coast Guard, implement the Force Design
2028 vision, and complete the budget reconciliation process, which will
provide historic funding levels for the Coast Guard.
During my time as Chairman, I have had the privilege of meeting
many of the men and women in the Coast Guard who serve our nation,
secure our seas and our ports, and conduct life-saving missions. The
importance of the Coast Guard to our country's security cannot be
overstated, and I look forward to working with you, Admiral. We must
ensure our servicemembers have every tool at their disposal and
everything they need to successfully complete their missions.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Briefly, I would like to take a moment to explain the
lighting system to our witness. There are three lights in front
of you. Green means go. Yellow means slow; you are running out
of time. Red means start winding her down.
I ask unanimous consent that the witness' full statement be
included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witness has provided answers
to any questions that may be submitted to him in writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or the witness to be included in the
record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
the committee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5
minutes.
With that, Admiral Lunday, you are recognized for 5 minutes
for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ADMIRAL KEVIN E. LUNDAY,
ACTING COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral Lunday. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graves, Chairman Ezell, Ranking Member Carbajal,
and distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today.
Thank you for your strong and enduring support for our
Coast Guard, for our Coast Guard men and women, and for their
families.
Chairman, it was great to join you and your staff on the
gulf coast last week. Thank you for taking the time to visit
with our Coast Guard units. Our men and women there, they are
so proud of their mission, and then also for visiting with the
shipyards in Mississippi and Alabama that are building new
Coast Guard cutters that we badly need to conduct our
operations in support of the American people.
For nearly 235 years, the American people have depended on
the Coast Guard as a vital instrument of national power to
ensure U.S. economic prosperity and national security. Today,
the Coast Guard is at one of our most consequential periods in
our history, a time of profound challenge and extraordinary
opportunity.
As our Nation faces increasingly dangerous and complex
threats from nation-states, terrorists, and criminals, the
American people need a strong and capable Coast Guard now more
than ever. Under the leadership of President Trump and
Secretary Noem, the Coast Guard is making America more secure.
The Service's highest priority is achieving complete
operational control of the U.S. border, including our ports and
waterways.
On January 21st, I directed our operational commanders to
immediately increase Coast Guard presence along the U.S. border
and maritime approaches, starting with the southern border
where the President had declared a national emergency the day
before. We surged forces, tripling the number of cutters,
boats, aircraft, and deployable teams to control, secure, and
defend that southern border.
The Coast Guard also increased efforts to secure and defend
our ports and waterways both in the physical domain and in
cyberspace that is so essential to economic prosperity and
strategic mobility.
And I have set as a top operational priority combating
fentanyl in maritime cargo shipments approaching the U.S.
The Coast Guard beyond the southern border continues to
control, secure, and defend our northern border and the U.S.
border and approaches around Hawaii and Alaska, our three U.S.
Territories in the Pacific, and two U.S. Territories in the
Caribbean.
The Coast Guard is delivering results for the American
people. We are deterring illegal maritime migration and
stopping the illicit flow of drugs into the United States. In
the last 5 months alone, we have interdicted over 1,000 aliens
trying to reach the U.S. by sea, and we have deterred thousands
more.
We have already surpassed our entire fiscal year 2024
cocaine removal numbers, and we continue to combat foreign
terrorist organizations and cartels by interdicting the bulk
smuggling of cocaine and other drugs at sea.
However, despite the success in our missions and the great
work of our people, the Coast Guard is in a severe readiness
crisis that is decades in the making. Today, our Coast Guard is
less ready than at any other time in the past 80 years since
the end of World War II.
The downward readiness spiral we are on is not sustainable,
and we must take action now to change that direction. Together
we must restore the Coast Guard readiness and transform the
Service into a more agile, capable, and responsive fighting
force.
Following years of underinvestment, we must eliminate
maintenance backlogs for our cutters, boats, aircraft, shore
infrastructure, and C5I systems to return our assets to full
operational readiness. At the same time, we need to invest in
new assets, in modernizing our existing platforms, accelerating
the adoption of new technology, and providing our people the
support and the training that they need to be successful.
As we work through the fiscal year 2026 appropriations
process to increase the Coast Guard's top budget line, we look
forward to the opportunity of unprecedented investment in the
budget reconciliation. I appreciate the extraordinary support
from this subcommittee and across Congress and the
unprecedented leadership of the administration.
With President Trump's direction, we build our Nation's
military and secure the border, and under Secretary Noem's
leadership, the Coast Guard will implement Force Design 2028, a
bold blueprint to renew our Service. Through Force Design 2028,
we will transform how the Coast Guard functions and operates to
defeat our adversaries and protect the homeland.
As we navigate through this time of transformation, I have
certain hope for the future of our Service, because no matter
the challenges ahead, if there is one thing our distinguished
Service history in both peace and war tells us, with a ready
Coast Guard crew and the strong support of the American people,
there is nothing we cannot accomplish.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[Admiral Lunday's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Kevin E. Lunday, Acting Commandant,
U.S. Coast Guard
Introduction
Chairman Ezell, Ranking Member Carbajal, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify. I am
grateful for your continuing support of the United States Coast Guard.
It is my privilege to appear before you today to discuss your oversight
of the Service and Coast Guard accomplishments and priorities.
The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) team protecting America, is one of the six military services, and
is part of the joint force defending it. We maintain a persistent
presence in maritime domains--from coastal ports and inland waters to
the high seas--to control, secure, and defend the U.S. border and
maritime approaches from maritime threats; facilitate the flow of safe
and secure commerce; respond to maritime disasters; and save lives. As
a maritime Nation, America's economic prosperity and national security
are inextricably linked to the sea, our ports, and inland waterways.
The Coast Guard is a vital instrument of national power to ensure our
Nation's maritime dominance.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, our men and women conducted maritime
interdiction operations, intercepting over 5,200 aliens and seizing
more than 275,000 pounds of illicit drugs, preventing these narcotics,
valued at approximately $3.3 billion, from reaching U.S. shores. In
U.S. ports, an integral part of our border and vital to the American
economy, the Coast Guard ensured safe and secure movement of over 1.6
billion tons of goods critical to U.S. national security and economic
prosperity. Our crews maintained nearly 45,000 navigational aids across
the Marine Transportation System (MTS), conducted more than 9,600
patrols to protect maritime critical infrastructure, and safeguarded
4.4 million square miles of Exclusive Economic Zone, boarding 180
foreign vessels to suppress illegal fishing activities.
The Coast Guard also deployed the Nation's only two polar
icebreakers--cutters Polar Star and Healy--to assure U.S. access to the
Polar regions, protect U.S. sovereignty, and advance geopolitical,
security, and economic interests. Coast Guard cutters and deployable
specialized forces teams interdicted smuggling vessels in the Arabian
Sea and Gulf of Oman carrying 170 tons of pre-cursor explosive material
and, in lock step with our Department of Defense (DoD) partners,
deterred malign activity against commercial shipping through the Strait
of Hormuz and across the region. Your Coast Guard saved over 4,800
lives, assisted nearly 22,000 people in distress, and responded to six
catastrophic weather events.
In January of this year, under the leadership of Secretary Noem, I
directed our operational commanders to immediately increase Coast Guard
presence along U.S. border and maritime approaches, starting with the
southern border where President Trump declared a national emergency. We
surged forces, tripling forward-deployed air and surface assets in that
area. Since then, the Service has interdicted or deterred over 1,000
aliens from reaching the U.S. by sea in coastal and offshore approaches
between U.S. and Mexico in the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of America, and
along the southeast border and approaches in the Caribbean.
Concurrently, the Service exceeded its entire FY 2024 cocaine maritime
interdiction numbers by mid-February of this year. By surging
operational forces to the region and in close coordination with DoD,
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other interagency partners,
our goal is total operational control of the U.S. southern border. In
addition to supporting the national emergency at the U.S. southern
border, the Coast Guard moved to control, secure, and defend our ports
and waterways in both physical and cyber domains.
Our MTS powers the national economy, ensures strategic mobility,
and is part of our U.S. border. The Coast Guard also continues
operations to control, secure, and defend the U.S. northern border,
including the Great Lakes, and U.S. border and maritime approaches
surrounding Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories in the Pacific and
Caribbean. Our highest priority remains full operational control of the
U.S. borders and maritime approaches, including U.S. ports and
waterways in the physical domain and cyberspace, and we are delivering
results for the American people. Critically, the Coast Guard's work
also supports the Trump Administration's Drug Policy Priorities,
released on April 1 of this year, including Priority 2: Secure the
Global Supply Chain Against Drug Trafficking, which focuses on
decreasing the global movement of illicit drugs through all shipping
modalities; and Priority 3: Stop the Flow of Drugs Across Our Borders
and into Our Communities, which aims to decrease the domestic
availability of illicit drugs and save American lives.
The U.S. Coast Guard is facing a severe readiness crisis due to
decades of underinvestment. Tasked with defending the Nation's maritime
borders, countering threats like illegal migration and drug
trafficking, safeguarding our ports and waterways, responding to
maritime disasters, and saving lives, the Service is now stretched
thin, with significant workforce shortages and aging, underfunded
assets that often cannot meet mission requirements. The Coast Guard's
current organizational structure and reactive posture are no longer
adequate to meet current and emerging challenges. To restore its
strength and fulfill its mission, the Coast Guard must undergo a
fundamental transformation--not just evolve, but revolutionize how it
operates. With President Trump's directive to rebuild the military and
secure U.S. borders, the Coast Guard plans to implement Force Design
2028, a bold blueprint to grow military force, drive urgent innovation,
modernize capabilities, and ensure we remain a proactive, resilient,
and dominant maritime force.
Additionally, the Coast Guard will leverage President Trump's
Executive Order on Restoring America's Maritime Dominance to encourage
growth of the domestic maritime industry through initiatives that
facilitate expansion of U.S. operators' fleets, foster growth of
emerging maritime technologies, and ease entry of American workers into
the maritime industry. To this end, the Coast Guard took steps to
reduce barriers to entry for vessels into the U.S.-flag fleet,
expanding application of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
(NVIC) 01-13 to a broader group of vessels seeking to flag into the
United States, enabling the Service to play a leading role in
rebuilding the domestic maritime industry.
As we work through the FY 2026 appropriations process and look
toward the opportunity of substantial organizational investments via
the FY 2025 budget reconciliation process, we recognize unprecedented
government support, to include this subcommittee, addressing this
readiness crisis and investing in the Coast Guard. These parallel and
complementary investments can fundamentally renew the Service, enabling
the Coast Guard to modernize its assets by completing essential
acquisition programs.
We must eliminate backlogs in maintenance for our cutters, boats,
aircraft, and shore infrastructure, returning our assets to peak
operational readiness to deliver results and guarantee crew safety. We
must invest in new assets across our surface, aviation, shore, and
cyber programs and modernize existing platforms with advanced enabling
technologies. We must also redouble efforts to recruit and retain the
highly skilled workforce necessary for our complex missions.
Cutter Fleet
The Service's top surface acquisition priority remains the Polar
Security Cutter (PSC) and expanding the icebreaking fleet to meet the
President's direction. Continuing to invest in heavy polar icebreakers
is vital to counter foreign malign influence and protect America's
sovereign interests in the polar regions. We recently received
permission to enter full production of the first PSC as functional
design maturity surpassed 95%.
Since the founding of the Revenue Cutter Service in 1790, our
missions focus on executing border security and defense at sea. To meet
future mission requirements, the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) remains
one of the Coast Guard's top acquisition priorities, and is absolutely
vital to replace and enhance capabilities provided by our legacy fleet
of 210-foot and 270-foot Medium Endurance Cutters (MEC), which first
entered service in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively.
While PSC and OPC are priorities, we cannot ignore our needs across
the full surface fleet. Some of our inland tenders remain in service
since the 1940s, maintaining both fixed and floating aids to navigation
for the MTS--the 25,000 miles of rivers and navigable channels that
serve as the lifeblood of our economy. Waterways Commerce Cutters (WCC)
will replace our legacy inland tender fleet. WCCs feature modern
designs for propulsion and crew habitability to enable men and women to
serve America's heartland, where they help ensure food, energy,
consumer goods, and raw materials continue to flow safely and securely
through our navigable waterways despite constantly changing conditions
and water levels.
