[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TAKING ACCOUNT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2025,
RECONCILIATION, AND FORCE DESIGN 2028
=======================================================================
(119-45)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 30, 2026
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILALE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64-383 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
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
John Garamendi, California Daniel Webster, Florida
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaomas Massie, Kentucky
Andre Carson, Indiana Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Dina Titus, Nevada Brian Babin, Texas
Jared Huffman, California David Rouzer, North Carolina
Julia Brownley, California Mike Bost, Illinois
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 Addison P. McDowell, North
Shomari Figures, Alabama Carolina
Maxwell Frost, Florida 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
Clay Fuller, Georgia
James Gallagher, California
------ 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 John Garamendi, California
Addison P. McDowell, North Laura Gillen, New York,
Carolina, Vice Ranking Member
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. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
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........... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
WITNESSES
Vice Admiral Douglas M. Schofield, Chief of Staff, U.S. Coast
Guard, oral statement.......................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Triana McNeil, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, oral statement............... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
APPENDIX
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Vice Admiral Douglas M.
Schofield, Chief of Staff, U.S. Coast Guard, from Hon. Salud O.
Carbajal....................................................... 41
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 26, 2026
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Taking Account:
Implementation of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025,
Reconciliation, and Force Design 2028''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet
on Tuesday, June 30, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 Rayburn
House Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing
entitled, ``Taking Account: Implementation of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2025, Reconciliation, and Force Design
2028.'' The Subcommittee will receive testimony from the United
States Coast Guard (Coast Guard or Service) and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO).
II. BACKGROUND
LEGISLATION IN THE 117TH CONGRESS
The Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 was
signed into law as part of the James M. Inhofe National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2023.\1\ It authorized funding
for Offshore Patrol Cutters, a still unrealized program;
incorporated aspects of the Safer Seas Act; supported increased
healthcare and efforts to improve the disability evaluation
system; and recognized strategic importance of Arctic and
Alaska as well as cyber infrastructure and unmanned maritime
systems.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
Year 2023, Pub. L. 117-263, Division K, 136 Stat. 3998.
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATION IN THE 119TH CONGRESS
During the 119th Congress, President Trump signed the One
Big Beautiful Bill Act and the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2025 into law. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into
law on July 4, 2025, and provides nearly $25 billion to
recapitalize the Coast Guard's shoreside, surface, and air
assets, an amount equal to nearly 15 years of the Coast Guard's
annual procurement funding.\3\ After years of underinvestment,
the Service is using this generational investment to address
its capability gaps. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025
was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2026, which was signed into law on December 18,
2025.\4\ The bill authorizes appropriations for the Coast Guard
through Fiscal Year 2027, and amends authorities related to the
Coast Guard, maritime transportation, and oil spill response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, Pub. L. 119-21, 139 Stat.
72.
\4\ National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, Pub.
L. 119-60, 139 Stat. 718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORCE DESIGN 2028
Force Design 2028 is the Coast Guard modernization plan,
designed to prepare the Service to meet future mission
needs.\5\ The plan focuses on four campaigns: Organization,
People, Technology, and Contracting and Acquisition. While the
focus areas remain unchanged, the plan has evolved over the
past year and a half since its inception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Coast Guard, Force Design 2028, available at https://
www.uscg.mil/Leadership/Commandants-Initiatives/ForceDesign2028/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT
To reverse the trend of underinvestment and position the
Coast Guard for success in the future, the One Big Beautiful
Bill Act provides the Coast Guard with $24.59 billion to
recapitalize its surface, air and shoreside assets.
representing nearly 15 years' worth of annual procurement
funding, the largest investment in the Service's history.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, Pub. L. No. 119-21, 129
Stat. 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the nearly $25 billion, $14.078 billion was provided to
recapitalize the Coast Guard cutter fleet. This includes $4.3
billion for Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs) and $1 billion for
Fast Response Cutters (FRCs). To support the Service's national
security efforts to project sovereignty in the Arctic, the
measure provides an additional $4.3 billion for the Polar
Security Cutter and $3.5 billion for Arctic Security
Cutters.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reconciliation measure also makes significant
investments in the Service's air assets. It provides $1.142
billion for fixed wing assets, $2.283 billion for rotary wing
assets, and $266 million for long-range unmanned aircraft
systems.\8\ The fixed wing funding supported the acquisition of
new HC-130J aircraft. Funding for rotary wing assets is
intended to support fleet growth of the MH-60T program.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
\9\ 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. The GAO estimates
that it will cost at least $7 billion to address the Service's
backlog of shoreside projects, with half of the Services'
facilities beyond their intended service life.\10\ The number
is likely higher, as the GAO's estimate does not include 234
projects for which the Coast Guard has not developed estimates.
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 prevent the backlog from growing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ GAO, GAO-25-107581, Coast Guard Shore Infrastructure: More
Than $7 Billion Reportedly Needed To Address Deteriorating Assets (Feb.
25, 2025).
\11\ 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 gaps, the reconciliation measure
appropriated $4.379 billion for the design and construction of
necessary shoreside facilities.\12\ This includes $2.729
billion for homeports for cutters and aircraft, and $425
million for the recapitalization of barracks and a multi-use
training center at the Coast Guard's enlisted bootcamp.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, Pub. L. No. 119-21, 129
Stat. 72; 14 USC 1181 (10)(c).
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reconciliation measure also includes $2.2 billion to
improve the Coast Guard's aviation, cutter and shore facility
depot maintenance; cyber; command and control facilities, and
another $500 million acquisition of a floating drydock and
necessary dredging at the Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore,
Maryland. This will equip the yard with the capability to
handle the Service's Offshore Patrol Cutters and National
Security Cutters.
As of February 2026, the Coast Guard has obligated $8
billion of the funds made available under the One Big Beautiful
Bill Act.\14\ The Service has the goal of obligating all
remaining funds by the end of the year. While the
reconciliation legislation provided limited waivers for
statutory acquisition planning requirements, the Coast Guard
has not yet provided long-term acquisition planning documents
to the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Coast Guard OBBB Spend Plan Briefing, (Feb. 2026) (on file
with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2022
The Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 was
enacted on December 23, 2022, as Division K of the James M.
Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.
The bill authorized appropriations for the Coast Guard for 2022
and 2023, and authorizes specific appropriations for a
childcare subsidy program, behavior health services, evaluation
of requirements of the Arctic Security Cutter, and an aqua
alert notification system pilot.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
Year 2023, Pub. L. 117-263, Division K, 136 Stat. 3998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND GROWTH
The Coast Guard Authorization Act (CGAA) of 2022 authorized
appropriations through Fiscal Year 2023.\16\ The bill
authorizes a level of funding that will enhance Coast Guard
operations and help the service replace and modernize its
cutters, and upgrade its shoreside and cyber infrastructure. It
also required acquisition life-cycle cost estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several provisions touched on geographic priorities
including testing of icebreaking efforts and evaluating the
needs in the Great Lakes. The bill also called for the creation
of a medium icebreaker office, evaluation of operations and
infrastructure, evaluation of transit through the Arctic,
evaluation of shipyards in Finland and Sweden and the
acquisition of a commercial icebreaker. While many of these
efforts were in their beginning stages at the time of the
bill's passage, they have now become fully realized.
The CGAA of 2022 also drew attention to the need to enhance
maritime cybersecurity and cyber data management, unmanned
systems, establishing an artificial intelligence strategy. It
also provided for numerous workforce related initiatives
including efforts to improve the physical disability evaluation
system, as well as childcare improvements and increases to the
behavioral health programs.
The CGAA of 2022 also provided for several aspects of
vessel safety including implementation of National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations, regulation
of DUKW amphibious passenger vessels, application of provisions
relating to historic wood sailing vessels, and specified the
watch manning requirements of articulated tug-barges. It also
mandated that the Coast Guard take steps toward an electronic
merchant mariner licensing and documentation system and
includes the Military to Mariners Act of 2022 to streamline how
sea hours and other credentials obtained in the military can be
carried over to commercial service. Several provisions
incorporated language from the Safer Seas Act to better respond
to sexual assault and sexual harassment in the commercial
maritime industry and to bar those convicted of either crime
from having a mariners license or certificate of register. It
also sought to understand the impact of alcohol consumption and
possession by crew engaged in commercial service, among many
other sections impacting commercial shipping.
V. COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2025
The CGAA of 2025 was included within the National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2026, which was signed into
law by President Trump on December 18, 2025.\17\ The bill
authorizes appropriations for the Coast Guard through Fiscal
Year 2027, and seeks to build on the Coast Guard's
modernization effort, import accountability measures to ensure
the Service is a responsive and good steward of taxpayer
dollars, and ensure the Service is equipped to meet its mission
needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, Pub.
L. 119-60, 139 Stat. 718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional background information on the Coast Guard's
implementation of CGAA of 2025 provisions is included in
Appendix A.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND GROWTH
The CGAA of 2025 authorizes appropriations for the
Operations and Support, and Procurement and Investment Accounts
through Fiscal Year 2027.\18\ These authorized funds are
sufficient to begin ramping up the Coast Guard's work force to
maintain and crew assets being purchased with reconciliation
funds, as well as to hire a sufficient maritime safety
workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill authorizes 50,000 active-duty personnel for the
Coast Guard for Fiscal Year 2026 and 55,000 for Fiscal Year
2027 following a demonstration that the Administration's Budget
supports that strength level. While the Fiscal Year 2027 House
Appropriations mark included a growth in the Service's
operations account to support a workforce expansion, the levels
for the Coast Guard's Procurement, Investment and Construction
account were below authorized levels, raising concerns about
the long-term sustainability of expanding the Service.
The bill further imposes accountability requirements on the
Coast Guard, specifically relating to homeporting and
acquisition planning. In the past, surface acquisition projects
have been delayed and over budget. In just the last twelve
months, the Coast Guard has canceled contracts for one National
Security Cutter and two Offshore Patrol Cutters.\19\ The CGAA
of 2025's accountability requirements aim to improve the Coast
Guard's execution of its acquisition projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, Secretary Noem
Protects American Taxpayers Against Wasteful Contracts While
Revolutionizing Coast Guard for the 21st Century, (July 11, 2025),
available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/07/11/secretary-noem-
protects-american-taxpayers-against-wasteful-contracts-while.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE OF AUTHORITIES
The CGAA of 2025 updates the Service's authorities and
provides structural changes to the administration of the Coast
Guard, including the rolls and functions of flag officers.
While the Coast Guard has updated its organizational roles and
leadership, it is unclear how those changes reflect
requirements within the CGAA of 2025.
The measure also updates acquisition authorities, including
providing additional authority to select shipbuilders with
demonstrated experience rather than relying on the lowest bid.
SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION LAWS
The bill updates authorities related to shipping and
navigation laws, including those for the inspection of certain
vessels and authorities related to unmanned systems. The
Subcommittee needs clarity on the Coast Guard's plan to bring
unmanned assets online, as well as how civilian autonomous
assets will ultimately be regulated. Additionally, the bill
contains provisions to boost the pool of qualified United
States mariners by reducing bureaucratic delays and barriers to
Americans seeking a seagoing career.
RESPONSE TO OPERATION FOULED ANCHOR
Operation Fouled Anchor was a Coast Guard investigation
initiated in 2014 that revealed incidents of rape, assault, and
other misconduct at the Coast Guard Academy (Academy) occurring
from 1990 until 2006.\20\ The report uncovered a repeated
pattern of mishandling cases and failure to hold perpetrators
accountable, in part driven by efforts to protect the
reputation of the Academy.\21\ Furthermore, the Committee's
investigation revealed broken processes that failed to properly
track decision making with regards to prosecutorial decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ U.S. Coast Guard, ``Fouled Anchor'' Investigation--Final
Report (Jan. 31, 2020), available at https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/
documents/FOULED_ANCHOR_
INVESTIGATION_FINAL_REPORT_AND_ENCLOSURE-508Compliant.pdf.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the Committee's demonstrated interest in curbing
sexual assault and sexual harassment, the Coast Guard chose to
withhold the report from Congress. Even worse, the decision to
bury the report resulted in a failure to implement the
recommendations from Operation Fouled Anchor. The bill provides
additional authorities to the Coast Guard to protect its
servicemembers, aligns Coast Guard practices with the practices
of other military services, and mandates additional
transparency and accountability as the actions are implemented.
VI. FORCE DESIGN 2028
Force Design 2028 is the Coast Guard's modernization effort
to prepare the Service to meet the Nation's future needs. On
May 21, 2025, then-Secretary Noem provided an Executive Report
on Force Design 2028, which outlined the key pillars of the
plan: \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ U.S. Coast Guard: Force Design 2028 Executive Report (2026),
available at https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/27/2003724531/-1/-1/0/
REPORT%20-%20FD28%20EXECUTIVE
%20REPORT%20_1166_V14.PDF.
1) LService Secretary. Establishing a Coast Guard Service
Secretary who 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) LOrganization. Agency reorganization that serves to
streamline processes, eliminate redundancies, and empower
decision making at all levels. In particular, this includes
creating Program Executive Offices to consolidate acquisition
and sustainment for key fields, establishing a Deployable
Specialized Force command to ensure integration and readiness,
and to strengthen the Coast Guard Cyber Command.
3) LPeople. Investing in people, including modernizing the
workforce and the systems that manage personnel, revitalizing
the Reserves, and investing in the Officer Corps. This includes
maximizing accession points and looking at new locations to
increase training and accessions.
4) LTechnology. Investing in technology to improve maritime
surveillance, replacing antiquated technology merchant mariners
rely on, and improving the Service's logistics and human
resources.
5) LContracting and Acquisition. Improve and streamline
acquisition processes to improve efficiency and accountability.
To date, the Coast Guard has undertaken several actions to
begin implementation of the plan. This includes growing the
workforce by over 1,100 positions, realigning 68 percent of
positions across Coast Guard headquarters, including re-
establishing the position of a Chief of Staff, and the
realignment of the top acquisition positions.\23\ The Service
has also revised the physical fitness assessment, and provided
local Commanders with increased discretion to maintain good
order and discipline. The plan also calls for investments in
housing and quality of life issues for servicemembers. In an
effort to grow the Service, the Coast Guard also purchased an
additional training center in Montgomery, Alabama, with the
intent of shuffling certain training out of other facilities to
free up spaces and to consolidate certain levels of training in
Alabama.\24\ These lines of effort will require additional
funding beyond reconciliation, especially, aspirations to grow
the Service by an additional 10,000-15,000 service members.