Aviation Fleet
Coast Guard aviation is more essential than ever to guarantee
territorial integrity by controlling national borders and maritime
approaches. Recent termination of the C-27J missionization program and
stalled growth in our HC-130J program place our readiness to conduct
various missions in jeopardy, including long range surveillance,
disaster response, and border security operations. Our rotary wing
fleet must continue to accelerate transition of air stations from
short-range MH-65Es to medium-range MH-60s to ensure sustainability and
increase our capability to serve national priorities. Additionally, the
Service stands ready to lead counter unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
operations in the maritime domain, providing protection to select
critical infrastructure and Coast Guard assets.
Shore Infrastructure
Coast Guard facilities must be resilient to meet mission demands
and serve as sound investments for the future. Based on the nature of
our missions, most Coast Guard facilities are in areas prone to
hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. The
Nation's reliance on the Coast Guard as a first responder underscores
the importance that our facilities must be resilient to disasters and
ready for operations. Budgetary constraints often force us to defer or
scale needed shore infrastructure recapitalization, placing that strain
on our front-line personnel. We should update and where possible
replace legacy military housing and support facilities, modernize shore
facilities to accept new assets, and develop robust training
infrastructure to prepare our workforce for their dangerous missions.
Despite the best efforts of our engineers, the Service carries
substantial backlogs for both infrastructure recapitalization and shore
asset maintenance. While we made headway recapitalizing our cutters and
aircraft, that progress requires making tough annual trade-offs that
continue to impact our shore infrastructure needs, leading to
increasing safety and habitability concerns.
Cybersecurity
The Coast Guard has a unique role to protect and defend the U.S.
MTS in cyberspace, as well as the physical domain, as a co-Sector Risk
Management Agency, Intelligence Community member, and member of the
Armed Forces. Maritime cybersecurity is a critical element of our
national and economic security. Not only does maritime cybersecurity
facilitate the flow of trillions of dollars of commerce, it also
ensures strategic mobility to supply our warfighters abroad. Our
cybersecurity forces consist of Cyber Protection Teams and a Cyber
Mission Team that defend our Nation. We must grow our investment in
people and technology needed to ensure the Coast Guard's ability to
secure and defend cyberspace.
Conclusion
Our commitments to control, secure, and defend our Nation's borders
and maritime approaches grow every day and demand for the Service has
never been higher. Investments we make now will not only address
immediate readiness concerns but also rebuild a stronger, more capable,
and resilient Coast Guard for decades to come. Since 1790, the American
people have depended on our missions and unique value the Coast Guard
provides to assure our national security and economic prosperity. If
there is one thing our distinguished Service history in both peace and
in war shows, it is this: with a ready Coast Guard crew, there is
nothing we cannot accomplish. I have confidence and hope for the future
of our Service. We must act now to ensure the Coast Guard receives the
resources necessary to fulfill our vital missions and protect the
American people. Thank you for your enduring support. Semper Paratus.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
Thank you, Admiral, for your testimony.
We will now turn to questions, and I will recognize myself
for 5 minutes for questions.
[Slide shown.]
Admiral, as the chart from the Government Accountability
Office, GAO, shows, the increasing age of the Coast Guard
assets has reduced the Coast Guard's ability to carry out its
missions, driving up cost as maintenance becomes more expensive
or driving down operational hours as assets are laid up or
undergoing repair. This is a bad combination.
How will the investments contained in the reconciliation
bill reverse this trend and position the Coast Guard for
success?
Admiral Lunday. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I look at this
graph, the first thing that jumps out at me is that it is great
reflection of the seriousness of the downward readiness spiral
and the readiness crisis the Coast Guard faces itself in.
I mean, to me this graph tells me that we are spending more
money to keep older assets operating, but their availability
keeps dropping. And that situation continues to get worse.
But if you take this graph and we go down to the waterfront
and we see a Coast Guard cutter returning from a patrol, that
crew will take much of that cutter apart, pulling apart
critical supplies and parts in order to make the next cutter
ready to get underway. We're eating our own readiness, and we
can't sustain that.
So, our crews are living this, this and reality, every day.
So, sir, the opportunity that the investment of reconciliation
provides will go a long way to stopping the downward spiral,
but it will just be the beginning. It will need to be matched
with the sustained higher growth in annual top line, budget top
line in the annual appropriation, both PC&I and our operation
and sustainment accounts.
Now, the fiscal year 2026 President's budget begins a
strong start in that right direction. It gives us an increase
of over $1 billion in both PC&I and O&S total over the fiscal
year 2025 expenditure, and so that is $344 million in PC&I and
over--almost $650 million--$644 million in O&S.
Mr. Ezell. The fiscal year 2026 budget continues the trend
of underinvestment and the consequences that go with it. Going
forward, what is your plan to request the resources the Service
requires to sustain its operations and fulfill President
Trump's growth vision?
Admiral Lunday. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working
with the committee on the fiscal year 2026 appropriation, and
then going forward, to increase top-line growth in our annual
appropriation for both PC&I and O&S.
That is going to be essential to rebuild and renew the
Coast Guard, which the Secretary of Homeland Security was clear
in her remarks at the Coast Guard Academy graduation on the
21st of May when she talked about her discussion with the
President and the need to provide the Coast Guard what we need
in the future to be ready to serve the American people.
Mr. Ezell. Force Design 2028 calls for at least a 25-
percent reduction in the Coast Guard's flag corps to streamline
the decision process. Late last month, we were notified that
the promotion board recommendations for the rank of rear
admiral lower half were rejected and a number of other
positions appear to have been eliminated with the release of
this year's flag assignments, including the flag officer in
charge of Government and public affairs.
Aside from these notifications, we have not received a
detailed reorganization plan. Does the Service have a detailed
reorganization plan for the flag corps?
Admiral Lunday. Mr. Chairman, we are working on a detailed
plan. That is part of the Force Design implementation plan that
I owe back to the Secretary in the coming weeks.
And once the Secretary has received and approved that plan
and we begin to implement it, then we look forward to briefing
the committee on that plan.
Mr. Ezell. Very good. All right. I am going to yield at
this time. We will probably have a second round of questions
here coming up.
And I now recognize Mr. Carbajal for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Lunday, in my opening statement, I mentioned the
state of Coast Guard infrastructure. Not only did the Coasties
in my district fall through their shower floor, they have been
forced to live with mold and continuous water issues.
How can we justify spending 2\1/2\ times more on executive
jets than on housing for rank-and-file servicemembers?
Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member Carbajal, the area of
housing in Santa Barbarba that you are very familiar with, and
thank you for your personal visit last year to take a look at
the situation in those eight homes in Santa Barbara.
So, we did have mold issues, and although that is not
uncommon broadly in the area, I think the significant rainfall
more recently in the last several years has made that problem
worse.
We have gotten after the problem of mold remediation. We
replaced the areas in the shower sets in the units that had
mold, and for units that had people living in them with mold,
we were able to move them so we could do those repairs and
remediate them.
None of our members should live in housing units that have
mold or other conditions that present hazards for them, and so
we are getting after those problems to address them.
Ranking Member, on your question about the aircraft, sir,
that was a decision I made to include a long-range command and
control aircraft in the fiscal year 2025 spend plan.
The Coast Guard operates C-37 aircraft as part of our
operational aircraft fleet. They provide long-range military
command and control that is reliable transport and secure
communications for the Secretary, the Acting Commandant, the
Deputy Secretary, the Acting Vice Commandant, and our two area
commanders to enable us to conduct command and control.
Those assets are critically important. The two that we own,
the one is older. It is 23 years old now, and it is
increasingly obsolete in its avionics, and the communications
need upgrade, and they are both facing significant maintenance
periods this year that will take them offline and out of
service.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
We understand that Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast
Guard Heath Jones was invited to join us today until his recent
forced retirement. Master Chief Jones is one of the most
admirable people I have ever met serving in the Coast Guard.
What message does this forced retirement send to enlisted
servicemembers?
And are you aware of any cause for his termination?
Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member Carbajal, Master Chief Petty
Officer of the Coast Guard Jones is currently serving and
remains the master chief petty officer of the Coast Guard right
now. He is at home on leave right now. I won't get into
personally why he is at home on leave, but he has got a second
granddaughter that he and his wife are celebrating the arrival
of.
So that wasn't a reason that I didn't have him here at the
table. I would want him by my side, but he is at home on leave
right now.
Mr. Carbajal. So you are saying he is not retired?
Admiral Lunday. He plans to retire this year. That is
correct, and I will go through the process subject to
confirmation by the Senate as the next Commandant. I will go
through the process of selecting the next master chief petty
officer of the Coast Guard.
Mr. Carbajal. So it is not a forced retirement?
Admiral Lunday. Well, I have decided to select a new master
chief petty officer of the Coast Guard, if confirmed as the
next Commandant.
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Jones has
served with honor and distinction for his entire career. He has
a distinguished career, and we are going to celebrate that
career at the change of watch toward the end of July with the
next master chief petty officer of the Coast Guard and a great
celebration for Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard
Jones' career.
Mr. Carbajal. So if you decide to select somebody new, you
basically say, ``Your services are no longer needed.''
Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member Carbajal, changing out
military leadership, including our senior enlisted leadership,
is part of the normal cycle of what we do in the Service. This
is not unusual, sir.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Recently, in response to a statutorily required strategy to
address recruitment and accession strategy, the Coast Guard
plainly told Congress that you are choosing to follow an
Executive order rather than follow the law.
Do you plan to continue violating the law?
And how do you determine which laws to follow and which
laws not to follow?
Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member Carbajal, as a part of the
executive branch, the Coast Guard is following the Executive
order and the guidance from the Department of Homeland Security
in this regard, with regard to that report and other reports
that call for reporting on DEI matters.
Mr. Carbajal. Section 11249 of the Don Young Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2022 is a statute that provides guidance
on this issue, and there was an Executive order that was
issued, and I am just trying to understand why you would not
follow the law rather than this Executive order that was put
forth that is not the law.
Admiral Lunday. Sir, I am working to follow the law and the
guidance of the executive branch, and I understand clearly the
requirement in the authorization act that requires the report
as well.
Mr. Carbajal. So do you plan to fulfill the statute?
Admiral Lunday. Sir, we are doing our best to follow the
guidance as part of the executive branch under the President's
Executive order and the guidance from the Department.
I understand the frustration of the committee because of
the existence of the requirement to deliver that report. At
this time, the report that we have submitted is the report that
stands for our submission.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
Now I recognize Mr. Webster for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Admiral, for coming. We appreciate it. At
least from my reports, I am getting pretty firm information
that you are going to be confirmed. Nothing is set in this
place, but congratulations.
There is one thing I wanted to carry on about, which was
the ``Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study,'' which--it's not
just now. It's not just a few years ago. We have just been
waiting and waiting on a report that is a study which has just
not come.
It's kind of perplexing. Is there any hope of having that
happen?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, we are continuing to work on
the port access route study, and we look forward to briefing
that once that is completed.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So, is there a timeline for
completing this?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, let me get back to you with a
specific update on the timeline for the delivery of that
report.
Mr. Webster of Florida. It's kind of like a timeline for
the timeline, but anyway, thank you for those answers. I
appreciate it.
There is also the idea of the Force Design 2028, and that
has some great things in it and a great design, modernization,
and so forth, all that.
Do you see that happening as far as money-wise, training
all of these new recruits that are going to happen and 17,000
new ones?
What do you see about the funding versus the idea that is
on a piece of paper?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, the Force Design 2028 offers a
bold blueprint forward that the Secretary has given us to
deliver transformational, even revolutionary change that we
will have not seen at any other time at this scale since the
formation of the modern Coast Guard organization in 1915.
As you said, sir, and as the chairman mentioned, it is
across five lines of effort starting with the creation of a
Secretary of the Coast Guard, but also the other campaigns to
improve organizational streamlining of decisionmaking;
improvement of pushing that decisionmaking to the field;
improving the recruiting, training, and development of our
people; advancing the use and application of technology to make
the Coast Guard a leader in the Federal Government; and then
streamlining our acquisition and contracting.
That must be matched with the investment necessary to make
that a reality, and that investment will come not only in the
budget reconciliation, but also sustained higher top-line
annual growth in our annual appropriation, both PC&I and O&S.
That will be the necessary engine to drive the change that
is laid out in Force Design 2028.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Do you foresee sparks flying in
Alabama and Mississippi on the new Polar Security Cutter
anytime soon?
Admiral Lunday. Well, Mr. Webster, Congressman, we
definitely are. The chairman and I were down there last week,
and we visited Bollinger Mississippi, where they are
constructing the first of three heavy icebreakers, the first
that will be built in half a century for our United States,
Polar Security Cutter number 1.
The full production of Polar Security Cutter number 1 was
authorized by the Department of Homeland Security back in the
end of April, but we had already begun advanced work to
fabricate some of the early modules the shipbuilder had that
will teach them how to move faster in the production later in
the series as we move forward with the production of the full
program of record.
So, they are cutting steel. They are building that first
Polar Security Cutter, sir.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Do you think the speed of number 2
is going to be a lot faster than number 1, as far as
completion?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, the first ship in class is
always the most difficult because that is where the most
learning occurs. What we see with the shipbuilder there is that
they are learning from the early work they are doing on number
1, and yes, sir, I expect that the delivery of number 2, which
is planned to be 2 years after the delivery of number 1, that
it will accelerate, and they will be able to move faster in the
production.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Awesome. I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Mr. Pappas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Chairman Ezell and Ranking
Member Carbajal, for holding this session.
I want to thank you for joining us, Admiral Lunday, and
congratulate you on your recent appointment to serve as the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, and welcome to the subcommittee.
Sir, I appreciate you taking the time discussing the vital
work of our Nation's Coast Guard, both now and in the future.
We know that the Coast Guard deserves full parity and resources
to be able to recapitalize and modernize the Service, to honor
the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the Coast
Guard and the great work they do every day.
We know that your leadership is critical to our efforts to
increase preparedness and to face down security threats and to
make sure that we are prepared for the growing demands that the
Coast Guard is going to be asked to respond to.
I want to start with one local issue that is really
important to my district but, I think, speaks to the readiness
challenges that you spoke of in your testimony.
In January of 2024, back-to-back winter storms with tides
as high as 18 feet severely damaged U.S. Coast Guard Station
Portsmouth Harbor, which is located in the town of New Castle,
New Hampshire. Significant damage was sustained to the
station's seawall and boathouse.
As a result, the station is no longer able to dock two
emergency response boats and has been forced to make
alternative temporary arrangements.
While the Coast Guard in New Hampshire has been able to
overcome these challenges and perform their missions, the
logistical challenges and the daily risk mitigation experience
in the aftermath of these storms regularly threatens the
readiness of that station.
So, my office has spoken with the commanding officer,
Eugene Kaminski, and it is clear that the full funding for
Coast Guard's PC&I budget is necessary to support the boathouse
and seawall rebuild.
Additionally, it is going to take the commitment of the
Coast Guard leadership to ensure that these repairs do not
experience any further or unnecessary delays.
So I am wondering, Admiral, if you have had the opportunity
to speak with leadership at Portsmouth Harbor Station about
these repairs, and if not, if I can have your commitment that
you will discuss the needed repairs with the Portsmouth Harbor
Station commanding officer and other leadership as soon as
possible.
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, thank you for your support and
the support of the full committee in Congress for the
supplemental appropriation that will deliver $24 million to
effect those needed repairs following those devastating winter
storms.
And so I have not spoken with the commanding officer since
that appropriation, but I will have a direct conversation with
the commanding officer and ensure that we are successful in
executing the money necessary to do those critical repairs.
Mr. Pappas. We are really grateful for that. Thanks very
much for being willing to make that connection.
And besides a robust PC&I budget, does the Coast Guard
require any additional tools from Congress to ensure timely
repairs to this particular station or to any of the others that
are suffering from damage from storms?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, I think overall we needed a
stronger operations and sustainment budget, and that is to keep
up with the ongoing regular maintenance for much of our shore
facilities.
While we see significant storms that cause damage that need
recapitalization and there are other longer term
recapitalization needs that are covered by the PC&I budget, the
regular daily maintenance that is required to keep these
facilities working, particularly on the coast where they
experience extreme weather, requires a stronger O&S budget as
well.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you.
Admiral, a longstanding issue facing the Coast Guard has
been the recruitment and retention of women in the Coast Guard.
In fact, a study found that at the 10-year mark of their
careers, the retention rate for women as opposed to men was 12
percentage points lower for both officers and enlisted members.
Key provisions in the last House-passed Coast Guard
reauthorization focused on the recruitment and retention of
women in the Coast Guard, including the Fair and Equal
Treatment of Women in the Coast Guard Act.
Admiral, can you speak to the existing retention efforts
the Coast Guard is undertaking to ensure that women Coasties
are equally valued and respected in their service?
And are there additional congressional actions that are
needed to support the Service in these efforts?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, we have had significant
success not only in recruiting recently, but also in the
retention across our Coast Guard, both men and women. For the
recruiting side, I am pleased to report that this year, we have
already had people either join or sign up, over 4,900 people,
well beyond our 4,300 annual target, which far exceeds even
last year's successful number of recruits, both men and women.
And we continue to increase our recruiting capacity to move
and be able to recruit from across our great United States the
best talent, both men and women, into our Coast Guard.
We also need to retain our best talent, men and women, in
the Coast Guard as well, and so that is a top priority, and as
the Secretary as part of Force Design has set a goal to grow
the Coast Guard workforce, both Active and Reserve, by 15,000
people, men and women, both Active and Reserve, then we need to
continue to keep our foot on the gas on recruiting and
retention.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McDowell for his 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. McDowell. Thank you, Chairman.
And thank you, Admiral, for being here today to testify
before the subcommittee.
I am glad to see that modernization of Coast Guard IT
systems is a priority in Force Design 2028, particularly the
long awaited and greatly anticipated modernization of the
antiquated Merchant Mariner Credentialing Program.
Are mariner licensing examinations part of the proposed
transformation of the Merchant Mariner Credentialing Program,
and how will that be accomplished?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, improving the technology
systems that we use for mariner licensing and credentialing is
critically important. That is a part of the way forward, as you
mentioned, and also making sure that the training and
certification process that is provided by schools for mariners
that the Coast Guard is responsible for overseeing, that
continues to meet the high standards necessary for mariners to
be able to develop the skills and competencies and
qualifications necessary.
This is also vital given the President's direction in the
Executive order to restore America's maritime dominance, and
part of that is by reinvigorating our merchant marine and so
that remains and will be a top priority going forward, sir.
Mr. McDowell. Is course approval process part of the
proposed transformation of the credentialing program?
And how will that be accomplished?
Admiral Lunday. Sir, the course credentialing program and
the approval process is already a high priority because of some
challenges we have seen in the last several years, but I will
commit to you we will bring that into our efforts that are part
of restoring our effort, the Coast Guard's contribution to
restore America's maritime dominance because it's a critical
component of our mariners being able to operate and do their
job.
Mr. McDowell. Admiral, when this subcommittee met in March,
we had a conversation about the Coast Guard's aging
infrastructure and assets, and at one point we were talking
about the Coast Guard continuing to operate vessels with
literal holes in them, which I am no expert in ships, but that
is a problem.
And the Coast Guard has historically struggled with the
recapitalization efforts since the Service must maintain day-
to-day operations, which result in assets that are operated
well beyond their service life.
And so, lack of access to funding obviously contributed to
this problem, but today, however, we have an influx of
congressional support for historic levels of funding, which
seems to be unacknowledged in the Coast Guard's budget request.
Can you explain the reason for the discrepancies between
the Coast Guard's relatively modest budget request and the $21
billion recapitalization investment provided for in the House
budget's reconciliation bill?
Admiral Lunday. Well, Congressman, I would say that the
fiscal year 2026 President's budget reflects a strong start in
the right direction with over a $1 billion increase between
PC&I and O&S, along with the significant historic investment
levels that budget reconciliation reflects, will give a
significant move in the right direction to restore Coast Guard
readiness.
And, of course, that will need to be matched in the
following years by a stronger top line for PC&I and O&S to
continue to rebuild and restore Coast Guard readiness.
Mr. McDowell. One of the most important things to me is
making sure that you all have what you need to do drug
interdiction as these drugs try to come into our country. What
is the single most helpful thing we could do to give you the
tools you need to stop fentanyl trafficking, human trafficking?
Obviously, you all are doing a fantastic job this year with
catching these criminals, but what is the single most helpful
thing we can do?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, the work that we are doing to
control and secure and defend our borders from illegal drug
trafficking that brings death and destruction to our
communities, including in fentanyl, is one of our top
priorities.
We talk about the importance of search and rescue, but that
mission saves lives just as much as search and rescue does. And
so in terms of the top priority, I would say that the
shipbuilding acquisitions to deliver the Offshore Patrol
Cutter, which will replace our aging 210-foot fleet, the ships
that you described that often have holes in them, and that are
not quite as old but still old, 270-foot cutters; those
Offshore Patrol Cutters will get advanced technology and
capability.
But it will also be matched by investments in our boats and
our advanced sensors and technology that enable our boarding
teams who are doing this work at the tactical edge against
adversaries who are smuggling these drugs linked to the
cartels, many who are designated as foreign terrorist
organizations, that will give them the advantage that they need
to be successful, to be able to get that mission done and
return home safely.
Mr. McDowell. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Strickland for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Chairman Ezell and Ranking
Member Carbajal.
It is nice to see you, Admiral Lunday. Congratulations, and
I look forward to working with you, and a shout out to Mrs.
Lunday for being here. It is nice to see you both.
So, I represent Washington State and the South Puget Sound
where the maritime sector is integral to our national security
and our economy, and I am concerned that this administration's
neglect and misuse of Coast Guard assets will compromise both.
Slashing the Coast Guard shoreside infrastructure budget by
90 percent, as mentioned earlier, while spending $50 million on
a new jet for Secretary Noem is unserious and signals to the
men and women of the Coast Guard that this administration does
not value the mission or their well-being.
I want to talk first about movement of cutter assets. I
want to talk about focusing on the diversion of assets critical
to marine safety and capabilities from their assigned
districts.
So, earlier this year, the subcommittee learned that two
Fast Response Cutters in the Pacific Northwest were being taken
from District 13 for the rest of the year to support security
operations of the southern border. These were the only Fast
Response Cutters serving the entire Pacific Northwest
coastline, and we were informed that to address the long-term
coverage gap in Washington State, a cutter is being transferred
from Alaska. This will leave communities in Alaska with one
fewer cutter.
Now, I think my colleagues on the committee, perhaps
including Congressman Begich from Alaska, would appreciate a
thorough explanation of decisions that impact search and rescue
operations and responsiveness to marine safety concerns that
require a Fast Response Cutter.
Robbing Alaska to pay Washington State only exacerbates the
gaps in regions that need coverage, especially now that fishing
season and summer boating season are going to be in full
effect.
Admiral Lunday?
Admiral Lunday. So, Congresswoman, the decision to move
temporarily assets around in order to meet higher priority
needs is something that I and the operational commanders within
the Coast Guard do every day in the face of increasing mission
demand across our mission areas.
And so, the decision to temporarily deploy Fast Response
Cutters from the Pacific Northwest down to support controlling
and enforcing and securing our southern border is not unusual.
And in making decisions in conjunction with the Pacific
area commander and the district commanders on how to address
and position other assets temporarily to accomplish other
missions is part of the work that we do every day across the
Coast Guard.