This will necessitate substantial growth in annual operational
budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Service is leveraging reconciliation investments to
enhance capabilities through new cutters and aircraft. Force
Design 2028 compliments this effort through acquisition
reforms, along with a greater reliance on commercial off-the-
shelf technology, the establishment of a robotics and
autonomous systems office, and the creation of a special
operations command.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. WITNESSES
LVice Admiral Douglas Schofield, Chief of Staff,
United States Coast Guard
LTriana McNeil, Director, Homeland Security and
Justice Programs, Government Accountability Office
Appendix A:
Status of Implementation of Provisions of the Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due Date Completed Section Section Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/17/2026................... 1/28/2026 7201 TJAG/DJAG
IMPLEMENTATION
1/17/2026................... ............ 7247 STUDY ON COAST
GUARD ACADEMY
OVERSIGHT
1/17/2026................... ............ 7248 SUPERINTENDENT
TO ENSURE
ELECTRONIC
LOCK SYSTEMS
ARE WORKING
1/17/2026................... ............ 7273 RESPONSIBLE
PROPERTY
OWNERSHIP AND
TRACKING
1/17/2026................... ............ 7333 NOAA MEMBERSHIP
ON AUTONOMOUS
VESSEL POLICY
COUNCIL
2/16/2026................... ............ 7252(a)(1) REVIEW AND
MODIFICATION
OF COAST GUARD
ACADEMY POLICY
ON SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND
SEXUAL
VIOLENCE:
COMMENCE
REVIEW
2/16/2026................... ............ 7337 NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES
REPORT ON
UNCREWED
SYSTEMS AND
USE OF DATA
2/16/2026................... ............ 7348 OFFSHORE
OPERATIONS--OI
L FUEL TANK
PROTECTION
2/16/2026................... ............ 7348 OFFSHORE
OPERATIONS--OU
TER
CONTINENTAL
SHELF
ACTIVITIES
2/16/2026................... ............ 7524 PARTICIPATION
IN CATCH A
SERIAL
OFFENDER
PROGRAM
2/16/2026................... ............ 7527(b) COAST GUARD AND
COAST GUARD
ACADEMY ACCESS
TO DEFENSE
SEXUAL ASSAULT
INCIDENT
DATABASE:
Submit Plan
3/18/2026................... 4/20/2026 7268 REPORT ON AND
EXPANSION OF
COAST GUARD
JUNIOR RESERVE
OFFICERS'
TRAINING CORPS
PROGRAM
3/18/2026................... ............ 7275 PARENTAL LEAVE
SURGE STAFFING
PROGRAM
3/18/2026................... ............ 7278 TEMPORARY
INSTALLATION
OF RESTROOM
FACILITIES FOR
TRAINING
CENTER CAPE
MAY MEDICAL
FACILITY
3/18/2026................... ............ 7321(a) PORTS AND
WATERWAYS
SAFETY
3/18/2026................... ............ 7511 SAFE TO REPORT
POLICY FOR THE
COAST GUARD
3/18/2026................... ............ 7511 ACCOUNTABILITY
AND
TRANSPARENCY
RELATING TO
ALLEGATIONS OF
MISCONDUCT
AGAINST SENIOR
LEADERS
3/18/2026................... ............ 7511 REPORT ON
INCIDENTS OF
COVERED
MISCONDUCT
3/18/2026................... 2/2026 7116 OVERSIGHT OF
FUNDS
4/17/2026................... ............ 7233 TUITION
ASSISTANCE AND
ADVANCED
EDUCATION
ASSISTANCE
PILOT PROGRAM
4/17/2026................... ............ 7513 FLAG OFFICER
REVIEW OF, AND
CONCURRENCE
IN, SEPARATION
OF MEMBERS WHO
HAVE REPORTED
COVERED
MISCONDUCT
6/16/2026................... ............ 7111 INITIAL
HOMEPORTING
PROGRESS
REPORT
6/16/2026................... ............ 7118 ANNUAL PLAN FOR
COAST GUARD
OPERATIONS IN
THE PACIFIC;
FEASIBILITY
STUDY ON
SUPPORTING
ADDITIONAL
PORT VISITS
AND
DEPLOYMENTS IN
SUPPORT OF
OPERATION BLUE
PACIFIC
6/16/2026................... ............ 7224(b) MODIFICATIONS
AND REVISIONS
RELATING TO
REOPENING
RETIRED GRADE
DETERMINATIONS
: ISSUANCE AND
REVISION OF
REGULATIONS
RELATING TO
GOOD CAUSE TO
REOPEN RETIRED
GRADE
DETERMINATIONS
6/16/2026................... ............ 7224(c) MODIFICATIONS
AND REVISIONS
RELATING TO
REOPENING
RETIRED GRADE
DETERMINATIONS
: REVISION OF
LIMITATIONS ON
REOPENING
RETIRED GRADE
DETERMINATIONS
6/16/2026................... ............ 7231(b) BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH:
Behavioral
Health
Specialist (5)
6/16/2026................... ............ 7231(b)(4) BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH--notice
if has not
completed
hiring,
training,
deploying
6/16/2026................... ............ 7252(a)(2) REVIEW AND
MODIFICATION
OF COAST GUARD
ACADEMY POLICY
ON SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND
SEXUAL
VIOLENCE:
Complete
6/16/2026................... ............ 7263 PLAN FOR JOINT
AND INTEGRATED
MARITIME
OPERATIONAL
AND LEADERSHIP
TRAINING FOR
UNITED STATES
COAST GUARD
AND TAIWAN
COAST GUARD
ADMINISTRATION
6/16/2026................... ............ 7264 AIDS TO
NAVIGATION
6/16/2026................... ............ 7265 STUDY AND GAP
ANALYSIS WITH
RESPECT TO
COAST GUARD
AIR STATION
CORPUS CHRISTI
AVIATION
HANGER
6/16/2026................... ............ 7266 REPORT ON
IMPACTS OF
JOINT TRAVEL
REGULATIONS ON
MEMBERS OF
COAST GUARD
WHO RELY ON
FERRY SYSTEMS
6/16/2026................... ............ 7274 STUDY ON
EFFECTS OF
OCEANOGRAPHIC,
WEATHER, AND
COASTAL
CONDITIONS ON
COAST GUARD
MISSIONS
6/16/2026................... ............ 7336 MEDIUM UNMANNED
AIRCRAFT
SYSTEMS
CAPABILITIES
STUDY
6/16/2026................... ............ 7407 INTERNATIONAL
MARITIME OIL
SPILL RESPONSE
6/16/2026................... ............ 7502 COAST GUARD
IMPLEMENTATION
OF INDEPENDENT
REVIEW
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
S ON
ADDRESSING
SEXUAL ASSAULT
AND SEXUAL
HARASSMENT IN
THE MILITARY
6/16/2026................... ............ 7512 POLICY RELATING
TO CARE AND
SUPPORT OF
VICTIMS OF
COVERED
MISCONDUCT
6/16/2026................... ............ 7514 POLICY AND
PROGRAM TO
EXPAND
PREVENTION OF
SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT
6/16/2026................... ............ 7522 DEVELOPMENT OF
POLICIES ON
MILITARY
PROTECTIVE
ORDERS.
6/16/2026................... ............ 7527(a) COAST GUARD AND
COAST GUARD
ACADEMY ACCESS
TO DEFENSE
SEXUAL ASSAULT
INCIDENT
DATABASE: MOU
6/16/2026................... ............ 7529 ACCESS TO
TEMPORARY
SEPARATION
PROGRAM FOR
VICTIMS OF
ALLEGED SEX-
RELATED
OFFENSES
9/14/2026................... ............ 7231(a) BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH:
ESTABLISH
PILOT PROGRAM
9/14/2026................... ............ 7301 MERCHANT
MARINER
CREDENTIALING:
REQUIREMENTS
OF MM
CREDENTIUALING
SYSTEM
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7205 PREPAREDNESS
PLANS FOR
COAST GUARD
PROPERTIES
LOCATED IN
TSUNAMI
INUNDATION
ZONES.
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7248(c) Electronic
Locking
Mechanisms to
Ensure Coast
Guard Academy
Cadet Room
Security:
Superintendent
create Access
Policy
Instruction
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7261 POLICY AND
BRIEFING ON
AVAILABILITY
OF NALOXONE TO
TREAT OPIOID,
INCLUDING
FENTANYL,
OVERDOSES.
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7262 POLICY ON
METHODS TO
REDUCE
INCENTIVES FOR
ILLICIT
MARITIME DRUG
TRAFFICKING
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7315 REQUIREMENT TO
REPORT SEXUAL
OFFENSES
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7323 IMPROVING
VESSEL TRAFFIC
SERVICE
MONITORING
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7347 ABANDONED AND
DERELICT
VESSEL
REMOVALS
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7349 PORT ACCESS
ROUTES
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7511 COMPREHENSIVE
POLICY ON
COVERED
MISCONDUCT
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7515(b) TRAINING AND
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FOR
COVERED
MISCONDUCT
PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE:
COVERED
MISCONDUCT
PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE
TRAINING AND
EDUCATION
12/18/2026.................. ............ 7515(e) TRAINING AND
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FOR
COVERED
MISCONDUCT
PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE:
ENTRY AND
ACCESSION
TRAININGS
6/11/2027................... ............ 7342 CLARIFICATION
OF AUTHORITIES
6/11/2027................... ............ 7515 (d) TRAINING AND
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FOR
COVERED
MISCONDUCT
PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE:
TRAINING FOR
PROSPECTIVE
COMMANDING
OFFICERS AND
EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS
12/18/2027.................. ............ 7248(a) ELECTRONIC
LOCKING
MECHANISMS TO
ENSURE COAST
GUARD ACADEMY
CADET ROOM
SECURITY
12/18/2027.................. ............ 7251 INSTALLATION OF
BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH AND
MEDICAL
PRIVACY ROOMS
12/18/2027.................. ............ 7326 NAVIGATIONAL
PROTOCOLS
12/18/2027.................. ............ 7515(a)(1) TRAINING AND
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FOR
COVERED
MISCONDUCT
PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE:
Revise
curriculum
12/18/2027.................. ............ 7515(c) TRAINING AND
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FOR
COVERED
MISCONDUCT
PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE:
COVERED FIRST
RESPONDER
TRAINING
12/18/2027.................. ............ 7321 (g) PORTS AND
WATERWAYS
SAFETY: GREAT
LAKES AND
SAINT LAWRENCE
RIVER
COOPERATIVE
VESSEL TRAFFIC
SERVICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAKING ACCOUNT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF
2025, RECONCILIATION, AND FORCE DESIGN 2028
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2026
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 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 the purpose of an opening
statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE EZELL OF MISSISSIPPI, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ezell. Today, we discuss the Coast Guard's progress
towards implementing the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025,
as well as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025.
First, I would like to welcome our witnesses, Vice Admiral
Schofield, Chief of Staff, the United States Coast Guard; and
Ms. Triana McNeil, Director of Homeland Security and Justice
Programs at the Government Accountability Office.
I understand that, both of you, it is your first time
testifying today before the subcommittee. I appreciate you
being here very much, and it will be a good hearing. I look
forward to your testimony.
The Coast Guard is a military service that performs a
comprehensive set of safety, lifesaving, law enforcement, and
national security missions. The Service's activities benefit
and safeguard recreational boaters, commercial vessel
operators, and commercial fishing. The general public benefits
from the Coast Guard personnel who bravely and selflessly carry
out duties that save lives, enforce the law, battle
transnational criminal enterprises, and protect the national
security and territorial integrity of the United States. They
perform all of these functions exceptionally well, especially
in light of the fact that the Service is an organization that
is chronically underresourced.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was a historic $25 billion
investment in the Coast Guard. It represents an effort to clear
the way for the Coast Guard to recapitalize its dilapidated
shoreside, surface, and air assets, and to create a 21st-
century Service capable of meeting the 21st-century challenges
and threats. The bill provides for the equivalent of a
staggering 15 years' worth of annual procurement funding, and
it is the largest single investment in the Coast Guard's
history.
The Coast Guard has obligated a large portion of these
funds provided by the law. This committee and Congress have a
responsibility to ensure the dollars entrusted to the Coast
Guard are being spent responsibly and as they were intended. To
do that, we require clarity on where the assets being procured
will be homeported and how the Coast Guard plans to build the
shoreside infrastructure necessary to sustain them.
Importantly, this includes sufficient housing and related
facilities for the Coast Guard members who will crew these
platforms.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025 authorizes
appropriations for numerous assets, including the 12th National
Security Cutter, three Fast Response Cutters, a commercial
icebreaker, and the Arctic Security Cutter Program, including
evaluating foreign shipyards in Finland and Sweden. Both bills
also establish accountability measures to ensure the Service is
responsive to congressional direction and is acting as a good
steward of taxpayer dollars.
Beyond these accountability measures, the bill also
authorizes appropriations for operations and support, and
procurement and investment accounts through fiscal year 2027,
at amounts sufficient for the Coast Guard to begin increasing
the number of uniformed and civilian personnel needed to
maintain the assets purchased with reconciliation funds, as
well as to hire a sufficient maritime safety workforce. The
legislation also takes measures to ensure that members needed
to serve on these assets have sufficient healthcare and
childcare.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025 imposes needed
accountability requirements related to homeporting and
maintenance, and acquisition planning, a longstanding issue for
the Coast Guard. We are concerned that the Service's apparent
lack of planning puts not just modernization efforts, but also
mission accomplishment in jeopardy. We are interested in
learning today how the Coast Guard will meet these
accountability requirements.
Coast Guard modernization efforts are taking place under
the architecture of the Force Design 2028 plan, which envisions
a comprehensive overhaul of the Service's leadership,
organization, technology, and contracting and acquisition
process.
So far, the Coast Guard has undertaken several actions to
begin implementation of Force Design 2028, including growing
the workforce by over 1,100 positions, realigning 68 percent of
positions across the Coast Guard headquarters, and realigning
the Service's top acquisitions projects. To help meet the goals
of future personnel growth, the Coast Guard has also purchased
an additional training center in Birmingham, Alabama.
Today's hearing provides a forum to articulate where the
Coast Guard is in pursuing the goals of Force Design 2028 and
the path to successfully and completely implement all its
objectives.
The Government Accountability Office has carefully and
extensively examined Coast Guard programs and management
practices over the years. They bring an important perspective
to the discussion about what proper stewardship of appropriated
funds and responsible planning and administration of a large
Government agency should look like. I will be listening with a
keen ear to the points Ms. McNeil makes and any recommendations
she has.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not take this
opportunity once again to state that the Coast Guard has failed
to provide the committee with statutorily required long-term
acquisition planning documents for years on end. This
persistent failure to meet legally mandated reporting
requirements raises serious concerns about whether the Service
is making appropriate spending decisions.
Congress recognizes the value the Coast Guard delivers and
wants the Service to reach its fullest potential. The continued
growth and investment of the Coast Guard is contingent upon
continued investment in the Service by Congress. Clearer
transparency and meaningful accountability of how the Coast
Guard is setting its priorities, allocating its resources, and
truly planning for its immediate and future needs are key to
maintaining the levels of congressional support necessary for
the organization to continue to grow and meet all the demands
for its services.
Lastly, I want to recognize two staff members who will soon
be departing the subcommittee. Lieutenant Commander Lindsay
Sakal served as the subcommittee's Coast Guard fellow over the
last year. She left her mark on the subcommittee, helping to
strengthen the Service and providing expert legal analysis. The
subcommittee's legal assistant, Spencer Thompson, is also
departing to pursue an aviation career after multiple
subcommittee internships and nearly 2 years on the subcommittee
where he supported the passage of the Coast Guard's
reconciliation investments and the Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 2025. To both of you, I wish you the best of luck in
future endeavors.
[Mr. Ezell's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Ezell of Mississippi, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
The Coast Guard is a military service that performs a comprehensive
set of safety, lifesaving, law enforcement, and national security
missions. The Service's activities benefit and safeguard recreational
boaters, commercial vessel operators, and commercial fishing. The
general public benefits from Coast Guard personnel who bravely and
selflessly carry out duties that save lives, enforce the law, battle
transnational criminal enterprises, and protect the national security
and territorial integrity of the United States. They perform all these
functions exceptionally well, especially in light of the fact the
Service is an organization that is chronically under-resourced.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was a historic $25 billion
investment in the Coast Guard. It represents an effort to clear the way
for the Coast Guard to recapitalize its dilapidated shoreside, surface,
and air assets and to create a 21st-century Service capable of meeting
21st-century challenges and threats. The bill provides for the
equivalent of a staggering 15 years' worth of annual procurement
funding, and it is the largest single investment in the Coast Guard's
history.
The Coast Guard has obligated a large portion of the funds provided
by the law. This committee and Congress have a responsibility to ensure
the dollars entrusted to the Coast Guard are being spent responsibly
and as they were intended. To do that, we require clarity on where the
assets being procured will be homeported and how the Coast Guard plans
to build the shoreside infrastructure necessary to sustain them.
Importantly, this includes sufficient housing and related facilities
for the Coast Guard members who will crew these platforms.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025 authorizes appropriations
for numerous assets, including the twelfth National Security Cutter,
three Fast Response Cutters, a commercial icebreaker, and the Arctic
Security Cutter program, including evaluating foreign shipyards in
Finland and Sweden. Both bills also establish accountability measures
to ensure the Service is responsive to Congressional direction and is
acting as a good steward of taxpayer dollars.