I will say that in the Pacific Northwest under the
leadership of the district commander, Admiral Fosse, he is
taking significant action and steps over the last 4 months
under Operation Arctic Fox to secure the northern border,
working not only with other Federal, State, and local partners,
but with our allies in Canada, working together to make sure
that we can control threats in that area.
So, we remain active in our operations not only for marine
safety, but for controlling and securing and defending our
northern border as well.
But what I would say, Congresswoman, that also points out
that because we are in the state of readiness that we are in
today, we are not able to deliver the same level of services in
all of our mission areas that we have traditionally tried to
do. We are not as resilient, and we do not have the same level
of bench strength that we had in the past because of increasing
decades of underinvestment, and so, we do not have the same
level of availability of assets.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you.
I want to talk a bit about privatization of search and
rescue missions. DHS officials have said that the Coast Guard
should not be doing search and rescue, and subcommittee staff
recently learned that private companies are looking to contract
for this mission.
Now, I have nothing against private contractors
supplementing, in addition to, but substitution raises really
big red flags for me.
So can you talk a bit about the search and rescue mission
and whether you plan to allow privatization of it when it
should be a public service?
Admiral Lunday. Congresswoman, I am certainly aware that
there are commercial companies that provide salvage services
for mariners who need it. Coast Guard search and rescue remains
one of our primary missions. In fact, it is more than that. It
is a special trust we have with the American people. It is part
of our DNA.
And so, we are not lowering our response standards for
maritime search and rescue.
But I would tell you, beyond search and rescue, other
missions we do also save lives. Controlling, securing, and
defending our border and maritime approaches against illegal
drugs and illegal migration, that also saves lives.
Defending our border and our maritime critical
infrastructure from cyber threats to that infrastructure that
could threaten the movement and facilitation of commerce----
Ms. Strickland [interrupting]. I want to get back to the
question though. Are you going to allow privatization of the
search and rescue function instead of having the Coast Guard do
it?
Admiral Lunday. Congresswoman, I have no plans to step away
from our search and rescue operations or turn that over to
private companies.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentlelady yields.
I now recognize Mr. Begich from Alaska. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, Admiral, let me just compliment you on your
responsiveness on our Nation's most southern border. Your
mission there is of critical importance, and it is great to see
an administration prioritize that important security mission,
and we certainly appreciate all the hard work that you have
done and your team has done to prioritize that mission, in
addition to all the other responsibilities that you have across
the country.
So, shifting focus to Alaska, Alaska's vast, rugged
maritime domain makes the Coast Guard indispensable for search
and rescue, law enforcement, fisheries enforcement, and border
security.
But delays in modernizing home ports, housing, and
icebreaking capabilities disproportionately impact Alaska's
public safety.
Chronic undercapitalization has left Alaska's bases and
vessels in disrepair. Your written testimony underscores the
severe strain this has placed on crews and missions.
The fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation, however,
includes over $21 billion to recapitalize assets and rebuild
shoreside infrastructure, which are key for Alaska's future
readiness.
So with that as a backdrop, what assurances can you provide
that the current $3.15 billion shoreside infrastructure funding
will prioritize Alaska's most urgent recapitalization needs
rather than be diverted to lower priority projects in the lower
48?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, as you know, sir, the U.S. is
an Arctic nation because of the State of Alaska. The Coast
Guard presence in Alaska is strong, and so our recapitalization
needs that are already on track will be fueled even more and
accelerated by the investments in reconciliation.
And so we are very excited about future asset delivery into
the State of Alaska. In fact, the chairman and I on the gulf
coast visited the Coast Guard cutter Storis just before she got
underway.
She is now underway in the Gulf of America steaming toward
the Panama Canal, and after going up the west coast will arrive
in Juneau for a formal commissioning ceremony on the 8th of
August before conducting her first operational patrol.
That is our Nation's third polar icebreaker we have just
added to the fleet, and we are very excited about that. It is a
year ahead of the planned schedule that we are operating that
asset.
Mr. Begich. That is impressive. We are very excited about
Storis coming to Alaska. We believe this is the first of many
investments with respect to icebreakers that are necessary for
the Arctic, and I think it will go a long way to restoring that
capability for the United States.
One additional question. Given the unique operational
demands of Alaska's vast and remote maritime environment, how
does the Coast Guard plan to ensure that new technologies and
platforms like autonomous vessels or AI-enabled surveillance
systems are adapted for Alaska's extreme conditions, including
winter operations and our limited infrastructure?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, I think we have certainly
learned lessons with Rescue 21 and some of the persistent
challenges we had in Alaska with the design and function of
that, given the extreme conditions in that operating area.
And so as we go forward with the Coastal Sentinel, which is
one of the systems that was mentioned in Force Design 2028 to
use technology to advance our maritime domain awareness, to
help control, secure, and defend our border, we will have to
make sure that that technology is functioning and able to be as
successful and effective in the harsh Arctic conditions in
Alaska.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Admiral.
We are very excited about your pending confirmation, and we
appreciate your continued leadership of our Nation's border
security, search and rescue operations, and more, and we look
forward to working with you going forward.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
The Chair will now recognize Ms. Scholten for 5 minutes.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Chair Ezell and Ranking Member
Carbajal.
And welcome, Admiral Lunday. It is good to see you again.
Before I jump into my questions, I just want to share my
gratitude for your service to our Nation and congratulate you
on your nomination to serve as the next Commandant of the Coast
Guard.
I am so grateful that west Michigan is warming up this time
of year, but we are coming off a very significant winter. Our
Coasties in Muskegon and Grand Haven are tasked with ensuring
that lake freighters can pass through these waters and make
deliveries on time, regardless of the weather conditions.
It was, in fact, just weeks ago I feel like I can count on
my hands that I was out there watching an incredible ice rescue
off of our Grand Haven pier.
The Great Lakes region has kept supply chains running with
one icebreaker, a single icebreaker, which is why the Service
requested congressional support for a new Great Lakes
icebreaker in fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
However, the Coast Guard's most recent request does not
include a funding ask for an additional Great Lakes icebreaker.
Further, the budget does not include a request for dollars to
replace the 40-year-old Bay class 140-foot icebreaking tugs,
two-thirds of which are in the Great Lakes.
Admiral Lunday, can you elaborate on the exclusion of these
Great Lakes priorities in the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2026
budget?
Admiral Lunday. Congresswoman, let me start. The President
was very clear that the Nation needs 40 icebreakers. Now, the
Coast Guard is very excited about that because we are the ones
that operate the Nation's icebreaker fleet.
Now, a lot of people focus on our polar icebreakers, but it
includes our domestic icebreaking fleet, which of course is
centered on the Great Lakes fleet.
And so we appreciate the support for the funding in 2024,
$20 million of the 55 needed to begin the analyze and select
phase for an additional Great Lakes icebreaker, and we have
begun that work.
But it is critical as we look at the reconciliation and the
opportunity that that affords that we certainly will be using
that to build out our domestic icebreaking fleet, including an
additional, the Great Lakes icebreaker that you mentioned.
Ms. Scholten. We are also very grateful that the President
has mentioned a priority, but again, we are going to need to
see that in the budget. Can you direct me to any specific
actions where we might be able to see substantive action taken
and where the Coast Guard intends to specifically delineate
that we can expect to see those Great Lakes icebreakers
included in the budget?
Admiral Lunday. Well, Congresswoman, it is not in the
fiscal year 2026 request because, although we did see an
increase, it did not have a higher top line that enabled us to
include it in this year's budget request.
Ms. Scholten. When do you anticipate it would be included?
I am sure you can appreciate my dismay when, on the one
hand, we are talking about a commitment to 40 icebreakers, but
then we don't actually see the request included in the fiscal
year 2026 budget.
Admiral Lunday. Well, Congresswoman, we are also looking at
the opportunity that the budget reconciliation will provide for
significant capital infusion and recapitalization of our ships,
including all of our icebreaker fleet, which includes the Great
Lakes fleet.
Ms. Scholten. So, would you anticipate, then, that through
the reconciliation package, we would be able to specifically
allocate funding for a Great Lakes icebreaker?
And would you be willing to submit language that would
specifically delineate that?
Admiral Lunday. Congresswoman, we are working with the
administration and Congress as the budget reconciliation
package moves forward, now on the Senate side. The Great Lakes
icebreaker, a new one, is a high priority, but we will work
with the administration on that language as part of the
reconciliation process.
Ms. Scholten. My office is more than willing to work with
you as well. In the Great Lakes, we are unfortunately far too
used to getting by with much less, but when it comes to the
Great Lakes icebreaker program, we need to continue to elevate
the importance of this program.
And, again, we look forward to working with you to make
sure that this is not overlooked in the budget reconciliation
process.
I want to, if I may, one more quick question on the
importance of the Coast Guard and its people.
The President's budget is an opportunity to demonstrate
priorities, as my colleagues have said. Despite intentions to
grow the size of the Service significantly, this budget does
not meaningfully increase operations in support account and
drastically cuts shoreside infrastructure for things like
housing and, critically important to me, childcare facilities
and healthcare facilities.
How do you propose to grow the size of the Coast Guard
without significantly increasing operations and support and
shoreside infrastructure?
Admiral Lunday. Congresswoman, within the O&S inside the
fiscal year 2026 budget request is $27 million as part of Force
Design 2028 that will get after some of the key elements that
are enablers for that.
And so, it will get after increasing our recruiting. It
will deliver a Coast Guard human resources IT system that we
are badly in need of to help us develop our workforce in the
future, and so, that includes some key early investments in O&S
that will get after some of the workforce needs.
Ms. Scholten. I appreciate that.
I know I am running out of time here, but I would like to
resubmit my question specifically about childcare facilities,
and if you can get me more specific details on that for the
record, I would be grateful.
Admiral Lunday. I will do that for the record,
Congresswoman.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ezell. The gentlelady yields.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Patronis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Patronis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. Thank you for being here, and congratulations
on your selection.
I got to spend Memorial Day weekend down in Miami toward
your station down there. Marilyn took great care of me.
Sometimes the best way I learn is visually. So, being able to
spend some time with the team down there was rewarding for me.
Look. I understand where the chairman has gone. I
appreciate your commitment to wanting to put in the budget what
you need and then the President's agenda of strengthening
shipbuilding along all of Florida's and Mississippi's and
Alabama's Gulf of America.
Chairman, I wish I could have joined you this week. That
sounds like it was an exceptional visit, but seemed to double
down on investment and importance of shipbuilding and the
amazing job creation opportunities that brings. That helps. It
gets me excited.
But I appreciate you joining us today discussing the future
of the Coast Guard. I am fortunate. I get to share a load-
bearing wall with your liaison office, and the guys over there
I pretty much check on every morning when I walk in. You have
got good people, and it is a real good fortune for me, as I am
brand new, to have some folks there willing to spoon feed me to
understand the issues that are so important to our country.
So again, thank you for assembling a good team.
But let's talk a little bit about when I grew up. My home
was Panama City when I grew up, and I remember as you get
imprinted when you are a young child, Coast Guard cutter
Dependable would make the news, WJHG, and it was a big deal.
My family's business was right down the street from the
Coast Guard station, and when I started thinking about this job
I'm taking, I decided to Google it. This vessel was built back
in the 1960s and it is still operational.
And I understand the importance of keeping up with the
times. With the investment of these new OPC cutters, what do
you see probably as the most significant contribution that they
will bring to the next generation for, I guess, multiple
generations as the life expectancy of these vessels expects to
be?
Admiral Lunday. Well, sir, the Offshore Patrol Cutter is a
critical investment for the Coast Guard because it replaces
what is the backbone of our cutter fleet, which right now is
done by a combination of those older 210s like Dependable and
then the 270-foot cutters that we also continue to operate.
And so, they enable us to provide that presence not only
offshore, near offshore, but in the long-range maritime
approaches to the U.S. border, in all of the places there is a
U.S. border, and that is a lot of territory.
And so, the ability to have that advanced capability the
Offshore Patrol Cutter provides is critical to enabling our
crews to control, secure, and defend the border and approaches.
Mr. Patronis. Thank you.
When it comes to giving you the resources to meet your
training needs, open-ended question, are we doing enough?
Admiral Lunday. Well, sir, the training--first of all,
Congressman, our people are our most important asset, and
making sure that they not only have the assets and capabilities
they need, but that they have the training they need, is
critically important.
And so, part of our need in the operations and sustainment
side is to ensure that we have the right resources to be able
to deliver that training to them.
And when we talk about Force Design 2028, one of the
campaigns is technology. It's: How do we use technology to
deliver the training and the performance improvement that they
need in a cutting-edge way? The traditional way of training
people is in a classroom or simulators that require significant
travel, but we can provide through augmented and virtual
reality, and we are leaning into that now, but there is so much
more opportunity to do it to deliver advanced training in a way
that provides realistic training to enable our people to be
successful.
Mr. Patronis. I appreciate that.
When I got on this committee, I was definitely excited to
see that the chairman's leadership was wanting to make this
part of our funding priority. I thought, that's kind of cool. I
got to be a part of hopefully seeing an investment which I
think it impacts especially an individual that has got a big
coastal area and important as it is for the Service, you and
the men and women you lead, provide.
Thank you for your service.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Larsen for his 5 minutes of
questions.
I'm sorry. Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. I appreciate being called the ranking member
of the committee. I am sure Rick would find that difficult.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Ezell. I saw you sitting there.
Mr. Garamendi. No problem at all.
Admiral Lunday, I promised myself I would be polite, and I
am going to do the very best I can. We have been at this
icebreaker thing for well over 12 years, 12 years that I have
been on the committee, and it is one misstep, one bad decision
after another.
There is no money in the ongoing budget for icebreakers.
You are looking at the Polar Star, the new polar icebreaker, at
its earliest sometime in early 2030, maybe 2031, 2032.
We are looking at, as you just said, additional money in
the reconciliation. That's, I guess, good, except it's in a bad
bill.
My point to you is, What are you doing within the
administration of the Coast Guard to put in place the right
people with the right authority to get this job done?
At least in the last decade that has not happened, with
multiple admirals sitting in that chair, not providing the
competency and the organizational structure within the Coast
Guard to get a critical job done.
So, what are you doing?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, the Force Design 2028
blueprint for transformational change that the Secretary
announced will do that in two key ways. First, the
establishment of the Secretary of the Coast Guard with the
support of the Congress will provide direct focus, civilian
control over the Coast Guard that includes responsibility for
that Secretary over the acquisition programs for the Coast
Guard, including the polar icebreaker.
The other part of that, in the acquisition, one of the four
lines of effort is to streamline our acquisition process so
that we can move at the speed and scale to deliver the assets
needed and move away from the challenges we've had in the past
with acquisition.
Mr. Garamendi. God, I have heard the happy talk so many
times.
So, we have a civilian Secretary responsible for the
icebreaker program. Is that what I heard you say?
Admiral Lunday. Well, sir, the construct--and this is where
we are working with the administration and Congress on the
language to create a Secretary of the Coast Guard, which is an
administration priority, but it is similar to the construct for
other military Service Secretaries that provides that civilian,
political level leadership and accountability----
Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. Excuse me. Excuse me.
Admiral Lunday. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. So, that is going to take a law. Has that
been introduced?
Admiral Lunday. Yes, sir. Chairman Ezell has introduced a
bill on the House side. Senator Scott has introduced a bill on
the Senate side, and the administration is working on that
legislation.
Mr. Garamendi. Now, within your organization, are you
structuring an organization with specific responsibility with
an appropriate level of authority and staff to get this job
done?
Admiral Lunday. Yes, sir, we are.
Mr. Garamendi. And could you please provide that in writing
to the committee and certainly to me?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, we will provide it in writing
in specific detail as part of the Force Design implementation
plan that includes how we are clarifying the accountability on
how those programs will be successful as we execute that money
not only for the icebreaker programs, but all of our
acquisition programs.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. I look forward to getting that
detail soon because these issues are in play both in this
committee as well as in the Armed Services Committee over the
next couple of months.
Just note that I have serious doubt, but I think it is
imperative that this committee focus on the organizational
structure to be set up and the accountability and the
responsibility within your organization.
And furthermore, if the reconciliation bill fails to move
or if your piece of it is eliminated along the way, it is
imperative that those funding programs be made available and
that they be made available immediately, not over the next
decade.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Van Drew for his 5 minutes of
questions.
Dr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, or really Acting Commandant, I wish you the very
best sincerely, and thank you for being here today.
To some degree, I want to associate myself with the remarks
of Mr. Garamendi. He has been here more years than I have. I am
going on my seventh year in Congress, 7 years, and it is not a
reflection on you at all because I think we are all going to
turn the page now.
We have gone through this process, and that's why I have
tried to keep pushing for benchmarks, even working on
legislation that we have benchmarks, because we have these
discussions, we hear these things--and it's our bad, too, by
the way; it's Congress as well--and we just don't get anywhere
near the finish line.
Now, to be very focused here, would I be correct--I am just
going to ask you for some quick answers first, then we will get
into a little more detail--that with the administration, there
is a new, forceful commitment through the reconciliation bill,
by the way? Ms. Scholten is not here now, but I wish I could
say to her I am not worried about the budget bill at this
point. We haven't done particularly well with budget bills
whether it be an omnibus bill or the 12 separate bills, but the
reconciliation process, I know I have had direct conversations
with you folks, direct conversations with the administration,
and I believe, and I have seen it, that there is a new,
forceful commitment in will and desire as well as dollars.
Would you agree that is true?
Admiral Lunday. Yes, Congressman.
Dr. Van Drew. Thank you.
I want to just make that clear. I want everybody to hear
that.
And would you agree with me that a lot of this is being
done through the budget reconciliation process?
Admiral Lunday. At this time, that's correct, Congressman.
Dr. Van Drew. Yes, it is. Thank you.
That's the plan. That's one of the reasons that we are
doing the reconciliation, because we just can't seem to get the
damn thing done when we go through the budget bills. Multiple
administrations, not blaming one side or the other. So this is
why this is a unique time in history.
And that's why I believe in the benchmarks as well. I think
it's important stuff, whether it's icebreakers, patrol cutters,
whether it's infrastructure and facilities.
Again, you are familiar with all of this. I know you do
your homework and look this all up when you come here.
In Cape May, 85 percent of your recruits go through Cape
May. That's where the training center is. Again, to answer Ms.
Scholten, there are dollars there for new barracks. We have
begun that process. It's moving forward. That's going to be
helpful, particularly to the females that are now enlisting in
the Coast Guard as well; is that correct?
Admiral Lunday. Yes, sir. That's correct.
Dr. Van Drew. Thank you.
What steps are being taken--and I know it's hard to be real
specific because we have got to get the damn reconciliation
bill done first, though--can you share with us briefly any
steps and timelines for Offshore Patrol Cutters and Polar
Security Cutters?
And I know you have answered that already. So just any
spots you want to touch up on.
Admiral Lunday. Yes, sir. So, there are two stages for the
Offshore Patrol Cutter. We talked a little bit about stage 1,
the first four that are being built in Panama City, Florida,
and the first hull is scheduled for delivery by the end of this
calendar year, but it's only 72 percent complete, and so it's
at high risk of delivery to meet that first target.
And OPC stage 2 being built by Austal of Mobile, Alabama,
that is OPC's numbers 5 through 15. They began construction
last August and are making strong progress on delivery of that
first one, which I believe is scheduled for 2028.
I will get the exact date on the OPC number 5, but they are
making strong progress, having started construction less than a
year ago.
Dr. Van Drew. And wouldn't you say that there is a new
energy, a new commitment, a new sense of urgency that we have
got to get these things done, stop talking about them, even
when we deal with these different entities that you named?
Admiral Lunday. Well, there is an urgency, Congressman, not
only an urgency we feel in the Coast Guard to deliver assets
for our crews that are operating on hold, assets that are
increasingly harder to maintain and increasingly not available
for operations, but nationally to provide the Coast Guard to
meet the needs of the American people in the face of increasing
threats, including nation-state threats.
Dr. Van Drew. Absolutely, and I was going to review all
that, but I didn't because everybody up here knows it, and you
know it. Certainly, all of you know it very well.
There is $21 billion appropriated to address shortfalls in
the reconciliation package. Do you believe that's going to be
helpful if that reconciliation package is successful?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, it will be an important start
to reversing the downward readiness trend, but it will need--
yes, sir?
Dr. Van Drew. Thank you.
The Active-Duty Force, we have talked about that a little
bit before, too. Any particular plans to reinvigorate that, to
reenergize it, to get more folks?
Admiral Lunday. Yes, sir. The Secretary has announced as
part of Force Design 2028 a direction to grow the Coast Guard
workforce, principally our enlisted workforce, both Active and
Reserve, by up to 15,000 new members.
And so, that will put our already strong progress we've
made on recruiting--we will have to keep the pedal to the floor
and continue to recruit to meet that goal by the target, which
is by the end of 2028.
Dr. Van Drew. I appreciate your work. Let's do this,
Chairman. We're breaking new ground here. We're going to do
good stuff.
I yield back to you.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. King-Hinds for your 5 minutes.
Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations, Admiral Lunday.
The Coast Guard has had an enduring presence across the
Pacific Islands since World War II, and as somebody who is
coming from the Northern Mariana Islands, I can personally
attest to the value that the Coast Guard brings, the men and
women, to protect our waters and save lives, whether responding
to typhoons or delivering aid to atolls around the Pacific
Islands, drug interdiction, or just protecting our sovereign
waters from illegal fishing, you guys have been there. So, I
want to first of all express my deep gratitude on behalf of our
community for all the work that you have put into protecting
our waters.
So, my first question is, we have been hearing a lot about
just some of the issues that folks have with the budget, but I
wanted to hear from your perspective.
Can you describe the benefits the Coast Guard could receive
based on the House-passed reconciliation package?
Specifically, can you tell us how the House-passed
investments will provide our servicemembers with resources they
need to conduct lifesaving missions and drug interdictions?
Admiral Lunday. Congresswoman, the investment in
reconciliation will provide a recapitalization of the capital
assets we need, our cutters, boats, aircraft, C5I systems, and
shore infrastructure necessary to conduct all of those
operations, including throughout the Indo-Pacific.
Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you.
Everybody is talking about these cutters, and really, I
don't normally sit in this subcommittee. So, one of the reasons
or the primary reason I wanted to sit in, and thank you to the
chairman and ranking member, is to talk about the fast cutters.
From what I understand, they have been a force multiplier
for our region, especially within the FSM and the other remote
island nations when it comes to the bilateral shiprider
agreements.
Can you speak to the value that the Fast Response Cutters
bring to the region?
And also, what would it take for the CNMI to be considered
as an alternative home port option for your cutters?
Admiral Lunday. Well, Congresswoman, as you know, the U.S.
is not only a Pacific nation. It is a Pacific Islands nation
because of the Americans that live in and make their home in
Hawaii and the three Territories in the Pacific, including the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
In the last 6 years since I served out there, since
LyndaLee and I served out there in District 14, we have
increased the Coast Guard cutter presence by eight cutters--
eight new cutters--six of those Fast Response Cutters in
Honolulu, six based in Guam, two National Security Cutters in
Hawaii as well, and we have added a 270-foot cutter that we
permanently transferred.
With support of the Congress here and the administration,
we have appropriations in 2024 to deliver next year two
additional Fast Response Cutters out to the Western Pacific to
be based there.
We are looking at home port options in Guam, and we will
look at options also in the Northern Mariana Islands as we
explore. There is a lot of demand for space out there, and so,
we have other competing needs with others that want a home
port, but we need those cutters forward.
They are game changing capability not only to control,
secure, and defend our borders in the U.S. Territories there,
but also to strengthen our relationship with the other Pacific
Islands nations that are working to control their own borders
and protect their sovereignty against the malign influence of
the Chinese Communist Party throughout the Pacific Islands.