Beyond these accountability measures, the bill also authorizes
appropriations for the operations and support, and procurement and
investment accounts through fiscal year 2027, at amounts sufficient for
the Coast Guard to begin increasing the number of uniformed and
civilian personnel needed to maintain the assets purchased with
reconciliation funds, as well as to hire a sufficient maritime safety
workforce. The legislation also takes measures to ensure the members
needed to serve on these assets have sufficient healthcare and
childcare.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025 imposes needed
accountability requirements related to homeporting and maintenance, and
acquisition planning, a longstanding issue for the Coast Guard. We are
concerned that the Service's apparent lack of planning puts not just
modernization efforts, but also mission accomplishment in jeopardy. We
are interested in learning today how the Coast Guard will meet these
accountability requirements.
Coast Guard modernization efforts are taking place under the
architecture of the Force Design 2028 plan, which envisions a
comprehensive overhaul of the Service's leadership, organization,
technology, and contracting and acquisition processes.
So far, the Coast Guard has undertaken several actions to begin
implementation of Force Design 2028, including growing the workforce by
over 1,100 positions, realigning 68 percent of positions across Coast
Guard headquarters, and realigning the Service's top acquisitions
projects. To help meet the goals of future personnel growth, the Coast
Guard has also purchased an additional training center in Birmingham,
Alabama.
Today's hearing provides a forum to articulate where the Coast
Guard is in pursuing the goals of Force Design 2028 and the path to
successfully and completely implement all its objectives.
The Government Accountability Office has carefully and extensively
examined Coast Guard programs and management practices over the years.
They bring an important perspective to the discussion about what proper
stewardship of appropriated funds and responsible planning and
administration of a large government agency should look like. I will be
listening with a keen ear to the points Ms. McNeil makes and to any
recommendations she has.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to
once again state that the Coast Guard has failed to provide the
Committee with statutorily required long-term acquisition planning
documents for years on end. This persistent failure to meet legally
mandated reporting requirements raises serious concerns about whether
the Service is making appropriate spending decisions.
Congress recognizes the value the Coast Guard delivers and wants
the Service to reach its fullest potential. The continued growth and
investment of the Coast Guard is contingent upon continued investment
in the Service by Congress. Clearer transparency and meaningful
accountability of how the Coast Guard is setting its priorities,
allocating its resources, and truly planning for its immediate and
future needs are key to maintaining the levels of Congressional support
necessary for the organization to continue to grow and meet all the
demands for its services.
Mr. Ezell. I now recognize Ranking Member Carbajal for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Chairman Ezell. I will yield to
our ranking member, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Ezell. Mr. Larsen, go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Ezell and
Ranking Member Carbajal, for holding this hearing to examine
the significant changes underway at the Coast Guard.
Congressional oversight is more important than ever as the
Coast Guard undergoes transformational change as a result of
recent authorizations, reconciliation funding, and the Force
Design 2028.
I want to thank our witnesses, Vice Admiral Douglas
Schofield and Ms. Triana McNeil, for being here today to
discuss the Coast Guard's successes and challenges in
implementing recently enacted laws and in obligating the
funding from reconciliation.
Despite these investments in the reconciliation bill, GAO
reports that the Coast Guard is not only falling behind its
acquisition and procurement targets, but has made operational
decisions that have actively harmed its ability to carry out
essential duties.
A couple of points I want to make.
It is unacceptable that the Coast Guard has not yet
restored the dozens of stations that have been closed or
downgraded since 2024. These closures have reduced the agency's
ability to effectively conduct search and rescue operations
across our country, a decision with life-or-death consequences.
A 2025 GAO report found that, due to personnel shortages, the
Coast Guard closed 23 seasonal boat stations and reduced SAR
coverage associated with 19 other stations. This reduced SAR
capability has put a strain on local first responders.
The Commandant has said that the Coast Guard search and
rescue mission represents a sacred trust with the American
people. The agency must prioritize using its new resources and
servicemembers to restore that sacred trust. A question I will
have when we get to questions is, when is the Coast Guard going
to reconstitute 42 search and rescue-focused stations?
I am also concerned the administration is going to
negatively impact the Coast Guard's efforts to curb sexual
assault, sexual harassment, and harassment. While I believe the
Commandant is truly invested in this issue, the
administration's decision to shutter the Women's Leadership
Initiative, the Federally Employed Women, and Women's
Leadership Council, all that limits the voice of women in the
Service--the very people whose input is needed when developing
policies to combat sexual assault and sexual harassment.
Congress enacted dozens of reforms in response to Operation
Fouled Anchor, which revealed flagrant and negligent
mishandling of sexual assault and sexual harassment cases
involving Coast Guard personnel. Some of these reforms include
expedited transfers for victims and survivors, updating the
process for obtaining protective orders, and establishing a
confidential reporting system. The women and men of the Coast
Guard deserve the immediate and complete implementation of
these reforms as we work to eliminate sexual assault and
harassment from the Service.
I do want to acknowledge the Coast Guard has had success in
implementing parts of recent authorizations, and something near
and dear to the Pacific Northwest is in the 2022 Coast Guard
Authorization Act that authorized the creation of a whale desk
traffic alert system in our State, a new program to protect
orcas and other marine life from vessel strikes by providing
operators and mariners with near real-time location data.
The program has been a success in my home State, allowing
for safer maritime operations and reductions in noise pollution
around whales. I am pleased that Congress reauthorized this
program, but with a recent whale strike in Alaska, we need to
look forward to working with the Coast Guard to expand it to
other regions.
I look forward to engaging with our witnesses on the
progress the Coast Guard is making to modernize the
organization and ensure that Coasties have the necessary
funding, resources, and infrastructure to save lives, protect
the American public, and to keep commerce flowing.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington, Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Ezell and Ranking Member Carbajal, for holding
this hearing to examine the significant changes underway at the Coast
Guard.
Congressional oversight is more important than ever as the Coast
Guard undergoes transformational change as a result of recent
authorizations, reconciliation funding, and Force Design 2028.
I want to thank our witnesses, Vice Admiral Douglas Schofield and
Ms. Triana McNeil, for being here today to discuss the Coast Guard's
successes and challenges in implementing recently enacted laws and in
obligating the funding from reconciliation.
Despite these investments in the reconciliation bill, GAO reports
the Coast Guard is not only falling behind its acquisition and
procurement targets, but has made operational decisions that have
actively harmed its ability to carry out essential duties.
It is unacceptable that the Coast Guard has not yet restored the
dozens of stations that have been closed or downgraded since 2024.
These closures have reduced the agency's ability to effectively conduct
search and rescue operations across our country, a decision with life-
or-death consequences.
A 2025 GAO report found that due to personnel shortages, the Coast
Guard closed 23 seasonal boat stations and reduced SAR coverage
associated with 19 other stations.
This reduced capability has also put a strain on local first
responders.
The Commandant has said that the Coast Guard's search and rescue
mission represents a ``sacred trust with the American people.'' The
agency must prioritize using its new resources and servicemembers to
restore that sacred trust.
A question I will have is when is the Coast Guard going to
reconstitute the 42 search and rescue focused stations?
I'm also concerned that the administration is going to negatively
impact the Coast Guard's efforts to curb sexual assault, sexual
harassment, and harassment.
While I believe that the Commandant is truly invested in this
issue, the administration's decision to shutter the Women's Leadership
Initiative, Federally Employed Women, and the Women's Leadership
Council all of that limits the voice of women in the Service--the very
people whose input is needed when developing policies to combat sexual
assault and sexual harassment.
Congress enacted dozens of reforms in response to Operation Fouled
Anchor, which revealed flagrant and negligent mishandlings of sexual
assault and sexual harassments cases involving Coast Guard personnel.
Some of these reforms include expedited transfers for victims and
survivors, updating the process for obtaining protective orders, and
establishing a confidential reporting system.
The women and men of the Coast Guard deserve the immediate and
complete implementation of these reforms as we work to eliminate sexual
assault and harassment from the Service.
I do want to acknowledge that the Coast Guard has had success in
implementing parts of recent reauthorizations.
For instance, the 2022 Coast Guard Authorization Act authorized the
creation of a ``whale desk'' traffic alert system in Washington state,
a new program to protect orcas and other marine life from vessel
strikes by providing operators and mariners with near real-time
location data.
The program has been a success in my home state, allowing for safer
maritime operations and reductions in noise pollution around whales.
I am pleased that Congress reauthorized this program in the 2025
Coast Guard Authorization Act and look forward to working with the
Coast Guard to expand it to other regions to protect marine life.
I look forward to engaging with our witnesses on the progress that
the Coast Guard is making to modernize the organization and ensure that
Coasties have the necessary funding, resources, and infrastructure to
save lives, protect the American public, and keep commerce flowing.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. I would like now to
welcome our witnesses.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Ezell. Mr. Carbajal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SALUD O. CARBAJAL OF CALIFORNIA,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Chairman Ezell, and thank you to
our two witnesses for being here today.
Over the past year, we have spoken on many occasions about
what reconciliation funding is going to do for the Coast Guard.
Now that it is being spent, congressional oversight isn't just
appropriate, it's necessary more than ever.
I am glad that we are now talking about the implementation
of policies and projects that have come out of prior Coast
Guard authorizations, reconciliation, and the Commandant's
vision for the Service. But I must say, it can be exceptionally
frustrating when the agency refuses to be more transparent,
sidesteps the law, or says one thing and does another.
Let me give you an example. Congress gave you money to buy
C-130s. We then found out from the press that, at the direction
of the former Secretary of Homeland Security, you planned to
purchase two shiny new G700 executive jets. When you came to
brief Congress, you told us, don't worry, we are going to get
reimbursed so we can buy and missionize six C-130s and purchase
flight simulators.
Secretary Noem left, and to my knowledge, you still have
not been reimbursed.
So, I will make my point again. Congressional oversight
isn't just important, it is necessary.
Now, I want to be clear. I support the Coast Guard, and I
want to make sure the Service has the resources to fulfill its
mission. That means more Coast Guard funding. I could not agree
more with the current and former Commandant that you are
currently a $20 billion Service and deserve that level of
funding. I believe all of my colleagues on this subcommittee
agree, but as Congress provides more funding and the size of
the Service grows, the Coast Guard must remain accountable.
Congress works, sometimes for years, on negotiating changes
to the law based on issues or the needs of the Service.
Unfortunately, we often have to revisit those laws because the
Coast Guard deceptively changes regulations, implements
incorrectly, or refuses to enforce altogether.
Not only is this frustrating for Congress, but more
importantly, this hurts the readiness and resiliency of the
servicemembers who rely on steady, principled leadership to do
their jobs. Proper oversight and meaningful legislative change
depends on trust and transparency, and the Coast Guard needs to
do better in this respect.
As we move forward with today's hearing, I look forward to
hearing an update from the Coast Guard on the implementation of
my Small Passenger Vessel Safety Act. In the Elijah E. Cummings
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020, Congress enacted my
bill, the Small Passenger Vessel Safety Act, which included
several changes that increased the safety of small passenger
vessels. This legislation came following the tragic loss of 34
lives when the motor vessel MV Conception caught fire off of my
district. As a result, I have worked to ensure no family loses
their loved one again in similar ways. And in the Don Young
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022, I fought to ensure
victims or their families, like the ones from the Conception
boat fire, can recoup the damages they are owed when there is
negligence.
The last update I received from the Coast Guard is that the
Service was working expeditiously to update regulations and
enforce all but one requirement: updates to safety management
systems. I look forward to hearing from the Coast Guard today
about your efforts to complete full implementation of that law.
As I conclude my remarks, I want to say that there is truly
no organization like the Coast Guard in the world. Our country
is undoubtedly safer because of their service. Every time we
call on the Coast Guard, they have answered. I look forward to
hearing from the Coast Guard on spending plans, policy changes,
and policy implementation.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[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.
Over the past year, we have spoken on many occasions about what
reconciliation funding is going to do for the Coast Guard. Now that
you're spending it, Congressional oversight isn't just appropriate,
it's necessary.
I am glad that we are here to talk about the implementation of the
policies and projects that have come out of prior Coast Guard
Authorizations, reconciliation, and the Commandant's vision for the
Service. But I must say that it can be exceptionally frustrating when
the agency refuses to be transparent, sidesteps the law, or says one
thing and does another.
Let me give an example. Congress gave you money to buy C-130s. We
then found out from the press that, at the direction of the former
Secretary of Homeland Security, you planned to purchase two shiny new
G700 executive jets. When you came to brief Congress, you told us,
``Don't worry, we're going to get reimbursed so we can buy and
missionize six C-130s and purchase flight simulators.''
That Secretary left and you still haven't been reimbursed.
Congressional oversight isn't just important, it's necessary.
Now I want to be clear. I support more Coast Guard and that means
more Coast Guard funding. I agree with the current and former
Commandant that you are currently a $20 billion Service and deserve
that level of funding.
I believe all of my colleagues on this Subcommittee agree but as
Congress provides more funding and the size of the Service grows, the
Coast Guard must remain accountable.
Congress works--sometimes for years--on negotiating changes to the
law based on issues or the needs of the Service. Unfortunately, we
often have to revisit those laws because the Coast Guard deceptively
changes regulations, implements incorrectly, or refuses to enforce
altogether.
This can be frustrating for Congress but more importantly, it hurts
the readiness and resiliency of servicemembers who rely on the steady
principled leadership to do their jobs.
Proper oversight and meaningful legislative change depends on trust
and transparency, and the Coast Guard needs to do better.
In the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020,
Congress enacted my bill, the Small Passenger Vessel Safety Act, which
included several changes that increased the safety of small passenger
vessels. This legislation came following the tragic loss of 34 lives
when the MV Conception caught fire. As a result, I have worked
tirelessly to ensure no family loses their loved one in a similar way
and, in the Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022, ensured
victims or their families can recoup the damages they are owed.
Last, I heard that the Coast Guard was working expeditiously to
update regulations and enforce all but one requirement: updates to
safety management systems. I look forward to hearing from the Coast
Guard today about their efforts to complete full implementation of that
law.
There truly is no organization like the Coast Guard in the world.
Our country is undoubtedly safer because of their service. Every time
we've called on them, they've answered.
I look forward to hearing from the Coast Guard about spending
plans, policy changes, and policy implementation.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. I now want to welcome our
witnesses today, and I want to thank you both for being here.
Briefly, I would like to take a moment to explain our
lighting system to our witnesses. There are three lights in
front of you. Green means go, yellow means you are running out
of time, and red means conclude your remarks.
I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements
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 witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them 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 witnesses 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 subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5
minutes.
With that, Admiral Schofield, you are recognized for 5
minutes for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL DOUGLAS M. SCHOFIELD, CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. COAST GUARD; AND TRIANA McNEIL, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND
SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL DOUGLAS M. SCHOFIELD, CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral Schofield. Chairman Ezell, Ranking Member Carbajal,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today and for your continued support of the United
States Coast Guard.
The American people depend on the Coast Guard every day,
and we deliver. We save lives; we control, secure, and defend
the U.S. border and maritime approaches far at sea; we
facilitate the safe and secure flow of commerce that relies on
our ports, waterways, shipping, and merchant mariners vital to
America's economic prosperity and national security; and we
also respond to crises or contingencies that may come with
little or no warning.
We conduct these missions across four operational domains
that make up the U.S. homeland: in the U.S. mainland, from the
inland navigable waterways and Great Lakes along the U.S.
border and its approaches, throughout the Caribbean and the
Western Hemisphere, including the two U.S. Territories in the
Caribbean; and Alaska and its approaches, including the Arctic;
in Hawaii and the three U.S. Territories across the Pacific and
their approaches, including remote areas of the U.S. exclusive
economic zone and Oceania; and, importantly, in cyberspace.
Today, the Nation is asking more of the Coast Guard than
ever before. To meet this demand, we are transforming our
Service to become a more agile, capable, and responsive force.
This transformation rests on three foundational pillars, which
we are here to discuss today: the Coast Guard Authorization
Act; the historic funding provided in fiscal year 2025 budget
reconciliation; and our blueprint for modernization, Force
Design.
First, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025 provides
the critical authorities we need to modernize and deliver
results at speed and at scale. We are actively implementing its
provisions, integrating new mandates, and strengthening our
oversight. This law enhances transparency and enables us to
deliver greater capability and accountability to the American
people.
Second, the nearly $25 billion provided by the fiscal year
2025 reconciliation represents a historic and vital downpayment
on the future of the United States Coast Guard. We are moving
with a clear sense of urgency to turn this investment into
capability. To date, we have obligated more than $14 billion to
acquire new assets like the Arctic Security Cutters and
Offshore Patrol Cutters, to modernize our aircraft, and to
invest in our critical infrastructure. We are on target to
obligate $20 billion by the end of this calendar year.
However, I must be clear. While this investment is crucial,
it is a downpayment, not the final payment. Without consistent,
predictable, annual top-down line growth, our continued success
and, importantly, our readiness, is at risk.
We must continue to complete the acquisitions advanced by
reconciliation, including the infrastructure required to
support these assets and house Coast Guard families.
Finally, Force Design is our blueprint to build the Coast
Guard of the future. This is the most significant modernization
effort undertaken in over a century. We are streamlining our
organization to make faster decisions; we are investing in our
people, our most valuable asset; and we are leveraging new
technologies to extend the reach and effectiveness of our crews
on the front lines.
Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, Secretary
Mullin, and Congress, the Coast Guard has a once-in-a-
generation opportunity to strengthen America's maritime
advantage. The authorities provided by the Coast Guard
Authorization Act, the historic investment made through
reconciliation, and the transformational reforms of Force
Design has put us on a clear path to build the Coast Guard the
Nation needs. With your continued support, we will deliver the
people, the capabilities, and infrastructure required to
protect the American people, secure our maritime interests, and
advance our Nation's prosperity in an increasingly contested
maritime domain.
Our history makes one thing clear: when America invests in
the United States Coast Guard, the Coast Guard delivers.
Thank you, and I look forward to questions.
[Admiral Schofield's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Douglas M. Schofield, Chief of
Staff, U.S. Coast Guard
Chairman Ezell, Ranking Member Carbajal, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and
for your continued support of the United States Coast Guard.
The American people depend on the Coast Guard every day, and we
deliver. As a vital instrument of national power, the Coast Guard
safeguards our nation's maritime interests both at home and abroad.
Grounded in our operating doctrine, we execute our statutory missions
to achieve four paramount national outcomes. We save lives. We control,
secure, and defend the U.S. border and maritime approaches far at sea.
We ensure the safe and secure flow of commerce through our ports and
waterways. By supporting our shipping industry and merchant mariners,
we fuel an economic engine critical to America's national security and
prosperity, and to rebuilding the nation's maritime might. We respond
to crises and contingencies that may come with little or no warning.
We conduct these missions across four major operational domains
that make up the U.S. homeland. Our forces maintain a persistent focus
across the U.S. mainland, spanning our inland navigable waterways, the
Great Lakes, our coastal borders, and throughout the Caribbean and
Western Hemisphere, including the two U.S. Caribbean territories. We
remain equally vigilant in Alaska and the Arctic. Our presence also
extends across Hawai'i and the three U.S. Pacific territories,
safeguarding the remote reaches of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in
Oceania. Concurrently, we operate in cyberspace, where the physical and
digital domains increasingly converge.
The nation is asking more of its Coast Guard than ever before. Our
responsibility is to ensure we have the personnel, assets, and
infrastructure required to meet that demand. We are modernizing and
transforming the Service now to meet today's operational requirements
while building the capacity, capability, and agility necessary for the
future.
This transformation is built upon three foundational pillars: the
authorities and accountability measures provided by the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2025; the historic funding provided by the Working
Families Tax Cuts Act; and our comprehensive modernization blueprint,
Force Design. Together, these efforts will build a more agile, capable,
and responsive Coast Guard ready to protect, defend, and advance
America's maritime interests.
Coast Guard Authorization Act: Strengthening Authorities and
Accountability
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025 provides critical
authorities required to modernize the Service and deliver results at
speed and scale. We are actively implementing these provisions while
integrating new mandates and statutory requirements into our ongoing
operations. This Act strengthens oversight, enhances transparency, and
enables us to deliver greater capability, robust accountability, and
maximum value to the American people.
Reconciliation Funding: Delivering a Generational Recapitalization
The nearly $25 billion provided by the Working Families Tax Cuts
Act represents a historic investment in the Coast Guard and a critical
down payment on the modernization of our fleet, aircraft,
infrastructure, and operational capabilities. To date, we have
obligated more than 13 billion dollars to acquire next-generation
surface assets, including Arctic Security Cutters and Offshore Patrol
Cutters; modernize aircraft and unmanned aviation systems; and invest
in critical shoreside infrastructure. This effort goes far beyond
replacing aging platforms; it expands our capacity and equips Coast
Guard crews with the modern tools they need to succeed.
With this historic investment comes an equally significant
responsibility to execute it with discipline, transparency, and
measurable results. We are demonstrating clear value to the American
people by delivering the capabilities, infrastructure, and readiness
improvements that this investment was intended to achieve.
Recapitalization, however, is not a one-time event. Fully implementing
Force Design and meeting the nation's growing demands will require
sustained investment in order to complete critical acquisition
programs, modernize infrastructure, invest in our workforce, and
achieve the readiness required to operate and maintain these
capabilities for decades to come.
Force Design: Charting the Course for the Future
Force Design is our blueprint to build a more agile, capable, and
responsive force. It represents the most significant organizational
modernization effort undertaken by the Coast Guard in over a century.
It aligns our organization, people, technology, and acquisitions and
contracting processes to meet the demands of today's complex maritime
environment.
We are streamlining organizational structures to enhance agility
and empower rapid decision-making. We are investing in our most
valuable asset--our people--by modernizing our personnel management
systems, revitalizing our Reserve component, and creating new accession
pathways to build a larger, highly skilled workforce. We are leveraging
emerging technologies to achieve maritime domain dominance and extend
the reach and effectiveness of our crews. Additionally, we are
modernizing acquisition and contracting processes to deliver capability
to the fleet faster and with greater accountability.
The Way Forward
Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, Secretary Mullin, and
Congress, the Coast Guard has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to
strengthen America's maritime advantage. The authorities provided by
the Coast Guard Authorization Act, the historic investment made through
reconciliation, and the transformational reforms of Force Design have
put us on a clear path to build the Coast Guard the nation needs. With
your continued support, we will deliver the people, capabilities, and
infrastructure required to protect the American people, secure our
maritime interests, and advance our nation's prosperity and security in
an increasingly contested maritime domain.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to your questions.
Semper Paratus.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. Ms. McNeil, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF TRIANA McNEIL, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. McNeil. Chairman Ezell, Ranking Members Carbajal and
Larsen, and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to discuss GAO's examination of the Coast Guard's
modernization efforts.
For fiscal year 2026, Congress appropriated about $13.5
billion to the Service. Congress also included nearly $25
billion in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in fiscal year 2025.
This was the largest single commitment of funding in Coast
Guard history. This funding was for Coast Guard procurement of
cutters and aircraft and modernizing shore infrastructure and
maritime surveillance systems. The Service said these
investments support the intent of Force Design, initiatives
that include developing and increasing remote and autonomous
systems and maritime domain awareness capabilities. It could
also strengthen the Coast Guard's ability to counter drug
trafficking, conduct search and rescue, and manage other
missions.
Given the historical amount of funding provided to the
Service, GAO has questions about what the Coast Guard has
learned from prior recent reforms, and if it is applying those
lessons learned as it implements Force Design.
Since 2019, we assessed four Coast Guard reform efforts:
one, addressing sexual misconduct; two, modernization of
mission planning and mission support functions; the third was
reorganization of its reserve component; and fourth,
reorganization of its deployable specialized forces.
Key gaps in Coast Guard's reform efforts that we
consistently identified include issues like: what was the
Service trying to achieve, and how would it know if it reached
the goal; second, what process and related information was used
to develop these reforms; third, what practices did the Service
put in place to ensure sustained leadership focus during
implementation and sustained tracking of progress throughout
the implementation phase?
We found some similar gaps when we reviewed Coast Guard's
Force Design. We found that the key documents related to Force
Design need to be updated so that it is clear how the reform is
aligned with the Coast Guard's missions and desired outcomes,
and that it includes measurable targets for each emphasis
related to organization, people, technology, and contracting
and acquisition.
The Service also needs to develop an evaluation plan that
includes mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of reform
actions, clarify for yourself and decision-makers what success
looks like, and how will the Service know when it gets there.
We are making two recommendations today to the Coast Guard to
address these gaps.
We look forward to working with the Coast Guard as it
continues to move forward with its efforts to transform the
Service into a more capable and agile force that meets current
and future challenges. Thank you for inviting us today.
[Ms. McNeil's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Triana McNeil, Director, Homeland Security and
Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Coast Guard: Actions Needed To Help Ensure Effective Use of Billions in
Funding for Modernization Efforts
GAO-26-109215
GAO Highlights
What GAO Found
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Coast Guard
leadership have made a case that the service needs transformation.
Since 2019 GAO has reviewed four Coast Guard reform efforts and
identified steps the service took to incorporate leading practices as
well as gaps in key areas. For example, in prior reviews of Coast Guard
sexual misconduct and modernization of mission planning and reserve
component reform efforts, GAO found that the Coast Guard did not fully
assess its workforce needs. Additionally, for two of the reform
efforts, the Coast Guard did not fully establish goals and outcomes,
making it difficult to determine if the reforms had the intended
effects.
According to GAO's review of Force Design 2028 foundational
documents, the Coast Guard has taken some steps to implement leading
practices in its current reform effort but gaps remain. For example,
the service has assigned leaders to its reform efforts and focused on
addressing longstanding challenges, including workforce and technology
and contracting and acquisitions. However, GAO's review also found that
certain goals are not well-defined. For example, the execution plan
states that the service will delegate decision authority to maximize
mission impact. However, the document does not describe how the Coast
Guard will measure this effort or know when it achieves its reform
goals. Further, how proposed reforms align with Coast Guard missions is
unclear, and there is no performance plan or other mechanism to assess
the results.
Coast Guard Force Design 2028 Foundational Documents and Initial Update
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: United States Coast Guard. GAO-26-109215
The Coast Guard has received significant funding to carry out its
modernization reform efforts. Therefore, incorporating leading
practices throughout the duration of the Coast Guard's reform efforts
is important. Specifically, updating its foundational modernization
documents and developing an evaluation plan and mechanisms for
assessing the effectiveness of its actions would better ensure that
Coast Guard management, Congress, and the public has the information
needed to evaluate whether its actions--which are using billions of
taxpayer dollars--are helping to mitigate identified challenges
pertaining to the service's organization, people, technology, and
contracting and acquisitions.
Why GAO Did This Study
The U.S. Coast Guard--a multi-mission military service--is facing a
readiness crisis, according to DHS and Coast Guard leadership. In May
2025, DHS announced an effort called Force Design 2028 to modernize
operations and capabilities. The effort aims to transform the Coast
Guard into a more capable and agile force to meet future challenges
across four areas--organization, people, technology, and contracting
and acquisition.
For fiscal year 2026, Congress appropriated about $13.5 billion to
the service. Congress also included nearly $25 billion in Coast Guard
funding for fiscal year 2025 in the law commonly known as the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act--the largest single commitment of funding in Coast
Guard history. The service has stated that this funding supports the
intent of Force Design 2028.
This statement focuses on (1) key themes from GAO work evaluating
prior Coast Guard reform efforts, and (2) our assessment of the Coast
Guard's recent modernization reform efforts.
This statement is based on reports GAO has issued since 2018 on
prior Coast Guard reform efforts and some of its mission and management
activities. GAO also analyzed Coast Guard Force Design 2028
documentation and compared them to selected leading practices for
agency reform.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making two recommendations that the Coast Guard (1) update
its foundational modernization documents as necessary to ensure
strategic alignment with Coast Guard missions, desired outcomes, and
measurable targets, and (2) develop an evaluation plan with mechanisms
for each of the four areas of reform emphasis.
__________
Chairman Ezell, Ranking Member Carbajal, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss oversight of Coast Guard
modernization reforms. After being weakened by decades of
underinvestment, neglect, and strategic drift, the U.S. Coast Guard--a
multi-mission military service with the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)--is facing a readiness crisis, according to DHS and Coast Guard
leadership. In May 2025, DHS announced an effort called Force Design
2028 (Force Design) to modernize operations and capabilities. The
effort aims to transform the Coast Guard into a more capable and agile
force to meet future challenges across four areas--organization,
people, technology, and contracting and acquisition. The Coast Guard
considers Force Design one of its largest transformations since World
War II.
For fiscal year 2026, Congress appropriated about $13.5 billion to
the service--a typical amount in recent years.\1\ Congress also
included nearly $25 billion in Coast Guard funding for fiscal year 2025
in Public Law 119-21--commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill
Act--the largest single commitment of funding in Coast Guard
history.\2\ This funding was for Coast Guard procurement of cutters and
aircraft and modernizing shore infrastructure and maritime surveillance
systems. The service has stated that these investments support the
intent of Force Design. According to Coast Guard officials, this
funding directly supports Force Design initiatives, including to
develop and increase remote and autonomous systems and maritime domain
awareness capabilities. The funding could also strengthen the Coast
Guard's ability to counter drug trafficking, conduct search and rescue,
enhance navigational safety, enable maritime trade, and conduct the
service's other missions, according to the Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Homeland Security and Further Additional Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2026, Pub. L. No. 119-86, div. A, tit. II, 140
Stat. 773, 780-81. The act requires the Coast Guard to brief the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate on the initiatives of organization, people, technology, and
contracting and acquisitions before funds under the act may be
available to implement Force Design. 140 Stat. at 785.
\2\ An Act To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H.
Con. Res. 14, Pub. L. No. 119-21, tit. IV, Sec. 40001(a), 139 Stat.
72, 127-28 (2025). This funding remains available until September 30,
2029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The organizational transformation needed to improve the performance
of federal agencies can be challenging and take years to fully
implement. For example, we testified before this subcommittee in April
2026 that the service faces persistent challenges managing its major
acquisition programs to modernize its vessels.\3\ Further, in September
2024 the DHS Office of Inspector General found that the Coast Guard did
not implement effective planning for procurement, construction, and
other projects funded through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO, Navy and Coast Guard Shipbuilding: A Disciplined,
Strategy-Driven Approach Is Needed to Achieve Ambitious Goals, GAO-26-
109068 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 2026).
\4\ Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021). Department of
Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Coast Guard Needs to
Implement Effective Planning for Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
Projects, OIG-24-56 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement today focuses on (1) key themes from our work
evaluating prior Coast Guard reform efforts, and (2) our assessment of
the Coast Guard's recent modernization reform efforts. The statement is
based on our prior work since 2018 on Coast Guard reform efforts and
some of its mission and management activities.\5\ For these reports,
published from November 2019 to January 2026, we analyzed Coast Guard
policy, documentation, and data, and interviewed agency officials,
among other methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We chose 2018 because it aligns with the issuance of our
leading practices on agency reform. GAO's leading practices for agency
reform are organized into four categories and 12 subcategories. For our
purposes, we identified and used subcategories of the leading practices
that were relevant to the Coast Guard reform efforts we assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reviewed Coast Guard documentation on its reform actions and
assessed them against selected leading practices for agency reform.\6\
More detailed information on our scope and methodology can be found in
the reports we cite in this statement. In addition, for this statement
we analyzed Coast Guard Force Design documentation, including the
executive plan summary, executive report, senior leaders' letter, and
January 2026 initial update. We compared this information with selected
leading practices for agency reform.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, for example, GAO, Coast Guard: Assessing Deployable
Specialized Forces' Workforce Needs Could Improve Efficiency and Reduce
Potential Overlap or Gaps in Capabilities, GAO-20-33 (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 21, 2019); Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Evaluate the
Effectiveness of Organizational Changes and Determine Workforce Needs,
GAO-20-223 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2020); and Coast Guard:
Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Reform Efforts to Address Sexual
Misconduct, GAO-26-107685 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2026).