Ms. King-Hinds. Well, thank you for that.
Please do let me know how I can be of assistance to get you
to make the decision to consider the CNMI to be one of the fast
cutter's home port.
Thank you.
Admiral Lunday. Thank you.
Ms. King-Hinds. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ezell. The gentlelady yields.
I now recognize myself for another 5 minutes.
Admiral, I know we have discussed at length this morning
and in previous times, but I want to put a fine point on this
reconciliation.
The reconciliation investments we were able to secure under
President Trump's leadership are absolutely transformational. I
think everybody on this subcommittee would agree that the
billions of dollars we are seeing in investment for our
Coasties is a nonpartisan issue.
We have got to get this done, and I hope my colleagues will
join me in the package and voting yes on this coming up.
Thank you.
Moving on to my next question, despite receiving other
substantial cash infusions, the Offshore Patrol Cutter, OPC,
stage 1 contractor, Eastern Shipbuilding Group, has indicated
that they cannot carry out the contract without taking an
unabsorbable loss.
As a result, the Coast Guard has issued a stop work order
for hulls 3 and 4 and has issued a request for information,
RFI, to determine options to move the stage 1 hulls to yet
another yard to complete the work.
OPC 1 was scheduled to be commissioned at the end of the
year. Can you give us an update on whether hull 1 will be
delivered, and if so, when?
Admiral Lunday. Congressman, based on a completion level on
OPC 1 of only 72 percent, I would say that the delivery of that
asset by the end of the calendar year, which is the current
scheduled delivery, is in doubt.
Mr. Ezell. It's in doubt?
Admiral Lunday. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ezell. Very good. Thank you.
Given these delays, what's your plan to maintain the
readiness of the Medium Endurance Cutter, MEC, fleet until it
is replaced?
Admiral Lunday. Well, Chairman, the 210-foot Medium
Endurance Cutters are increasingly expensive to maintain, and
as Congressman Webster mentioned, they often have holes in them
that need to be repaired on any major drydock or dockside
availability.
And so we have plans in the fiscal year 2026 budget to
decommission three of those aging 210-foot cutters.
Now, our 270-foot cutters are not quite as old. We are
continuing a process to conduct a service life extension
program of six of those thirteen 270-foot cutters. That is
being conducted up at our Coast Guard yard.
That will extend the life of half of that fleet to enable
us to bridge the gap until the delivery of the Offshore Patrol
Cutter and those join the operational fleet.
Mr. Ezell. Very good. The administration has put out an RFI
that includes the option of building icebreakers in foreign
yards. As you are aware, Coast Guard vessels are required to be
built in the United States unless the President provides a
national security waiver.
Can you provide greater detail on why the administration
included foreign yards in its RFI?
Admiral Lunday. Mr. Chairman, part of that RFI, working
with the administration, is to provide as much information and
options to the President to inform the President's decision
within the President's discretion.
What I would say, sir, is that since 1790, when our first
Coast Guard cutters were built, all of them have been built in
U.S. shipyards by American labor, craftsmen, and tradesmen who
are skilled at what they do, and they have delivered superior
ships and cutters that we have operated for almost 235 years
with rare exception.
And as we saw last week on the gulf coast, both in shipyard
in Bollinger Mississippi, and at Austal, we saw those same
American craftsmen and tradesmen hard at work building the next
generation of Coast Guard cutters.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
And you can provide us assurance that the United States
will have every opportunity to compete for the Coast Guard's
icebreaker business?
Admiral Lunday. Mr. Chairman, the President has issued an
Executive Order on Restoring America's Maritime Dominance,
another Executive order on the defense industrial base that
moves to restore American competitiveness including in
shipbuilding.
So, I don't think I could say it any better than the
President has.
Mr. Ezell. Great. It appears there has been some
significant resistance from the Coast Guard on the issue of
automated systems aboard some commercial vessels. In 2020, the
Coast Guard reversed a longstanding practice of authorizing
engine room crewing reductions for articulated tug barges, or
ATBs, with automation.
More recently, the Coast Guard declined to implement a
statutory change in the fiscal year 2023 NDAA permitting the
agency to issue certificates of inspection for automated system
ATBs with reduced engine room crewing.
Given the significant advances in technology, and in
coordination with Force Design 2028's pillar on technology, I
believe automation on commercial vessels is here to stay.
Vessel operators have made significant investments in automated
machinery, which increase vessel safety and reliability, and
enhance the mariner's situational awareness.
Most importantly, I understand that the available data on
automated system ATBs demonstrates that they were operated
safely for years with reduced crewing. The Coast Guard should
keep pace with technological innovations and engage
constructively with industry. Doing so keeps them in line with
Force Design 2028's pillar on technology, which reads, ``The
Coast Guard will accelerate the adoption of secure, state-of-
the-market technologies to enhance data sharing, situational
awareness, and operational effectiveness.''
The default answer cannot be simply ``no,'' and that
especially applies when Congress enacts laws that the Coast
Guard is obligated to implement.
Can you give me a little response on that, please?
Admiral Lunday. Well, Mr. Chairman, the articulated tug and
barge, those have grown, continued to grow in size and
employment and with the implementation of Subchapter M, the
minimum manning of two engineers is the standard that is
currently applied.
Now, as those have gotten larger, we have seen them
approach the size of some tankships that have a separate
manning requirement of four engineers.
Now, facilitating commerce is critically important. It is
one of our primary responsibilities, and that includes the safe
movement of commerce, and I know maritime industry shares that
same priority.
Now, while we agree that technology has enabled those
engineers that are standing watch on the ATBs to be more
successful and more efficient at standing watch, we don't
believe that the technology is sufficiently advanced in
robotics and automation to be able to reduce below the current
levels in Subchapter M what those standards are.
But we look forward to working with industry and also with
the committee on as we see advances in that technology and when
the opportunity might be in the future to change that manning
standard. But for now, we feel that is the safe standard for
ATBs.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Admiral.
I yield back.
Mr. Carbajal, would you like to?
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A lot has been said today about the positive Coast Guard
funding in the bad, really bad reconciliation bill. While I
made it clear that I support significant increases to our Coast
Guard budget, I believe it shouldn't come on the backs of other
Americans.
Has the Coast Guard determined how many Coast Guard
veterans will be at risk of losing Medicaid coverage if H.R. 1
passes?
Admiral Lunday. No, Ranking Member Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. We might want to look at that, because I
think numbers are staggering.
Force Design 2028 is at best a concept of a plan. Yet
despite not having a detailed plan, the Secretary has ordered
the removal of at least 25 percent of the flag corps.
How did the Coast Guard land on a 25-percent reduction?
And what data and evidence did the Service use in
determining that it had too many admirals?
Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member Carbajal, the Secretary
signed out a memo directing the reduction this year by no less
than 25 percent of the flag corps, and in that memo, it also
specified that the five Coast Guard flag officers that were
assigned to combatant commands under the Department of Defense
remain intact and the Office of Chief Prosecutor also remain
intact.
And so, we are looking to develop the plan. The full plan,
as I said, was part of the Force Design 2028 implementation
plan, and we look forward to briefing you on that plan.
But that is the information I have now.
Mr. Carbajal. Were you consulted on the 25-percent
reduction?
Admiral Lunday. The Secretary's direction for 25 percent
was provided, and then it was up to me to determine this year,
given the movements of flag officers and the importance of
maintaining leadership continuity and continuity of command of
flag positions, that I make decisions, and those were the ones
you saw reflected on the 25th of July in the release of the
flag assignment message.
Mr. Carbajal. Admiral, I am going to challenge your loyalty
talent. Were you consulted in reaching the 25-percent
reduction?
If you could, just answer yes or no.
Admiral Lunday. Yes. I was part of discussions with
departmental leadership before the Secretary signed that memo,
yes, sir.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mast for his 5 minutes of
questioning or additional time if you need it, sir.
Mr. Mast. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Admiral, congratulations, absolutely. That will be
monumental, monumental to be able to take the reins, and so, I
congratulate you on that.
I want to talk a little bit about the Coast Guard's
operations in the State of Florida, probably no surprise. I am
a Representative of the State of Florida.
I have seen a number of different attempts to enter our
waters and then ultimately make their way to shore, individuals
coming from Haiti, individuals coming from the Bahamas,
oftentimes to their own deaths as they capsize their vessels,
things like that, miles and miles offshore.
But I just wanted to walk through that a little bit and
have some conversation about your layer, where that layers with
the State law enforcement, with local law enforcement, how
everything is working together.
Are there technologies that we need to bring to bear?
Are there threats that you are seeing?
Just today, the news has been paying attention to the drone
strike that Ukraine conducted against Russia 1,000 miles
inland. But what are you doing to deal with threats as it
relates to drones powered by AI to identify specific vessels or
individuals in uniforms, things like that?
I just want to have a conversation about these things and
see where you land on the vulnerabilities and what we are doing
about them.
Admiral Lunday. Well, Congressman, on the southern border
where the President has declared a national emergency, in the
Coast Guard, we view that as a system. So most people think, of
course, of the southwest border, including the maritime
portions, but for us that is also the southeast maritime border
approaching the State of Florida and also our Territories in
the Caribbean, from threats of migration, illegal migration,
from Haiti and Cuba and the Bahamas, as you said, as well as
movement of drugs and other threats.
And so, that is just as high a priority and part of what we
view as our response to that Presidential national emergency.
As you know, sir, that is under the leadership and command
of Admiral Doug Schofield in the Seventh District, along with
Admiral Nate Moore in the Atlantic Area. And so, that remains a
high priority.
In terms of the collaboration with other Federal agencies
and the State and local, it is probably the gold standard of
cooperation that I have seen across the Coast Guard. We work
hand in hand with Federal, State, and local and county law
enforcement to address the range of threats that are
approaching by sea, and we do that successfully.
Sir, you asked about the concerns about countering UAS or
UAS threat, and we are also concerned about that. We have a
mobile deployable capability in our maritime security response
teams, one on the west and the east coast, and we have two
fixed systems, one installed on a Fast Response Cutter in New
England, the other in southern California to address counter-
UAS threats.
But that is not enough capacity. My concern is we have got
to scale and we have got to scale fast to address the kind of
evolving dynamic threat that we have seen, that was reflected,
as you said, sir, in the dynamic strike that we have seen news
reports of from Ukraine into Russia.
Mr. Mast. Very good. As you look at that, I have gotten to
know a lot of my Coasties over the years. I live in Fort Pierce
with a small Coast Guard station in Fort Pierce there. They are
great individuals, and so, I just take that opportunity to
thank them for their service as my neighbors, friends and
neighbors that have worked there.
To move a little bit more specifically to some of those
threat profiles, what is the greater threat profile going on
right now, given, I don't want to say change in operations
since the change of Presidency, but the change in the way those
operations are being enforced?
You have the same core mission sets that you had then, but
new President, new way of operating. So, has the threat profile
changed in terms of individuals attempting to come across our
borders and the volume of people coming across our borders? Has
that volume changed?
Admiral Lunday. Well, in some ways it has changed,
Congressman. So, we have seen a drop in attempted illegal
maritime migration from Cuba and Haiti, but the conditions
inside those countries that would drive migration have not
changed.
So, our strong enforcement presence is keeping that
pressure for attempted movement of illegal migration into the
U.S., particularly south Florida, that's keeping that at bay.
Mr. Mast. It may change or not change with the threat
profile for drugs?
Admiral Lunday. We still are concerned about the movement
of drugs toward Florida and the rest of the southern border,
sir. There is record cocaine production in Central and South
America, and so, as we ratchet down pressure on certain parts
of the southern border, like the land portion, we expect to see
and have seen increased movement and pressure by those cartels
to try and move drugs and people by maritime means.
And so, that is why our increased presence off of
California and then off of Texas in the Gulf of America is so
critical to addressing and making sure that those cartels are
not successful in moving those threats along the maritime side.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Admiral. I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields.
You are not going to believe this, Admiral, but I have got
a couple more questions.