\7\ See GAO, Government Reorganization: Key Questions to Assess
Agency Reform Efforts, GAO-18-427 (Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2018).
``Reform'' broadly includes any organizational changes--such as major
transformations, mergers, consolidations, and other reorganizations--
and efforts to streamline and improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of government operations. Our prior work on agency reforms has shown
that successful reforms or transformations depend upon following change
management practices, such as agreement on reform goals and outcomes;
involving Congress, federal employees, and other key stakeholders; and
using data and evidence to justify the proposed changes. We selected
leading practices for which there was relevant publicly available
information about Force Design. For the purposes of this statement,
these leading practices are the subcategories outlined in GAO-18-427.
We reviewed publicly available information relevant to the practices,
and we selected two practices to evaluate against that are relevant to
the beginning phase of a reform--(1) establishing goals and outcomes,
and (2) using data and evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We requested comments on the contents of this statement, including
our recommendation, from DHS and the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
The work upon which this statement is based was performed in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Coast Guard Inconsistently Applied Leading Practices During Prior
Reform Efforts
The Coast Guard did not fully implement leading practices for its
prior reform efforts for (1) addressing sexual misconduct, (2)
modernization of mission planning and mission support functions, (3)
reorganization of its reserve component, and (4) reorganization of its
deployable specialized forces.\8\ Since 2019, our reports have
identified steps the Coast Guard has taken to incorporate aspects of
leading practices to support its reform efforts as well as gaps in key
areas that may affect its ability to maintain progress and achieve
lasting results (figure 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We determined that not all of the leading practices were
applicable to each of the reform efforts. Specifically, five were
applicable to the reorganization of deployable specialized forces,
three to the realignment of mission planning and mission support
functions, seven to the reorganization of the reserve component, and
six to the reform efforts to address sexual misconduct. For the full
list of leading reform practices and their associated key questions,
see GAO-18-427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Assessment of Prior Coast Guard Reforms Against Selected
Leading Practices
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard documents and interviews against
GAO leading practice for agency reform; studio-icon/adobestock.com.
GAO-26-109215
Note: Three GAO reports covered (1) reform efforts to address sexual
misconduct (GAO-26-107685), (2 and 3) modernization of mission planning
and mission support functions, as well as reorganization of the reserve
component (GAO-20-223), and (4) the reorganization of deployable
specialized forces (GAO-20-33). We determined that not all of the
leading practices were applicable to each of the reform efforts.
Because the key practices and considerations depend on what an agency
is trying to achieve, not all practices may be applicable to a given
reform. For the full list of leading reform practices and their
associated key questions, see GAO-18-427.
\a\ We used the following scale to evaluate the Coast Guard's
implementation of its efforts to address sexual misconduct in our
January 2026 report. Generally followed_the service took actions that
addressed most or all aspects of the selected key questions we examined
for the practice. Partially followed_the Coast Guard partially followed
a reform practice if the evidence showed that the service took actions
that addressed some, but not most, aspects of the selected key
questions we examined for the practice. Did not follow_the Coast Guard
had not followed a reform practice if the evidence showed that the
service took no actions that addressed the selected key questions we
examined for the practice.
\b\ We used the following scale to evaluate the Coast Guard's
implementation of its modernization of mission planning in our February
2020 report. Generally applied_the agency documentation demonstrated
that Coast Guard officials substantially applied applicable key
practices. Partially applied_the agency documentation demonstrated that
Coast Guard officials applied some key practices but not to a
significant degree. Not at all applied_the agency documentation did not
demonstrate that Coast Guard officials applied key practices. For this
reform effort, we assessed subcomponents of the leading practices
(e.g., for leadership focus and attention, we assessed whether the
Coast Guard identified a case for change, established a dedicated
implementation team, and held leaders accountable). For the purposes of
this graphic, if we determined that any one of these subcomponents was
partially applied, we categorized the leading practice as partially
applied.
\c\ We assessed the Coast Guard's reorganization of its reserve
component in our February 2020 report using the same criteria that we
used for its modernization of mission planning. We used an additional
determination, minimally applied, to assess the Coast Guard's recent
component integration since this effort was in its initial
implementation stage. We determined that a subcategory was minimally
applied where Coast Guard documentation demonstrated that officials
applied a limited number of key reform practices, with significant gaps
in actions associated with each practice.
\d\ In our November 2019 report, we used the following scale to
evaluate the Coast Guard's Deployable Specialized Forces against the
key practices, questions, and considerations pertaining to a leading
practice: Generally applied_the agency documents demonstrated that
Coast Guard officials considered applicable key practices and
considerations. Partially applied_the agency documents demonstrated
that Coast Guard officials considered some, but not all, key practices
and considerations. Not at all applied_the agency documents did not
demonstrate that Coast Guard officials considered any key practices and
considerations.
As shown above, we identified gaps in the Coast Guard's
implementation of the same leading practices across multiple reform
efforts in our prior work since 2019.
Establishing goals and outcomes. In January 2026, we updated
preliminary observations we reported in our March 2024 testimony before
this committee, which found that the Coast Guard did not have a plan to
assess whether reform efforts to address sexual misconduct were
working.\9\ Similarly, in February 2020, we assessed the Coast Guard's
reorganization of its reserve component and found that the service did
not have finalized documentation that demonstrated outcome-oriented
goals and performance measures to assess the progress of the
effort.\10\ Further, it did not have a finalized implementation
timeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO, Coast Guard: Action Needed to Evaluate Efforts to Address
Sexual Assault and Harassment, GAO-24-107388 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6,
2024).
\10\ GAO-20-223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Involving employees and key stakeholders. In January 2026, we
reported that the Coast Guard obtained input from its employees and
stakeholders and reviewed prior studies and data on sexual misconduct
in the service to identify areas for corrective actions.\11\ However,
we found that the lack of a defined channel for Coast Guard personnel
to share feedback on the effects of the reforms may limit transparency
and hinder personnel engagement with reform effort. In February 2020,
we found that for the reorganization of its reserve component, the
Coast Guard collected internal stakeholder feedback during the early
planning stage of the reform but did not demonstrate that external
input, such as from Congress, was obtained during the development
process.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO-26-107685.
\12\ GAO-20-223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using data and evidence. In November 2019, we reported that the
Coast Guard did not assess Deployable Specialized Forces workforce
needs with regard to the number of personnel required to conduct its
operations.\13\ Similarly in February 2020, we found that the Coast
Guard did not demonstrate the extent to which it used data to justify
its selected course of action (e.g., cost benefit analyses) when
reorganizing its reserve component.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ To help carry out its missions, the Coast Guard maintains
deployable specialized forces units with the capabilities needed to
deploy with specialized training to handle counterdrug, terrorism, and
other threats to the U.S. maritime environment. GAO-20-33.
\14\ GAO-20-223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadership focus and attention. In our reports in January 2026 and
February 2020, we found that the Coast Guard identified leaders to be
responsible for its sexual misconduct reform efforts, modernization of
mission planning, and reserve component modernization efforts, but
leadership attention waned during implementation of these efforts. For
example, during the modernization of mission planning, the Coast Guard
disestablished its office responsible for reform oversight and did not
specify any office responsible for ensuring organizational change
efforts met intended goals. Subsequent shifting leadership priorities
affected what parts of the modernization effort were implemented and,
in some cases, resulted in years spent working toward a change that was
later terminated.
Managing and monitoring. In our reports, we found that the Coast
Guard took some steps to track progress of sexual misconduct,
modernization of mission planning, and reserve component reform
efforts, such as developing initial timeframes and milestones. However,
the Coast Guard did not keep its tracking or related milestones up to
date.
Strategic workforce planning. In our reports on Coast Guard sexual
misconduct reforms, modernization of mission planning, and reserve
component reform efforts, we found that the Coast Guard did not fully
assess its workforce needs.
Across our work assessing Coast Guard's reform efforts, we made 12
recommendations to the Coast Guard to improve its reform effort
implementation, with which the service generally concurred. As of June
2026, the Coast Guard has taken actions to fully address seven of these
recommendations. Five recommendations remain open.
For example, in March 2024, we recommended that the Coast Guard
develop an evaluation plan and mechanisms for assessing the
effectiveness of actions taken to help ensure service members have an
experience free from sexual assault and harassment.\15\ In January 2026
we reported that the service had taken steps to develop that evaluation
plan. Coast Guard officials stated that the agency has contracted three
full-time staff to develop a Service Culture Index--a tool to leverage
relevant metrics from its current surveys and other reports to
establish a baseline for assessing the cumulative impact of the reform
actions.\16\ Contractors delivered the first iteration of the index in
January 2026, but the associated documentation remains incomplete due
to the lapse in appropriations, according to Coast Guard officials.
They told us that completion and delivery of the documentation is
anticipated no later than July 2026. Coast Guard officials told us that
the results of the index will be used to evaluate effectiveness, and
they are developing outcome-oriented goals and performance measures for
the index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-24-107388.
\16\ Coast Guard officials said the Service Culture Index will use
the following five data sources: First Unit Arrival Survey, Defense
Organizational Climate Survey, Career Intentions Survey, and Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey, Organizational Assessment Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in our report on Coast Guard mission modernization, we
recommended that the Coast Guard measure progress in achieving the goal
of modernization, update a plan with timeframes and milestones for
completing its workforce assessment goal, and obtain information on the
resources needed to meet its goal.\17\ The service has taken some steps
to address all of these recommendations. For example, in September
2023, Coast Guard officials confirmed that it updated its 2023
Organizational Survey to include two questions that measured employee
satisfaction with organizational change efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ GAO-20-223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, it has not yet determined timeframes and milestones to
fully implement its workforce requirements plan even as it is embarking
on another reform effort. By updating its plan to complete workforce
planning and obtaining information on the resources needed to achieve
its workforce assessment goal, the Coast Guard will be better
positioned to ensure that it has the right number of people with
requisite skills in the right units to meet its mission demands--
particularly important as the service undergoes another comprehensive
transformational change through Force Design.
Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Implement Some but Not All Leading
Practices for Agency Reform for Force Design
The Coast Guard has taken some steps to implement leading practices
in its Force Design reform efforts to modernize operations and
capabilities across four areas--organization, people, technology, and
contracting and acquisition. These steps pertain to the leading
practices of involving employees and key stakeholders, addressing high-
risk areas and longstanding management challenges, leadership focus and
attention, and establishing goals and outcomes. However, we also
identified gaps in the Coast Guard's implementation steps related to
establishing goals and outcomes and using data and evidence-leading
practices that are important for agencies to implement at the onset of
a reform effort.
Involving employees and key stakeholders. The Coast Guard is
communicating actions taken to implement Force Design with its
personnel. For example, Force Design has a dedicated website that
provides updates, the service has broadcast messages describing
implementation efforts, and senior leaders have held townhalls,
according to Coast Guard press releases.
Addressing high-risk areas and longstanding management challenges.
In our prior work, we have identified challenges facing the Coast Guard
in the four Force Design areas of emphasis--organization, people,
technology, and contracting and acquisition.\18\ For example,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See GAO, Coast Guard: Asset, Workforce, and Technology
Challenges Continue to Affect Law Enforcement Missions, GAO-24-107144
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2023) and Coast Guard Acquisition: Actions
Needed to Address Affordability Challenges, GAO-24-107584 (Washington,
D.C.: June 12, 2024).
Over the past four decades, we have reported on the Coast
Guard's challenges to maintain an adequate staff of experienced marine
safety personnel to ensure that vessels meet federal safety standards.
In January 2022, we recommended ways to better predict--and meet--the
Coast Guard's inspector needs.\19\ The Coast Guard concurred with these
recommendations and has taken some steps to address them, but as of
June 2026, four of the five recommendations remain open. The Force
Design execution plan acknowledges the need to change the force posture
and operational concepts to maximize operational effectiveness across
all mission sets as well as reengineer the service's training systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ GAO, Coast Guard: Enhancements Needed to Strengthen Marine
Inspection Workforce Planning Efforts, GAO-22-104465 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 12, 2022).
The Coast Guard has had longstanding issues managing its
technology resources. In July 2020, we reported on longstanding
challenges the Coast Guard has had with its Marine Information for
Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) IT system, which is a data system
that tracks and reports results data for nearly all Coast Guard
missions.\20\ We found that the Coast Guard did not follow key systems
development processes in its efforts to invest in MISLE. As a result,
we recommended that the Coast Guard follow its key systems development
processes to identify and analyze alternatives to select solutions to
meet mission needs. The Coast Guard concurred and said it plans to
replace MISLE. As of June 2026, replacement efforts were ongoing. The
Force Design execution plan states that service will identify, test,
and deliver modern technology to equip the Coast Guard workforce to
meet mission demands around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Ensure Investments in Key
Data System Meet Mission and User Needs, GAO-20-562 (Washington, D.C.:
Jul. 16, 2020).
For over a decade, we have reported on the Coast Guard's
persistent challenges in managing major acquisition programs, including
billions in cost growth, years of schedule delays, and an unaffordable
portfolio.\21\ Since 2012, GAO has made 54 recommendations on how to
better address these challenges. The Coast Guard has taken steps toward
addressing these recommendations, but as of June 2026, 16 remain open.
Common themes across these recommendations include the need for the
Coast Guard to (1) take a portfolio-level approach to its acquisitions,
(2) conduct better long-term planning to ensure affordability, and (3)
gain key knowledge before making significant investment decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ GAO, DHS Annual Assessment: Dynamic Environment Affects
Efforts to Manage Acquisition Risks, GAO-26-108118 (Washington, D.C.:
June 9, 2026).
The Force Design plans include promising steps, such as
reorganizing and creating program executive offices with the intent of
reducing stovepipes and implementing a lifecycle management approach
for acquisitions.\22\ Other initiatives, such as streamlining
preacquisition planning and bypassing upfront analyses in the name of
speed, may allow the Coast Guard to ``start fast'' and award large
contracts quickly. The Coast Guard stated that it plans to obligate $20
billion of the $25 billion in funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill
Act by the end of calendar year 2026. For example, the Coast Guard has
already obligated about $2.4 billion on contracts for the Arctic
Security Cutter program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In April 2026, we testified that as the Coast Guard implements
this reorganization, our recent work on how leading companies organize
portfolios of products to help facilitate speed to market can provide
guidance. See GAO, Navy and Coast Guard Shipbuilding: A Disciplined,
Strategy-Driven Approach Is Needed to Achieve Ambitious Goals, GAO-26-
109068 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 2026).
However, as we found in our November 2025 report on one of the
Coast Guard's highest priority acquisition programs, the Offshore
Patrol Cutter, investing time upfront to gain knowledge reduces the
risk of cost overruns and schedule delays later.\23\ In light of the
weaknesses we have identified with how the Coast Guard manages its
acquisitions and how quickly the Coast Guard is planning to spend the
significant amount of funding it has received, we have raised questions
about the extent to which the Coast Guard is doing the due diligence
necessary to gain critical knowledge before making large investments.
For example, while the Coast Guard has already obligated billions on
Arctic Security Cutter contracts, it has yet to complete an analysis of
the cost and sequencing for its polar icebreaker fleet expansion, as we
had recommended in December 2024.\24\ More recently, the Coast Guard
did not agree with our November 2025 recommendation to stabilize the
design for the Offshore Patrol Cutter program prior to authorizing
additional ships, consistent with shipbuilding leading practices we
have identified.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ GAO, Offshore Patrol Cutter: Coast Guard Should Gain Key
Knowledge Before Buying More Ships, GAO-26-107583, (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 25, 2025).
\24\ GAO, Coast Guard Acquisitions: Further Cost and Affordability
Analysis of Polar Fleet Needed, GAO-25-106822, (Washington, D.C.: Dec.
19, 2024).
\25\ GAO-26-107583. We also have ongoing work examining how Coast
Guard is spending funds appropriated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
on major acquisitions, managing its contracts, and applying
shipbuilding leading practices.
Leadership focus and attention. Based on our review of Force Design
foundation documents, the Coast Guard took certain actions that align
with leading practices for effective agency reforms pertaining to
leadership focus and attention, which includes assigning designated
leaders and a reform implementation team to institutional
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
accountability in implementing the changes.
The Force Design execution plan states that the effort is
to be guided by flag officers, members of the senior executive service,
and command senior enlisted leaders.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. Coast Guard, Force Design 2028 Execution Plan Summary
(Washington D.C.: July 25, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The service directed a captain to lead the implementation
team.
The Coast Guard developed teams to monitor outcomes in
certain operational areas (Border Control, Flow of Commerce, and
Responding in Crisis) as well as other teams to implement actions items
pertaining to Force Design's four focus areas, according to Coast Guard
press releases. The teams are to report directly to the commandant.
A robust leadership structure is important throughout the entire
reform effort.
Establishing goals and outcomes. The Coast Guard has articulated
certain goals with desired outcomes for Force Design, such as growing
its workforce by 15,000 uniformed service members. Other goals are not
well-defined and do not have clearly articulated desired outcomes or
measurable targets. For example, the execution plan states that the
service will empower decision-makers at all levels by, among other
things, delegating decision authority to the appropriate level to
maximize mission impact. The plan further states that the Coast Guard
will adopt, leverage, and incorporate AI into daily Coast Guard
operations. However, the document does not describe how the Coast Guard
will measure these efforts or know when it has achieved the goals
outlined in Force Design. In addition, the execution plan and executive
report mention ``mission'' 40 times, but they do not show how the
proposed reforms align with the agency's 11 statutory missions and
strategic plan--a key aspect of this leading practice.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 14 U.S.C. Sec. 102(a) (providing for Coast Guard's
missions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Coast Guard has not developed a performance plan or
similar mechanism to assess the results of Force Design, even as it has
already implemented certain actions. The effort's foundational
documents posted on the Coast Guard website--the Executive Plan
Summary, Executive Report, and Senior Leaders Letter--did not include
any direction to develop a plan to assess the results to ensure the
actions are helping to meet the Coast Guard's goals.\28\ In addition,
while the January 2026 Force Design initial update details reforms
implemented over the prior year, it does not systematically evaluate
progress or outcomes against the Force Design execution plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See https://www.uscg.mil/leadership/commandants-initiatives/
forcedesign2028/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing goals and outcomes is a leading practice for agency
reform and is important to be completed at the onset of the reform
effort.\29\ Agreement on specific goals can help decision-makers
determine what problems genuinely need to be fixed, how to balance
differing objectives, and what steps need to be taken to create, not
just short-term advantages but long-term gains. Our prior work also
shows that establishing a mission-driven strategy and identifying
specific desired outcomes to guide that strategy are critical to
achieving intended results.\30\ It emphasizes that by combining
strategic alignment, clear outcome mapping, measurable targets, and
transparent monitoring, agencies can effectively drive desired results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ GAO-18-427.
\30\ For additional information about the GPRA Modernization Act of
2010, as amended, requirements and our related work, see our web page
on leading practices for results-oriented management at http://
www.gao.gov/key_issues/managing_for_results_in_government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, according to the Coast Guard's Commandant instruction on
internal controls, plans are to be developed to assess control
performance and evaluate results in the planning stage. However, we
have previously reported that the Coast Guard has not consistently
engaged in effective strategic planning or developed performance
metrics and actionable goals for some of its efforts.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See, for example, GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Address
Law Enforcement Mission Challenges, GAO-26-108847 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 13, 2026) and GAO-26-109068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Coast Guard, the implementation teams are moving
at a fast pace to implement the reforms. Coast Guard officials stated
that they do plan to build out metrics that will measure change and
evaluate Force Design outcomes, but they have not yet done so. Without
(1) reassessing the foundational Force Design documents and clarifying
them, as necessary, to ensure strategic alignment with Coast Guard
missions, desired outcomes, and measurable targets, and (2) developing
an evaluation plan and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness for
each area of reform emphasis, Coast Guard leadership will not have the
information needed to evaluate whether its implementation steps fully
align with the set of Coast Guard missions. Its leadership will also
not know if these steps are helping the service achieve the intent of
the transformation--to renew the Coast Guard to become a more agile,
capable, and responsive service. Further, without such a plan, the
Coast Guard, Congress, and the public are not well-positioned to assess
how the service is spending the billions of dollars invested in the
reform effort.
Using data and evidence. It is unclear how or if the Coast Guard
used data and evidence to develop and justify its modernization reform
effort. For example, as discussed above, one of the goals of Force
Design is to grow the workforce by 15,000 uniformed service members,
which includes active duty and reserve members. Coast Guard officials
stated that this is a minimum number based on, among other things,
assets the service is acquiring.
The Coast Guard has faced continued challenges in determining its
workforce needs and conducting strategic workforce planning. In our
prior work reviewing how Coast Guard has leveraged its workforce to
meet mission needs, we found that Coast Guard has not fully assessed
its workforce needs and recommended Coast Guard improve its workforce
assessment process.\32\ Specifically, in 2020, we found that the Coast
Guard had completed workforce requirements determinations for only 6
percent of its workforce.\33\ We recommended in 2020 that the Coast
Guard update its Workforce Requirements Plan with timeframes and
milestones for achieving its goal of assessing its entire workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Coast Guard's preferred tool for assessing workforce needs is
its workforce requirements determination process. See GAO-20-223.
\33\ GAO-20-223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since then, the Coast Guard has made some progress. As of March
2026, the Coast Guard has up-to-date workforce requirement
determinations for around 26 percent of its total workforce. Fully
addressing our prior recommendation would better position the Coast
Guard to ensure that it has the right number of people with the
requisite skills in the right units. Without data and evidence for its
entire workforce need, the basis for which the Coast Guard plans to
increase by 15,000 uniformed service members is not clear.
Conclusions
DHS and Coast Guard leadership have made a case that the service
needs transformation. Such efforts are not new and have achieved mixed
results. Since 2019, we have reviewed four Coast Guard reform efforts
and identified gaps in implementation steps. For example, in three of
the four prior reform efforts, leadership attention waned. Two of the
reform efforts did not fully establish goals and outcomes, making it
difficult to determine if the reforms had the intended effect.
Similarly, the Coast Guard's current reform effort--Force Design--which
the Coast Guard considers its most consequential transformation since
World War II--has not fully established goals and outcomes or a plan
with which to evaluate implementation.
The Coast Guard has received unprecedented funding, including
billions towards recapitalizing its assets and to carry out its
modernization reforms efforts. Updating its foundational modernization
documents and developing an evaluation plan and mechanisms to assess
transformation actions would better ensure that Coast Guard management
has the information it needs to evaluate whether its actions--which are
using billions of taxpayer dollars--are helping to mitigate its
organization, people, technology, and acquisitions challenges.
Recommendations for Executive Action
The Commandant of the Coast Guard should update the service's
foundational modernization documents as necessary to ensure strategic
alignment with Coast Guard missions, desired outcomes, and measurable
targets for each area of reform emphasis--organization, people,
technology, and contracting and acquisition. (Recommendation 1)
The Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop an evaluation plan
with mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of reform actions for
each area of reform emphasis--organization, people, technology, and
contracting and acquisition. (Recommendation 2)
Chairman Ezell, Ranking Member Carbajal, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions you may have at this time.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. We
will now turn to questions from the panel. I will recognize
myself for 5 minutes for questions.
Admiral, section 7111 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act
of 2025 requires the Coast Guard to produce an initial
homeporting plan that describes the home ports for current
cutters and aircraft, and where the future aircraft and surface
assets that the Coast Guard is acquiring will be based. We
required this report to facilitate the Service's long-term
planning for the billions of dollars of surface and air assets
funded by Congress that will be coming online over the next
decade.
I fear that if the home port planning does not begin soon,
the Coast Guard will be left with a fleet of new aircraft and
cutters that will have nowhere to go. The report was due last
week. When can we expect the report?
And can the Coast Guard explain the priority the Service is
giving to finalizing its long-term planning needs?
Admiral Schofield. Chairman, the continued planning for the
home ports and acquisitions is very important to the Coast
Guard, and we are continuing to work on that report and plan to
have that by the end of the calendar year.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
This is one that is very, very dear to me. Too often, the
Coast Guard has selected the lowest cost bidder for projects,
even if they lack the proper experience or skill sets, which
has resulted in program delays, cost overruns, and outright
contract cancellations. The Coast Guard Act of 2025 provides
the Coast Guard the ability to select contractors based on
holistic criteria, including their skill set, so that we are
not forced to select the cheapest bidder who can't actually do
the work. It is crucial that the Service properly utilize these
reforms.
Can you describe how you anticipate the Coast Guard using
this new authority so that you are able to deliver the best
value for the taxpayer?
Admiral Schofield. Chairman, thank you for the question.
There is no doubt this authority affirms the Coast Guard's
ability to select acquisition proposals that represent the best
value to the American people. While cost is certainly one
factor, other selection criteria such as schedule, past
performance, demonstrated experience, as you mentioned, or
other technical factors can also inform that selection while
supporting competition among capable industrial partners.
So we are going to continue to use that and appreciate your
efforts in that authorization so we get that best value to the
American taxpayers.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
Ms. McNeil, the Coast Guard is undertaking Force Design
2028 which aims to modernize the Service to meet its future
needs. In your initial review, have you determined whether the
Service has established success criteria or measures for any of
its lines of effort with respect to Force Design?
Ms. McNeil. So based on our assessment of the three
documents that we were able to obtain about Force Design, we
have found a few gaps that we would expect to see, and that is
why we based our recommendations on that assessment in terms of
ensuring that it's clear how Force Design is linked to its
mission and its outcomes that it's trying to achieve with Force
Design.
So making sure that there is a clear line between the
efforts planned and what is the purpose behind Force Design,
and there needs to be measurable targets so you can chart that
progress made toward those goals. So that's what's missing.
And then there needs to be an evaluation component, as
well. So as you are making progress, you are charting your
path, you are meeting interim goals, what's the effectiveness?
What's the impact of Force Design?
In past Federal efforts to do big reforms, especially when
there is a lot of money involved, when you are making progress
or you are going down a path and you are finding that you are
not making progress, it's time to pivot and it's time to target
the very precious taxpayer dollar into other efforts that might
be worth more and more impactful. And so that's some of the
things that we would recommend today.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. I am going to go through this one
pretty quick.
Similarly, part of the expansion in workforce will
certainly require a large civilian workforce. You were asked to
conduct a study on employment compensation, competitiveness,
assignments, and retention of civilian and military personnel.
While early in the process, can you offer any insight at your
current findings on civilians?
Ms. McNeil. I'm sorry, I'm not clear about what that
question was.
Mr. Ezell. I'm not either.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ezell. Part of the expansion of the workforce will
certainly require a larger civilian workforce. You were asked
to conduct a study on employment compensation, competitiveness,
assignments, and retention of civilian and military personnel.
While early in the process, can you offer any insight at your
current findings?
Ms. McNeil. We will have to get back to you on that
particular question. We will get a response for the record.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As usual, I defer to
our ranking member, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Vice Admiral Schofield, where do we stand on the process of
reopening stations that were closed or downsized due to
workforce shortages?
Admiral Schofield. Ranking Member Larsen, so just recently,
the Commandant directed the Deputy Commandant for Operations
and our two operational commanders to identify and prioritize
these stations to return to their former operating statuses. We
are focusing on manning boat and air stations to workforce
levels to operate safely and effectively moving ahead. In the
fiscal year 2027 President's budget, it does support this by
adding 1 to 2 additional boat crews across our 166 stations. So
we are going to, once we receive our budget, merge that with
the priorities. We will return members to those units in the
mission priority outcome level.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Can I clarify what you said? You
said one to two boat crews per station?
Admiral Schofield. One to two boat crews per--of----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Per station.
Admiral Schofield [continuing]. Per station----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Okay, yes.
Admiral Schofield [continuing]. Of the 166 stations.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right, yes. And then what
about maintaining that year after year as you meet recruitment
goals and putting people back at the stations with the
platforms they need to do their job?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, we are working up that full plan,
and we will be able to brief the committee when we are ready to
do that, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Will that be part of the force
redesign, or is this going to be complementing it? Like, not--
it can't be totally separate, I get that, but is it--does it
have to take place within the force redesign, or can it take
place?
Admiral Schofield. This is separate from the Force Design
efforts here. This is getting our workforce back up to strength
and being able to get to the end strength that we need of
another 15,000 members to serve across the Coast Guard.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. That is helpful. Thank you.
So I know that Admiral Lunday has made the eradication of
sexual misconduct a priority. What steps is the Coast Guard
taking to manage and monitor the success of its actions to
combat sexual misconduct consistent with responding to OFA?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, sexual assault is a violent crime
that causes devastating trauma to all individuals. It destroys
that sacred trust between our teammates, and we acknowledge
that. It really degrades our ability to execute our missions.
The Commandant released his first action order this year,
which was labeled, ``Combating Sexual Assault.'' So he takes
that very, very seriously. And it sets forth the Service's
direction on combating that sexual assault and the criminal
behaviors that enable it. His order is clear and unwavering: We
will hold those who commit these crimes accountable under law
and policy. And----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Can I ask--so the
several provisions in the Coast Guard authorization addressed
updating standards in the training for servicemembers. Does
this order respond to those standards updating?
Admiral Schofield. The order actually basically requires us
to, and the Vice Commandant has already chartered a Sexual
Assault Prevention, Response, and Recovery Committee to work
all of those requirements.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. And is it consistent with
completing the statutorily required strategy and action plan on
the Independent Review Commission's recommendations on sexual
misconduct?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Record retention in general has
been a problem at the Coast Guard. With the requirement in the
SASH title for advanced records retention for victims, has the
Coast Guard used any of the funding appropriated in the last 2
years to modernize your records retention with regards to the
SASH title?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, we continue to look at that system
and modernize it. I don't have a current status, but I can get
back to you with the status.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Can you get back to us with that,
please? I would very much appreciate it.
Also in my opening comments, I noted the termination of
various associations that could be used as important channels
for the Coast Guard to use feedback. How are you filling in the
gap now that the administration has cut off these particular
associations? How are you filling the gap in order to get
feedback and response from groups within the Coast Guard about
sexual harassment and conduct, and progress towards eliminating
both?
Admiral Schofield. So, sir, we are continuing to work this
across all our commands as part of our readiness initiatives,
as well as feedback directly from the field to our SAPRR
Committee's personnel and as we work towards, really, a
cultural index across the Coast Guard and how we are doing.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. You need to take this seriously
and show the steps that you are taking--the sexual misconduct
and harassment, the history of it--seriously as well moving
forward. This committee and the Congress has told you to do
that.
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Webster.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it.
Vice Admiral, it is good to see you again. Thank you for
your testimony. I have a few questions.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act provides sufficient funds to
build two Polar Security Cutters as well as procure long lead
time items that go on the third one. So we kind of get a
headstart there. Can you provide an update on the PSC program?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, I understand the question to be
just give an update on the Polar Security Cutter Program?
Mr. Webster of Florida. Yes.
Admiral Schofield. So, sir, we have funded hulls 1 and 2,
and partially funded hull 3 in that program. We continue to
make great progress in that construction, and we are excited to
continue to build the first Polar Security Cutters in over 50
years.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Could you give an assessment of the
progress? I mean, what type of timeframe are we looking at, a
little more specific?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir. We are looking to deliver the
first Polar Security Cutter by the end of 2029.
Mr. Webster of Florida. 2029? Are they progressing? You are
not waiting for 2029 to start the second one, right? Is that
correct?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir. They continue to work the
materials, the learning from hull 1, and continuing that
construction effort.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Great. So the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2025 provides the Coast Guard the ability
to select contractors based on something other than just price.
Do you have kind of an idea of how that new authority is going
to be used?
Admiral Schofield. Chairman, that authority is going to be
used within our best value continuum, our best value efforts in
contracting. We can use that as part of the factors within that
best value continuum.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So as long as a contractor has the
ability to do the program, cost would be some part of that
decision, right?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, can you repeat that question?