The Coast Guard plans to acquire larger cutters and
aircraft over the next decade, and the reconciliation bill
provides a substantial boost to those efforts.
However, despite repeated requests from this subcommittee,
we have yet to receive a detailed plan on where those new
assets will be based as well as a plan to build out the
required infrastructure needed to operate them.
These projects take years, and if you don't start now, you
will be running into a serious problem when these new assets
come online.
When the committee asked for a plan, we were provided with
a short document purportedly listing future home ports. For
reference, we have created a chart here with this information,
which can be seen on the screen.
[Slide shown.]
Does the Coast Guard have a long-term plan for the
shoreside capital investments needed to homeport new cutters
and aircraft that it plans to bring online for the next decade?
If so, can you commit to providing the committee with a
detailed schedule and cost projections for those projects?
Admiral Lunday. Mr. Chairman, we will provide a plan and
the home port to the degree we have that information
solidified.
On the chart you see here, I would note that there is a
notation ``not publicly announced.'' That's different than the
``to be determined.'' Now, public announcement, we may have a
very strong plan for a home port for particular cutters or
series of cutters, but it's not quite ready for public
announcement because we don't want to change those decisions
once they have been publicly revealed.
But I think what this also reflects, Mr. Chairman, is that
with the challenges we have had with funding year after year,
and oftentimes the money for homeporting, which is funded not
necessarily at the same pace as our cutters are that are going
to be homeported in those places where the shore infrastructure
needs to be built out, that we often are relying on unfunded
priority list and the support of Congress above the top line to
be able to fund those projects.
And so, it doesn't enable us to deliver with confidence
because we don't have that funding what the projected home
ports are going to be because we haven't had the confidence to
make those decisions in a way that fills out the chart the way
that you would want to.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
The environmental compliance project backlog impact
statement contained in the fiscal year 2026 budget represents
$163 million in environmental cleanup costs, significantly
underestimating the Service's liabilities.
Is the Coast Guard considering the significant
environmental remediation efforts and associated costs that
will go along with these projects when preparing for project
budgets?
Admiral Lunday. Mr. Chairman, the environmental remediation
costs are present in every part of the life cycle from planning
to maintenance and sustainment to disposition, and so, they are
always a significant part or cost that is involved in the
process of managing the shore infrastructure.
So, for new shore infrastructure or recapitalization, some
of the support that the committee has provided and Congress for
survey and design is critically important to enabling us to
adequately assess and identify what those environmental
remediation costs are so that we can include them in the
requests so that when those requests come to you they are more
mature, and we have higher confidence in them, and we won't
have to come back for more additional funding.
Mr. Ezell. Final question. Reconciliation provides $4.3
billion for polar security vessels and nearly $5 billion for
Arctic Security Cutters and domestic icebreakers.
Without these investments, will the Coast Guard be able to
maintain a presence in the Arctic, protect American
sovereignty, and guard our national interests?
Admiral Lunday. Mr. Chairman, the polar icebreaker program
is our highest acquisition priority. The Nation needs those
icebreakers to not only control, secure, and defend our border
around Alaska, but to ensure U.S. sovereignty throughout the
increasingly navigable Arctic Ocean.
But it requires that icebreaker capability, and so, they
are essential to national security and preserving our national
security.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal?
Mr. Carbajal. I don't have any other additional questions,
Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields back.
If there are no further questions from any members of the
subcommittee who have not been recognized and would like to say
anything?
Seeing none, that concludes the hearing for today. I would
like to thank you, and I thank you all for being here today,
for our witness and your testimony.
The subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Questions to Admiral Kevin E. Lunday, Acting Commandant, U.S. Coast
Guard, from Hon. Mike Ezell
Question 1. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 President's Budget requests
$164 million to acquire four MH-60 helicopters and fund ongoing SLEP
projects.
Question 1.a. Of the 164 million, how much will be spent on MH-60
acquisitions, and how much will be spent on fleet sustainment? Does the
United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard or Service) intend to procure
used MH-60's from the Navy, and if so, how many hours would they have?
Answer. The $164 million in the Fiscal Year 2026 President Budget
is solely for Procurement, Construction, and Improvement investments of
the H-60 Acquisition/Sustainment Program to support on-going and
baselined activities for the H-60 SLEP (approximately $36 million) and
H-60 Fleet Growth (approximately $128 million) increments of the
acquisition program. This funding will support continued conversion of
retired Navy HH-60H or SH-60F hulls already in possession of the Coast
Guard. The Service does not intend to procure any additional U.S. Navy
H-60 hulls with these funds.
Question 1.b. What alternative options exist for acquiring used MH-
60 hulls that would be more long-term cost effective and could perform
the Coast Guard's missions to the same level as the MH-60 platform?
Answer. There are no current or expected alternative options for
acquiring additional retired/used H-60s hulls for conversion to the
Coast Guard MH-60T. The Coast Guard is currently exploring other
alternatives, including options that would leverage the private sector
to produce new rotary wing aircraft for Coast Guard operations. That
market research is ongoing, and the Service would be pleased to brief
you when there is more information available. In addition, the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 provides $2.283 billion to expand the Coast
Guard's rotary-wing fleet by up to 40 aircraft.
Question 2. In April 2024, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) published a study that found that the Coast Guard needed to
conduct a fleet mix analysis to help ensure it identifies the necessary
number of helicopters it requires to meet its mission demands.
Additionally, the Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022
directs the Coast Guard to develop a comprehensive aviation strategy
that is informed by the recommendations of the GAO's study. As of this
hearing, the Coast Guard has yet to conduct a fleet mix analysis or
develop an aviation strategy.
Without a fleet mix analysis or comprehensive aviation
modernization strategy, how can the Coast Guard ensure that its
aircraft can continue to perform its unique mission set into the
future?
Answer. The Coast Guard appreciates the Government Accountability
Office's report and is working to incorporate their recommendations,
including the fleet mix analysis, to better inform future decisions.
The Coast Guard's Aviation Strategy was briefed to Congress in May of
2025.
Question 3. Currently, the majority of the Coast Guard's rotary-
wing fleet consists of the MH-65 short range recovery helicopter, which
are now out of production. As many of these aircraft approach their
30,000 hour service life, spare parts have become increasingly scarce.
In March, the Coast Guard published a request for information (RFI) on
industry options for leased helicopters to perform the function of the
MH-65 Dolphins, presumably to alleviate the increasing pressure to find
an MH-65 replacement.
Question 3.a. What is the status within the Coast Guard of this
lease proposal?
Question 3.b. What is the Coast Guard's plan for this fleet of
leased helicopters? Where would they be based?
Question 3.c. For how long would a potential lease last? Depending
on the length of a lease, can you explain the benefit of considering
procurement of a short-range helicopter to ensure current and future
mission coverage, complementary capabilities of two different rotary-
wing ranges and functions, and reduce the risk of lack of assets in
case of a fleet-wide grounding, as has happened with other military
services?
Question 3.d. From which budget or account will the funding for
this potential lease come?
Answer to 3.a., 3.b., 3.c., & 3.d. A request for information for a
leased rotary wing asset concluded on March 21, 2025. The Coast Guard
is evaluating the responses to inform possible future actions.
Question 4. The Coast Guard has stated its rotary-wing plan is to
phase out the standard shipboard-deployable, short range recovery
helicopter in favor of an all medium-range recovery helicopter fleet
transition to an all-MH-60 fleet.
Question 4.a. If the Coast Guard transitions to an all MH-60 fleet
with fewer total helicopters, would the same number of air stations be
required? Does the Coast Guard plan to close air stations as part of
the transition to an all MH-60 fleet? Will the transition to an all-MH-
60 fleet reduce the number of helicopters available to conduct search
and rescue missions at each air station?
Answer. Due to the increased range, endurance, and capability of
the MH-60, the Coast Guard expects to need a fleet of at least 127 MH-
60s. The Service is focused on first transitioning coastal search and
rescue units that require minimal infrastructure modifications and is
still assessing the final asset laydown and fleet size needed.
Question 4.b. If the Coast Guard closes any Air Stations or Air
Sub-Facilities, could the Service provide the exact same level of
response and capability to the areas and communities the Coast Guard
currently serves?
Answer. Any potential changes to asset laydown will incorporate
robust planning and evaluate mitigating factors to ensure the Coast
Guard continues to provide the capability the American public deserves
and expects.
Question 4.c. Assuming the Coast Guard continues with the
transition to an all MH-60 fleet, can every current Air Station and Air
Sub-Facility support the increased size and personnel needs of the H-60
helicopter?
Answer. Air station facilities may require some level of
modification to support the MH-60 helicopter and additional personnel.
The Service is focused on first transitioning MH-65E air stations that
require minor facility modifications while conducting an analysis of
facilities that may require more extensive modifications.
Question 4.d. Does the Coast Guard have funding to increase the
hanger size, personnel housing, and other infrastructure needs to
accommodate an all MH-60 fleet?
Answer. As the Coast Guard prepares to transition air stations that
require more extensive facility modifications, the Service will
incorporate the necessary funding through the annual appropriation
process.
Question 4.e. Is it true that to fit the MH-60s inside the current
hangers on Coast Guard cutters, the helicopters must be modified to
have folding tails?
Question 4.e.i. If so, how often does the tail-fold mechanism fail?
Answer to 4.e. & 4.e.i. Yes, the Coast Guard is re-installing
blade-fold/tail-fold capability on the MH-60 fleet so they can be
hangered on the Service's newest cutter classes, including the National
Security Cutter, Offshore Patrol Cutter, and Polar Security Cutter. The
tail-fold mechanism is manually operated as part of a standard
maintenance procedure and is not expected to have a high failure rate.
Question 4.f. Can the MH-60 operate on all helicopter-capable Coast
Guard cutters? Given the much greater size of the MH-60T in comparison
to the existing cutter-based H-65s, is there an increase in risk
factors, particularly at night and in inclement weather, when
conducting shipboard landings?
Answer. All shipboard helicopter operations carry inherent risks,
but the MH-60 can safely operate onboard the National Security Cutters,
Famous B Class (270 foot) cutters, and is planned to operate onboard
the future Offshore Patrol Cutters and Polar Security Cutters in
various weather conditions.
Question 4.g. What is the increased number of personnel required to
maintain MH-60s vs the H-65s? Does the Coast Guard have the required
personnel and funding to sustain the additional Coast Guard members and
housing for their families?
Answer. The MH-65 requires 10 maintenance personnel per airframe
while the MH-60 requires at least 16 enlisted maintenance personnel per
airframe. As the Coast Guard grows the MH-60 fleet, the Service will
request the necessary funding and personnel to support and operate the
assets.
Question 5. Earlier this year in March, the Coast Guard issued a
Request for Information (RFI) to seek statements from vendors able to
lease and maintain helicopters capable of performing missions currently
conducted using the Coast Guard MH-65 platform. It is my understanding
the Coast Guard will use the results of this RFI, along with other
market research, to assess the feasibility and desirability of
potential contracting strategies.
Question 5.a. Can you please provide more background explaining why
the Coast Guard issued this RFI?
Answer. The MH-65 is beyond service life and in need of
replacement. The Coast Guard does not have an adequate parts supply
chain to sustain the MH-65 fleet and the MH-65 fleet is currently
operating at our lowest readiness rate in its history. The Request for
Information was released to conduct market research on potential assets
that may be able to support Search and Rescue, Rotary Wing Air
Intercept or Airborne Use of Force operations.
Question 5.b. Does the Coast Guard anticipate a need for additional
rotor-wing aircraft in the near future due to retirements from the
current fleet or from an increase of aircraft needed to perform the
Service's missions? Please detail the Coast Guard's reasoning behind
this RFI.
Answer. The RFI was market research to understand what potential
material solutions exist to better inform future decisions. The Coast
Guard does anticipate a need for additional rotor-wing aircraft due to
the end of life of the MH-65.
Question 6. As the Coast Guard continues its acquisition process,
can you provide the Committee with a commitment from you that the
Service will work with Congress on creative solutions that will
maximize our taxpayers' dollars in acquiring the equipment needed to
perform Coast Guard missions?
Answer. Yes.
Questions to Admiral Kevin E. Lunday, Acting Commandant, U.S. Coast
Guard, from Hon. Marilyn Strickland
Question 1. Admiral Lunday, in January 2025, you announced a
revision of reporting guidelines for the prevention and resolution of
harassment in the Coast Guard workplace.
Question 1.a. Could you talk about what the new guidelines consist
of?
Question 1.b. How do they differ from the previous guidelines?
Question 1.c. What was the motivation for the change?
Question 1.d. Since the new guidelines went into effect, do you
have data on workplace harassment problems resolved in the chain of
command, or EEOC complaints filed since the new guidelines went into
effect?
Answer to 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., & 1.d. On January 27, 2025, the Coast
Guard paused significant portions of Harassing Behavior Prevention,
Response, and Accountability, Commandant Instruction 5350.6, to enable
a comprehensive review of policy and procedures, and ensure they best
serve the needs of the workforce, our leaders, and the Coast Guard.
This review has been extended, and it is ongoing.
Coast Guard members and employees may still report harassment or
any other misconduct to their chain of command or supervision. Under
the interim accountability policy, reports of sexual harassment and
hate incidents continue to be handled in accordance with the procedures
and requirements in Commandant Instruction 5350.6. All other reports of
harassing behavior are being resolved in a timely manner by leaders at
the lowest appropriate level. Additionally, both civilian and military
members may still report discriminatory harassment to the Civil Rights
Division through the Equal Employment Opportunity or Military Equal
Opportunity programs.
The Coast Guard is collecting data on the processing and resolution
of harassment under the interim accountability policy and will continue
to maintain records for complaints resolved through the Equal
Employment Opportunity and Military Equal Opportunity programs.
Questions to Admiral Kevin E. Lunday, Acting Commandant, U.S. Coast
Guard, from Hon. Hillary J. Scholten
Question 1. Stakeholders across my district and the larger Midwest
region are leading an effort to create a consortium of shipyards,
suppliers, and manufacturers in the Great Lakes region to actualize
recent recommitments to boost the Coast Guard's capabilities. To that
end, I encourage the Coast Guard to leverage the incredible talent and
innovation throughout our region. Can you touch on how Congress can
encourage the private and public sectors to collaborate to make up for
decades of underinvestment in the Coast Guard?
Answer. Demand for Coast Guard capabilities has never been higher,
and the Service needs the right assets, systems, and infrastructure to
support mission execution properly. The Coast Guard requires a strong
maritime industrial base, including a robust and skilled maritime
workforce to meet our shipbuilding, maintenance, and repair needs, and
is engaged with the Navy and other federal partners to support
investments in the maritime industrial base that enhance readiness and
support national security. The Coast Guard also recognizes that
comprehensive industry outreach and engagement on the Service's
specific needs translates into better outcomes. The Coast Guard
appreciates Congressional efforts to strengthen domestic capacity and
capability across the maritime sector, including initiatives to address
supply chain disruptions and shortfalls. The Service currently has
several requests for information and proposals posted for major
shipbuilding efforts and looks forward to receiving competitive bids.
The Coast Guard will also continue to work with our federal partners to
identify additional opportunities to strengthen the maritime industrial
base.
Question 2. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that the Coast
Guard is duplicating the work of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) in standing up its own reporting and investigating
structure for harassment in the maritime workplace. As you know, EEOC
is charged by Congress with investigating complaints of harassment in
the workplace and ensuring that employers maintain a zero-tolerance
environment. Recreating this function at the Coast Guard could be
counterproductive to the timely resolution of incidents and taking
action against offenders.
Question 2.a. What definition or standard of harassment is the
Coast Guard using to guide its work? If it varies from EEOC's
definitions, standards, and guidelines, please explain why.
Answer. The Coast Guard investigates a wide range of mariner
misconduct, including harassment cases (e.g., bullying, hazing).
Generally, Coast Guard harassment investigations address incidents that
violate company harassment policy and definitions. Harassment
investigations differ between the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the Coast Guard in several significant ways, as
enumerated in the below table.
Harassment: EEOC vs. USCG Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG Personnel
EEOC Investigations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose: Prevent and remedy unlawful Purpose: Suspension and
discrimination in the workplace. revocation (S&R)
proceedings to promote
safety at sea. (46 USC 77).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability: Employers with 15 or more Applicability: Individuals
persons employed (20 or more for age holding a valid Merchant
discrimination). The EEOC is a charge- Mariner Credential.
driven agency, meaning under most
circumstances, the EEOC initiates an
investigation because an individual
voluntarily filed a charge of
discrimination with the EEOC. By law, the
EEOC must keep charge information
confidential and will not disclose
information related to a charge to the
public.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis: The EEO laws protect individuals Basis: The USCG can
from discrimination because of race, investigate any act of
color, religion, sex, national origin, mariner misconduct under 46
age (40 or older), disability, or genetic CFR 5.27.
information, including harassment that
creates a hostile work environment. The
laws also protect individuals from
retaliation if they oppose employment
discrimination, file a complaint of
discrimination, or participate in the EEO
complaint process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Timeline: Individuals must file Reporting Timeline: Upon
a charge with the EEOC within 180 days of knowledge of an incident,
the alleged discrimination. Except for the responsible entity
age discrimination claims, the time frame (i.e., owner, master,
is extended to 300 days if the alleged employer) must report to
discrimination occurred in a jurisdiction the USCG. The responsible
with a state or local agency authorized entity then has 10 days to
to grant or seek relief. For age provide a company after-
discrimination claims, the time frame is action summary to the Coast
extended to 300 days only if there is a Guard for sexual harassment
state (not local) agency with authority cases. (46 USC 10104)
to grant or seek relief. However, there is no set
statute of limitation for
individual mariner
reporting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action by EEOC: Possible action includes Final Action by Agency:
mediation, investigation, and/or Administrative action, such
determination as to whether there is as S&R, taken against the
reasonable cause to believe that mariner's credential.
discrimination has occurred. When
reasonable cause is found, the EEOC will
try to resolve the charge through
conciliation, a voluntary process in
which parties must agree to the
resolution. If the EEOC cannot reach a
settlement, the case will be referred to
EEOC's legal staff (or the Department of
Justice in certain cases), who will
decide whether to file a lawsuit. If the
EEOC does not decide to file a lawsuit,
or if the EEOC does not make a finding of
reasonable cause, the EEOC will issue the
charging party a Notice of Right to Sue
allowing them to file their claims on
their own in court within 90 days of
receipt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Takeaway:
The USCG has broader authority for investigation of an individual
mariner's conduct, including harassment, but serves a complementary
function to the EEOC's narrower focus on employer-based discrimination.
While the processes are complementary, there may be overlap, and
therefore, employees may report harassment to the EEOC, regardless of
whether the alleged discriminatory action falls under the scope of the
USCG's reporting requirements..
Many small passenger vessel operators employ fewer than 15 individuals,
which places them outside the jurisdiction of the EEOC and limits
potential remedies under that process. In contrast, the Coast Guard's
procedures apply to all credentialed mariners, regardless of the size
of their employer. Furthermore, the resolution mechanisms differ
significantly: the EEOC focuses on employer accountability through
informal resolution efforts and civil litigation, while USCG's S&R
centers on credentialing actions against individual mariners..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2.b. In terms of budget and staffing, can you tell us how
many resources are being allocated for harassment reporting?
Answer. The Coast Guard has approximately 180 active-duty Marine
Investigators trained to conduct investigations into merchant mariner
misconduct, including incidents of harassment.
Questions to Admiral Kevin E. Lunday, Acting Commandant, U.S. Coast
Guard, from Hon. John Garamendi
Question 1. Admiral Lunday, what lessons has the Coast Guard
learned from the delays and cost-overruns of the Polar Security Cutter
program? How will these lessons be applied to the Arctic Security
Cutter program?
Question 1.a. What specific changes are being made to ensure the
timely and cost-efficient acquisition of the icebreakers the Coast
Guard needs for their vital mission?
Answer to 1 & 1.a. The Polar Security Cutter encountered challenges
typical of a first-of-class program. The program incorporated lessons
observed in similar programs and feedback from operators and
maintainers to acquire a ship that best meets mission requirements on
schedule and within budget. Specifically, the Polar Security Cutter
program made changes to contract strategies, design and production
strategies, and changed management processes to incorporate these
lessons learned. These lessons will be applied at the start of the
Arctic Security Cutter program and integrated through the acquisition,
as applicable.
Question 1.b. Will greater accountability be incorporated into the
acquisition program? If yes, how specifically will accountability be
built into the program?
Answer. Yes. The Polar Security Cutter program leverages multiple
accountability measures via a Fixed-Price-Incentive contract structure,
the use of incentives, and the Contractor Performance Assessment
Reporting System. The Coast Guard will consider these greater
accountability measures when starting the Arctic Security Cutter
program.
Question 2. The Government Accountability Office recommended the
Coast Guard ``complete an analysis of the cost and sequencing for the
polar icebreaker fleet expansion, including how these efforts are
affordable within its larger acquisition portfolio.'' Can you talk
about the Coast Guard's progress on this recommendation?
Answer. The joint Coast Guard and Navy Integrated Program Office
analyzed the cost of the Polar Security Cutter, including sequencing
considerations. The Government's assessment of cost was used to assess
the shipbuilder's proposal to reestablish baseline as fair, reasonable
and affordable.
The Service also considered cost in the context of the broader
future polar fleet, to inform budget requests. The Coast Guard is
working to update its Polar Fleet Mix Analysis to reflect the
Administration's priorities in light of the appropriations in the One
Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025.
Question 3. Admiral Lunday, how might broader investments in U.S.
maritime infrastructure benefit the Coast Guard? As we work to
strengthen our maritime industrial base, what changes might have the
most positive impact on the Coast Guard?
Answer. Demand for Coast Guard capabilities has never been higher,
and the Service needs the right assets, systems, and infrastructure to
support mission execution. With the strong support of the
Administration and Congress, the Service is investing in a
multibillion-dollar portfolio to acquire operational assets and shore
infrastructure to accomplish those missions. The Coast Guard relies on
a strong maritime industrial base, including a robust and skilled
maritime workforce, to meet our shipbuilding, maintenance, and repair
needs, and the Coast Guard is engaged with the Navy and other federal
partners to support investments in the maritime industrial base that
enhance readiness and support national security. Additional maritime
industrial base capacity and capability means more competitive
solutions for the Coast Guard to meet mission.
Questions to Admiral Kevin E. Lunday, Acting Commandant, U.S. Coast
Guard, from Hon. Laura Gillen
Question 1. Last year, under the Coast Guard's FY24 Force
Realignment Initiative, Coast Guard Station Jones Beach was one of 19
stations which the Coast Guard adjusted to a ``new operational
status,'' part of a broader reduction in presence and capabilities
devoted to Long Island, including the closure of the East Moriches
Station and the removal of an 87-foot Coast Guard Cutter from Montauk
and the region. Will the Coast Guard consider restoring station
capability at Station Jones Beach as part of the upcoming Force Design
2028?
Answer. The Coast Guard will continue to prioritize the safety of
Long Island boaters. As the Coast Guard recovers from an unprecedented
workforce shortage, and recruiting and retention continue to show
improvements, we will evaluate operational demands to determine the
best allocation of our workforce and resources.
Question 2. Coast Guard District One, which encompasses Long
Island, is considering a Buoy Modernization Proposal. Under this
initiative, the Coast Guard is proposing to discontinue and eliminate,
including two buoys and aids to navigation in the Fourth Congressional
District of New York--at the East Rockaway Inlet and Jones Inlet. Will
you commit to review this proposal and not replace or remove the
physical buoys at East Rockaway and Jones Inlet?
Answer. The Coast Guard commits to review this proposal. Any
decision to discontinue or make changes to buoys and/or aids to
navigation will be made after careful consideration during a review
process which includes public outreach and comment.
[all]