Mr. Webster of Florida. Well, as long--there is a lot of
talk about somebody not being qualified. So if they were a low
bid, they wouldn't get the job. But if somebody has the ability
to do it and yet bids in a reasonable manner, do you think
that--it's not just cost, but that will provide part of the
solution of who you would choose?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir. As part of that, in the
solicitation, we would make sure that we put all those factors
that are important to selecting the best value for this
contract. We can do that beyond price. We can do technical
factors, past performance, experience, facilities, et cetera.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Does it speed up the process by not
having to use price as the only--or does it slow it down?
Admiral Schofield. Best value can be a good way to get to a
final contract to make sure that the contract's executable and
staying on track.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Okay, thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Vice Admiral Schofield, in my statement, I talked about the
importance of steady, principled leadership. During
consideration of the last Coast Guard Authorization Act,
Congress considered changes to manning requirements on
articulated tug barges, ATBs. We didn't make those changes
because, in part, the admiral in charge of prevention and the
Commandant at the hearing said, ``We do not believe that the
technology is sufficiently advanced in robotics and automation
to be able to reduce below the current levels.'' Yet last
month, we got notice that the Coast Guard made the changes
through regulatory action.
So, what changed? Was the Commandant wrong? What was the
epiphany that led to a major change in direction?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, the safety of our mariners and our
ships and the impact on our waterways is really important to
the Coast Guard, and we continue to work that. Over the past--
--
Mr. Carbajal [interrupting]. I am glad that's the case.
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carbajal. But that wasn't the question.
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir. Over the past decade, the
Coast Guard has worked on this articulated tug and barge
manning requirements with all the stakeholders, and continue to
assess. The updated policy provides a safe and balanced
approach to that manning----
Mr. Carbajal [interrupting]. I understand, but what
changed?
Admiral Schofield. It was really our review with the
overall risk posture across the manning, the systems on board,
and how they are operated.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Vice Admiral Schofield, in the
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020, Congress included new
safety management system requirements for covered small
passenger vessels. The Coast Guard has issued an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking, but has never moved forward with a
formal NPRM or final rule. This is a major safety concern that
even the National Transportation Safety Board has called for
since 2012.
When can we expect a final rule, or is the Coast Guard
going to continue disregarding the law?
And the remainder of the requirements such as fire
suppression and egress remain as delayed as interim rules. Are
we going to see final rules for these as well?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, the passenger vessel safety is an
unwavering Coast Guard priority for us. We enforce that 100
percent compliance, as you mentioned, with the interim safety
rules mandated by the Coast Guard. That includes that
interconnected fire alarms, our secondary escapes,
requirements, and overnight watches to prevent these tragedies
at sea. We are continuing to evaluate, and we are looking to
get that full rulemaking.
Mr. Carbajal. Do we have a sense when the final rule will
come forward?
Admiral Schofield. I don't have a date, but we can get you
an answer on the record.
Mr. Carbajal. Great. Thank you. And also on the fire
suppression and egress issues, as well.
[For the information, please see Admiral Schofield's
responses to questions 1.a. and 1.b. on page 41.]
Mr. Carbajal. Ms. McNeil, while I am glad that the Coast
Guard is investing in housing in Santa Barbara, finally, I am
concerned that the shoreside infrastructure account in the
President's budget is woefully inadequate to address the
totality of the Coast Guard's needs. Given the GAO's report
that the shoreside infrastructure backlog is over $7 billion
and growing daily, what is your best recommendation for the
Service to get this backlog under control?
I think I already heard about the pivot. Maybe this is the
time that they can pivot and create a better quality of life
for all our Coasties, instead of doing all these exquisite,
ridiculous things that at the end of the day, we can't execute
because we don't have a healthy, good morale amongst our
Coasties.
Ms. McNeil. I would agree. There needs to come a time where
there is some clarity about what a success looks like. And if
you have invested a certain amount of money, resources, and
time on efforts and they are not achieving what those intended
outcomes are, it's time to explore other options and
alternatives and do some cost-benefit analysis.
And it's okay to pause, reassess, and reinvest. And so
that's the suggestion that I would make here.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Vice Admiral Schofield, last week, a pregnant endangered
fin whale was struck and killed by a cruise ship in Seward,
Alaska, highlighting the need for additional measures to
protect whales. Given the success of the whale desk in the
Puget Sound, can this be replicated in other parts of the
country?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, the safety of all vessels in our
waterways and marine whales, fish, et cetera, is important to
the American people. We can continue to invest in further
cetacean desks across the Coast Guard if resources are
provided, sir.
Mr. Carbajal. So it can be replicated in other areas?
Admiral Schofield. It can be with the appropriate
resources. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. Mr. Begich, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for
Admiral Schofield.
We saw last week a helicopter crash near Sitka, and it is a
sobering reminder of the dangers our Coast Guard crews face in
Alaska. Fortunately, all four members of the crash survived and
are recovering from their injuries. What is the latest in the
investigation, and what steps are being taken to ensure
aviation safety operations in Alaska are improved?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, that certainly is a tragedy for all
of those members that were involved in the accident, as well as
all Coast Guard men and women that continue to stay on the
watch out there.
We have initiated a mishap analysis board and further
investigation on that situation, so we continue to monitor
that. We have a robust process, sir, to review the
recommendations of the analysis board to make sure that future
operations are impacted by those strategies out there. We have
been doing that for many, many years, and it has been very
prudent and very beneficial for our policy and our operational
use.
Mr. Begich. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I look
forward to continuing that conversation outside this hearing.
The budget reconciliation bill provided $3.5 billion for
Arctic Security Cutters and $4.3 billion for Polar Security
Cutters. I was very excited by the recent announcement that the
first two ASCs will be homeported in Kodiak, with a subsequent
ASC homeported in Seward. Can you provide an update on the
acquisition timelines, current obligations, and delivery
schedules for the Arctic Security Cutter and Polar Security
Cutter Programs?
And then, in addition, what are the major infrastructure
needs and upgrades required for Kodiak and Seward to support
these homeportings?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, thank you for that question, and
these Arctic Security Cutters are going to provide value for
the American people across our waterways in the northern
approaches.
Importantly, we have 3 contracts definitized, and working
towards the delivery of those vessels for up to 11 vessels. So
those have started; we are looking to have the first several
delivered in 2028.
Mr. Begich. And GAO puts the shoreside infrastructure
backlog, as was mentioned by my colleague, at over $7 billion
with half of Coast Guard facilities beyond their service life.
Reconciliation provided $4.4 billion for shoreside
construction. What portion of that backlog is attributable to
Alaska installations specifically?
And how are Alaska projects being prioritized in the
spending plan?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, I can get back to you with the
exact number for the Alaskan backlog, but that's important,
because several of our first ships are going into that region
to operate. So those areas are very, very important to the
Coast Guard, and we continue to complete upgrades in Kodiak and
in Seward for our Fast Response Cutters, and we are currently
assessing needs across Alaska to support our operations.
Mr. Begich. That would be great if you could get back to me
on that. What I would I be looking for is what is the gap, what
is the planned appropriation within the Coast Guard for the
funds that were made available through budget reconciliation,
and what is the timeline through which those funds will be
deployed, and for what. If I could get an itemized list from
your team, that would be very helpful.
And I appreciate all the work that you are doing in Alaska.
I appreciate that you are prioritizing Alaska. This is a
historic investment, as we all know, for the Coast Guard, and
Alaska is central to it. I appreciate your work and your team's
mission.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
this hearing, very, very important. And I want to also thank
the GAO for their ongoing reports.
It appears as though there is some $25 billion of new money
for the Coast Guard. For years and years, the Coast Guard has
always been the neglected portion of our national security.
That has changed as a result of recent legislation, and I am
very happy about that.
However, I am concerned about how that money is going to be
spent. Admiral, you have already said that some significant
amount has been obligated, and more will soon be obligated. My
line of questions goes to the organizational structure to
ensure that that new money for vessels, aircraft, sustainment,
personnel, and infrastructure is being spent wisely. Could you
please describe to us how you are organizing your staff to
carry out the responsibility of acquiring the vessels,
aircraft?
Also what your sustainment program is. Have you changed
your organizational structure to carry out this enormous new
task?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, as we really--and I really
appreciate the support of this subcommittee with this
reconciliation effort, because that really helped us support
the future of the Coast Guard.
As part of our Force Design, we did consolidate both our
sustainment and acquisition under one Deputy Commandant for
Systems. Importantly, that one person is responsible for the
acquisition and the sustainment of these assets moving ahead
under five PEOs, including the new Robotics and Autonomous
Systems PEO, to be able to complete oversight and ensure that
we are putting the money into the right areas within our budget
and ensuring that the money is properly spent.
Mr. Garamendi. Has the GAO done an analysis of the
organizational structures necessary to carry out these tasks
and spend the money wisely?
Ms. McNeil. So we have not embarked on----
Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. Why have you not?
Ms. McNeil. We would love to do that work. We can help
craft a request----
Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. Yes, all nicey nicey. What do
you need to oversee the Coast Guard's implementation of the
expenditure of some 25 billion new dollars?
Ms. McNeil. A mandate or a request letter, and we will be
on it.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we provide such
a mandated request letter that the GAO carefully, consistently
review the structural organization necessary to wisely spend
this money.
Admiral, are you confident that you have one admiral
responsible? What staff does that admiral have to purchase this
equipment, to make sure that the sustainment money is
available, spare parts and pieces, and also the infrastructure,
and also the personnel? I am curious about your organizational
structure.
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir. What we have done is aligned
all of those responsible authorities under that one person to
make sure----
Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. And what is his staff?
Admiral Schofield. Sir?
Mr. Garamendi. What staff does he or she have to carry out
that responsibility?
Admiral Schofield. So the head of contracting works for the
Deputy Commandant for Systems, as well as each one of the
Program Executive Offices works directly for the Deputy
Commandant for Systems.
Mr. Garamendi. I would appreciate if you would deliver to
this subcommittee--and certainly to me--the organizational
structure that you have in place, the personnel that you
believe necessary to carry out the multiple tasks to wisely and
efficiently spend the 25 billion new dollars.
My final point goes to sustainability. The U.S. Navy has a
serious sustainability problem, as does the Air Force. What
steps are you taking to assure that the sustainability of the
existing and the new fleet of aircraft, vessels, and ports is
carried out and sustained over the years ahead?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, I appreciate the 2025 budget
reconciliation helped us jumpstart that with some funding to
get after some of our legacy backlog needs for sustainment. But
we are a $20 billion Coast Guard operating on a $14 billion
budget, and we need to continue--and I request your continued--
--
Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. Well, here is my concern, Mr.
Chairman, is the three-letter word ``but'' that you just put
forward. It is absolutely essential, in my view, that you have
an organizational structure in place, the personnel necessary,
and the direction not only to get the new equipment, but also
to sustain it.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. Mr. Fuller, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fuller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Schofield and Director McNeil, thank you so much
for being here. This is mainly directed initially at the folks
in the row behind you and the rest of the Coast Guard.
Before taking on this job, I was an elected district
attorney. And what the Coast Guard does each and every day by
showing such incredible courage, by jumping on submersibles and
taking down drug runners quite literally saved lives in my
Appalachian community. So I want to say thank you, because we
are losing far too many people, and I am so appreciative of the
incredible work that you guys are doing. So I want to say thank
you from the bottom of my heart for saving lives.
One of the things that I wanted to do up here on Capitol
Hill was punch the Communist Party of China in the face, and so
one of the things that I want to talk to you about specifically
related to the Force Design 2028 and countering China in the
gray zone, Admiral, I am interested specifically as it relates
to the Arctic and Antarctic: Do you have the authorities that
you need to counter China in the gray zone?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir. We continue to assess what our
needs are up in the Arctic area. We are putting an emphasis on
the Arctic region with that, as we build out these new assets
to go into line, and as well as we continue to build out our
15,000 members under the President's vision of the Coast Guard
of the future. That will help support that region to make sure
that we can control, secure, and defend the maritime border.
Mr. Fuller. Thank you. One of the things that I wanted to
talk about, when I was a district attorney, we used asset
forfeitures a lot to fund law enforcement activities. And so I
was wondering. Chairman Ezell described you guys in this
hearing as--for the Coast Guard--chronically underresourced.
And I just wanted to kind of get an understanding. When it
comes to the asset forfeiture specifically related when the
Coast Guard is involved, can you walk me through the process of
an asset forfeiture and how that relates back to the Coast
Guard?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir. I don't have all those
details, but I can get back to you with my staff to give you a
brief on all those steps on the asset forfeiture process.
Mr. Fuller. Okay. And then specifically, do you have--and I
don't need a dollar figure, but do you have an understanding
that some of the asset forfeitures that you are a part of in
making, are any of those resources coming back to the Coast
Guard?
Admiral Schofield. Most of the asset forfeitures go back to
Treasury.
Mr. Fuller. Go back to Treasury. So as far as you know,
nothing directly going back to the Coast Guard, despite--you
all are on the front lines putting your lives on the on the
line, right?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fuller. Okay. Thank you so much for your time.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. Ms. Scholten, you are
next.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Ranking Member,
and welcome to our witnesses.
I will start by asking a topic that I talk about a lot
here: the acquisition of an additional heavy Great Lakes
icebreaker. This year was particularly difficult for late and
early winter shipping on the Great Lakes with numerous delays.
U.S. carriers lost weeks stuck in the ice and couldn't deliver
the necessary raw materials that drive American manufacturing.
The Coast Guard has cited the need for additional heavy
Great Lakes icebreakers, as well, and most recently included it
in the Service's unfunded priorities list. Still, we haven't
seen meaningful action towards acquisition.
Vice Admiral, can you please explain why, despite the clear
need here, the Service has yet to provide its strategy
outlining how the Coast Guard will complete the design and
construction of a Great Lakes icebreaker with the same
capabilities as Mackinaw?
And in your answer, if you could, include some references
to some of the overall organizational structure within the
Coast Guard and who is responsible for making sure these things
happen and on time.
Admiral Schofield. Ma'am, we are diligently working on that
report currently on that future acquisition, importantly, to
meet all the statutory requirements of title 14.
We have--fiscal year 2027 has funding for all those
acquisition requirements, and----
Ms. Scholten [interrupting]. And I am sorry to interrupt,
but the requirements by the 2022 NDAA to create the publicly
available database, can you just remind me? What is the
deadline for that?
Admiral Schofield. We are currently working on that now,
and I can get back to you with a date from my staff.
Ms. Scholten. Okay. But internally, you guys don't have a
goal that you are working towards? We've got to get this done
by next week, we've got to get this done by 2030?
Admiral Schofield. I don't have the specific date with me.
Ms. Scholten. Okay. It seems like that would be very, very
helpful in terms of backwards planning to see when we want to
have this available, when the American people can expect
answers.
This is obviously a huge deal not just for the Great Lakes,
but for the entire country that relies on the Great Lakes
economy. These delays have been costly. And at a time when the
affordability crisis is absolutely crippling American families,
it's essential.
Admiral Schofield. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Scholten. Okay. We will await your response on that
one, then.
H.R. 1 made a historic investment in the Coast Guard to
counter chronic underinvestment. I was thrilled to see the
infusion of $25 billion in the Coast Guard to recapitalize its
surface, air, and shoreside assets. However, I am deeply
concerned with the administration's track record when it comes
to contracting.
Earlier this year, I requested the DHS inspector general
investigate allegations that Sean Plankey, who was at the time
acting as a senior advisor of the Secretary of the Coast Guard,
was simultaneously consulting for a Coast Guard contractor,
despite likely being in a position to review substantial
contracts.
Vice Admiral, can you please touch on how the Coast Guard
is ensuring that it is wisely using H.R. 1 investments--which,
I may remind you, is not free money, these are taxpayer
dollars, the hard-earned tax dollars of people in Michigan's
Third Congressional District--to responsibly recapitalize the
Service rather than potentially enrich members of the
administration?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, ma'am. Importantly, we are buying
really needed assets and capabilities and infrastructure to get
after the needs of the Nation.
For reconciliation, we have major shore projects that
include Training Center Cape May. We have worked that project
at the Coast Guard Yard to be able to maintain those vessels in
building out Guam, Newport, and----
Ms. Scholten [interrupting]. And again, I am sorry to
interrupt you, but the question was about the fiscal
responsibility of this historic investment, which was huge. How
are we making sure that there is not, sort of, inside deals
being cut here?
Specifically, we are concerned about these allegations
against Sean Plankey. How are you making sure that that is not
continuing to go on?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, ma'am, we follow all the
acquisition procurement rules as required by the Department of
Homeland Security and within our head of contracting activity.
Ms. Scholten. And what does that look like, I mean, in
practice? Who is making sure that they are followed; accuracy?
I mean, this is what we are doing here, right now, by
asking these questions. It's the essential function of our role
in an oversight capacity. But internally, how are you making
sure that that happens?
And again, I just want to stress to you this is about wise
and fiscally responsible usage of the American taxpayer dollars
at a time when people can't afford to put groceries on their
table.
Admiral Schofield. Yes, ma'am. So we do have--within our
contracting and acquisition levels within the contracting
organization--we have multiple levels of review, including
multimillion and above contracts go to the Department for that
same review to make sure that they are following all the rules
of acquisition.
Ms. Scholten. Do you feel that there is adequate oversight,
people who are personally invested within the Service making
sure that these dollars and cents are accounted for?
And are you willing to take that personal responsibility as
well?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, ma'am. I believe that our policies
do create that oversight necessary to meet all the FAR
requirements and procurement rules.
Ms. Scholten. Well, Vice Admiral, again I thank you for
coming before this committee. It's important to answer the
questions of the American people, and we do ask you back on a
continued basis so we can continue providing that oversight.
I am over my time. Thank you for the few extra minutes, my
good buddy, Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
Mr. Ezell. You sure?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Scholten. He is like, cut her off, cut her off.
Mr. Ezell. Mr. Patronis.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you.
Mr. Ezell. Mr. Patronis.
Mr. Patronis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, thank you all for being here. You have got a great
team of supporters behind you there. They do a hell of a job. I
am looking at Kyle and everybody. Thank you for putting such an
outstanding team--I actually share a wall with them. So every
once in a while they get a little rambunctious, but I
appreciate their service and making sure that the trains run on
time.
I am curious. When it comes to planning and moving
forward--and I am sorry that I may have missed this if this was
already asked, but when it comes to planning stations for
additional personnel, where are they going? Where do you want
to put people?
Admiral Schofield. So we are currently assessing, as I
mentioned earlier, sir, that the Commandant directed the Deputy
Commandant for Operations and the two operational commanders,
our Atlantic area commander and our Pacific area commander.
This really comes up--all about the operational priorities
within their regional domains.
So where do we need to put folks based on our past data-
centric-driven operational outcomes that we need to assess and
prioritize accordingly?
So we are basing it on the missions that are out there, the
risk to those missions, and then put the personnel and assets
where the highest risk and need is across the Service.
Mr. Patronis. Sure. So, I mean, I would think Florida is an
attractive place to send more personnel, because I don't know
if there is more encounter data of folks being out on the
waterways.
I love access to the resource, and I know there are a hell
of a lot of people that enjoy the coast of Mississippi. So I
just know everything along that whole gulf coast is something
that--people are moving, they are enjoying what we've got. I
just like to make sure we are advocating for where the most
encounter data is taking place. Putting my two cents in.
I know of the $25 billion--at least--I guess at least $8
billion of the $25 billion has been obligated for the
acquisition process. Can you touch on the recapitalization with
the money so far?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, I understand the question to be
maybe just touch on some of the recapitalization----
Mr. Patronis [interposing]. Yes.
Admiral Schofield [continuing]. Efforts across. I mentioned
some of those items earlier. To give you some sense of the
major shore projects that we are doing is, at the Coast Guard
Yard, we are upgrading that very old industrial site. That is
really important for the future of the fleet and the
maintainability there.
At Training Center Cape May, which is--really, it's the
birthplace of our enlisted workforce--we are putting funding
there under the 2025 reconciliation to really be able to be
more efficient and effective so we can bring more folks into
that accession point.
Mr. Patronis. So speak to investments in Baltimore. I saw,
I guess, is it drydock operations or dredging?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, the drydock operations, dredging,
and also looking to purchase a drydock.
Mr. Patronis. Okay. So--and so currently right now, are
there already these type of operations being done in Baltimore,
or is this a new investment?
Admiral Schofield. This is a new investment. We are looking
to have this done starting in the fall and completing by 2030
at the Coast Guard Yard.
Mr. Patronis. And any particular reason why Baltimore was
selected?
Admiral Schofield. That is where our current Coast Guard
Yard has been for----
Mr. Patronis [interrupting]. Oh, so there is one there
already.
Admiral Schofield. There is one there already. What we are
doing is, with the dredging, is making it capable for our
Offshore Patrol Cutters and National Security Cutters to come
in there. Currently they are not able to come in there, so we
have more limited capability for vessels to be docked in that
area.
Mr. Patronis. So the Baltimore yard right now does, I
guess, updates, retrofitting----
Admiral Schofield [interrupting]. It does.
Mr. Patronis. Okay.
Admiral Schofield. Yes, it doesn't do new construction. It
does major renovations, as well as a normal yearly or four-
yearly maintenance plan.
Mr. Patronis. Got you, okay. Thank you for those answers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. Ms. McDonald Rivet, thank
you for your patience, and you have 5 minutes.
Ms. McDonald Rivet. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for allowing me to waive on to ask these questions.
So I come from a Coast Guard family. We are a very proud
auntie of two Coasties. And it is critical for the district
that I represent in Michigan. We are literally surrounded by
coast.
The Great Lakes region has a $6 trillion regional economy,
affects millions of Americans, holds 90 percent of the United
States freshwater and directly supports over 1 million jobs.
But here's the thing. It gets really cold in the wintertime--I
know you know this--and the Great Lakes freeze over, which
hurts our commerce, it hurts maritime activity. So we have to
really think about and invest in icebreaking. They can only do
that when the fleet is fully operational.
Last season, the Coast Guard's Great Lakes icebreaking
fleet operated at reduced capacity because of engineering
concerns with multiple vessels, including the heavy icebreaker,
the Mackinaw. So we feel that very acutely. We lost one-third
of the 2026 season, and it impacted billions in economic
opportunity.
I know you are aware of the Great Lakes Icebreaker Act
where we are really focused on how we can be at full capacity
here. The act actually required the Coast Guard to outline how
it will design, build, and deliver a new Great Lakes heavy
icebreaker by March 18 of 2026. And the bill also required a
report detailing that. We have not received any of those
reports to date.
And so, as we are thinking about--it's hot as Hades outside
right now, but we are already thinking about winter. And so
with doing that, when can we expect the Coast Guard to deliver
the overdue reports?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, ma'am, I will have to get back to
you on that specific date, but we are currently working on that
report. And this certainly was a challenging winter----
Ms. McDonald Rivet [interposing]. Yes.
Admiral Schofield [continuing]. Across the Great Lakes and
New England regions. It was really a historic ice season for
20-plus years. And we are continuing to assess and see how we
can do better operations within those regions.
Ms. McDonald Rivet. Yes, that would be terrific, I think.
I understand that there have been cuts, that you are
shortstaffed. I get that. But deadlines that are mandated by
Congress are not something to be taken lightly and ignored. And
we actually need to have that information. And my constituents,
frankly, are demanding it.
I want to actually switch to another issue that I think has
already been brought up a bit here, but it actually has to do
with the Coast Guard station on the Saginaw River. I have asked
about this before. I am going to ask about this every chance I
get. The facility was forced to cut its 24/7 search and rescue
operations down to 40 hours, and we have seen our Coast Guard
response time drop dramatically--I mean, increase dramatically.
It now can take the Coast Guard hours to provide critical
lifesaving support. So to fill this gap, we have had to rely on
our local law enforcement, first responders, and honestly, just
flat-out good Samaritans to help particularly with water
rescues in ice--again, Michigan, there is a theme here, lots of
ice. Okay?
So last winter, we saw nearly a dozen ice rescue calls, and
our local law enforcement and our good Samaritans came in,
saved 15 lives without any additional support from the Coast
Guard on the ground. This is our reality. Every winter there
are ice rescues. Every summer season there are water rescues.
And you know that the Saginaw Bay sits on Lake Huron, which is
our country's northern border, and it only to me underscores
the importance of this national security.
So to measure the impact of the change of the station, last
year's NDAA required the Coast Guard to submit an annual report
measuring staffing response times. Based on the delays in
implementing the Great Lakes Icebreaker Act, I am concerned
that we are also not going to get this report in matters that
literally can mean life or death for the people that I
represent. And I would love for you to also tell me when we can
get that report.
And lastly, I sent a letter to the Commandant calling for
the reinstatement of full operations at the Saginaw River
station, and wondering if you have an update on that.
Admiral Schofield. Well, ma'am, there is no doubt that the
safety of all lives are our primary mission at all times, so we
will continue to do that. Whether it's ice season or summer
season, we will continue to do that.
I mentioned earlier the Commandant, his tasks, are
operational commanders to come up with a prioritized report
which are based on those assessments across the entire
operating area on the needs within those regions to put, as we
have in the fiscal year 2027 President's budget, up to one or
two additional boat crews through every boat station in the
Coast Guard, and we are looking to see where we can best
utilize those people to get after the mission needs of the
American people.
Ms. McDonald Rivet. I didn't really hear a delivery date on
that.
Admiral Schofield. We should have that report by the end of
the calendar year. Yes.
Mr. Ezell. The gentlelady yields. I have a couple more
questions on the second round, wrap this thing up pretty quick.
Admiral, after significant disputes over the bid award for
the Waterways Commerce Cutters, the WCCs are finally under
construction. Unfortunately, the WLI, the third WCC variant, is
not part of the current design contract. The Coast Guard has
preached that commonality among the three vessels' designs is
the key to limiting construction costs and maintaining a tight
timeline.
Excluding the WLI from the current design contract unwinds
the commonality on which the WCC acquisition strategy is based.
Does the Coast Guard plan to add the WLI to the current WCC
design contract, or has the Coast Guard failed to heed the
message in its own sermon?
Admiral Schofield. Yes, sir. To start with, the
construction and river tenders and inland tenders are all
unique in what they do around the Nation on rivers and coastal
waterways, driving piles, working aids, and they are difficult.
So what we have done initially was we have got construction
tenders and river tenders there in the current contract that
are similar design.
The three remaining vessels are unique. They are different.
They work in areas that are more shallow, more directed areas
that have unique capabilities for getting after aids and
servicing. And we continue to work that acquisition strategy on
how we are going to go ahead with the three WLIs.
Mr. Ezell. During the lapses in appropriations in fiscal
year 2026, the Coast Guard continued to pay military members
even after payroll accounts were exhausted. The Coast Guard did
so by using unobligated funds from other accounts which was
styled as a loan to payroll from those accounts. Can you
provide an update on the status of these funds?
And more specifically, have the funds been returned to the
accounts for which they were intended?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, I can give you a more detailed
update on those separately with my staff.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Carbajal, do you have----
Mr. Carbajal [interrupting]. Thank you. I have a couple of
questions, after all, before I make an announcement.
Admiral, at the beginning of last year, at the direction of
the administration, the Coast Guard fired 25 percent of its
flag corps officers. At the same time, you are looking to grow
the workforce by 15,000. What data and studies does the Coast
Guard have to justify that number?
Admiral Schofield. Sir, from a Force Design perspective,
this is about streamlining our Service and taking out the
decision layers across the organization. Importantly, putting
frontline operators out in the field to get their missions
done.
Mr. Carbajal. And the 15,000?
Admiral Schofield. With the 15,000. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carbajal. Okay. Ms. McNeil, do you have any thoughts on
this issue?
Ms. McNeil. When we looked at the past reforms since 2019,
including the current one, Force Design, we have got a lot of
questions about the data and information that was used to
inform the decisions about specific reforms.
And the one question that you just raised, we would love to
see an answer to that question. How did they arrive at the
reduction in the number of senior officers, and also how they
arrived at this target of hiring 15,000. We don't know how they
arrived at that decision. We are not sure what data and
information they used, and we also don't know how that is tied
to some type of an outcome or goal that they have established
in the Force Design.
It's a good question, and we would love the answer to that.
Mr. Carbajal. As well as the organizational structure that
has to occur for this to be----
Ms. McNeil [interposing]. Definitely.
Mr. Carbajal [continuing]. An effective change.
Mr. Chairman, I am done with my questions, but if it's okay
with you, I wanted to take a minute to, in addition to the
staff that you recognized earlier, I wanted to recognize our
fellow, our Coast Guard fellow, Lieutenant Commander Amanda
Gavelek, who is here. She is going to be leaving subcommittee
staff at the end of this month. She is also being elevated to
commander, and I hope to see her someday lead the Coast Guard,
because she has my full confidence in terms of her abilities
and her talent.
So I just want to take a minute to recognize her for the
work that she has done here with our committee and our
subcommittee, and I wish her the best in her future endeavors.
And congratulations on being elevated--I think, coming up
in a few days--to commander, as well.
The Coast Guard is in good hands with people like her. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. Are there any other
further questions from any members of the subcommittee that
have not been recognized?
Seeing none, that concludes the hearing for today. I would
like to thank each and every one of you for being here today
and the witnesses' testimony.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Vice Admiral Douglas M.
Schofield, Chief of Staff, U.S. Coast Guard, from Hon. Salud O.
Carbajal
Question 1. Vice Admiral Schofield, during the hearing, I asked
about the safety management system requirements for covered small
passenger vessels included in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020
to which you were unable to provide a date and stated you would follow
up for the record. The Coast Guard has issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking, but has never moved forward with a formal NPRM or
final rule.
Question 1.a. When can we expect a final rule?
Answer. A prospective publication date for the final rule is not
set at this time. The Safety Management Systems for Domestic Passenger
Vessels rulemaking (Regulation Identifier Number 1625-AC65) is on the
inactive rule list in the most recent 2026 Unified Agenda.
Based on the comments received, additional review would be required
due to associated regulatory analysis including economic costs,
implementation, and enforcement concerns. If this rulemaking effort is
revived, the Coast Guard anticipates the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) designation as a significant regulatory action, that would
require offsetting the costs of the rule with other deregulatory
actions per E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.
Question 1.b. The remainder of the requirements in the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2020, such as fire suppression and egress, remain
as delayed as interim rules. When will we see final rules for these as
well?
Answer. A prospective publication date for a final rule is not set
at this time. The Fire Safety of Small Passenger Vessels rulemaking
(Regulation Identifier Number 1625-AC69) published as an interim rule
on December 27, 2021. See 86 FR 73160. This rulemaking is also on the
inactive rule list in the most recent 2026 Unified Agenda.
Similar to the Safety Management System rulemaking above,
additional review would be required due to associated regulatory
analysis including economic costs, implementation, and enforcement
concerns. If this rulemaking effort is revived, the Coast Guard
anticipates the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designation as a
significant regulatory action, that would require offsetting the costs
of the rule with other deregulatory actions per E.O. 14192, Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation.
Question 2. Vice Admiral Schofield, it is my understanding that the
Coast Guard issued a request for information earlier this year looking
at expanding the Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP). I hold concerns
that an expansion of the SIP could impact safety. In 2021, the
Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that
66 percent of vessels enrolled in SIP have deficiencies. Please provide
details on the Coast Guard's reasoning for the expansion.
Question 2.a. What safeguards will be implemented to ensure that
increased reliance on the SIP does not compromise compliance,
accountability, or the identification of safety deficiencies?
Answer. The planned revisions to the Streamlined Inspection Program
(SIP) are intended to leverage Safety Management Systems such as ``Flag
Ship,'' to proactively identify hazards, manage risk, and continuously
improve safety performance. The Coast Guard is not reducing the number
of annual inspections for Small Passenger Vessels or unannounced
boardings. Instead, the intent is for Coast Guard Marine Inspectors to
audit a full year of continuous compliance records, mitigating the
traditional safety ``blind spots'' between our annual visits.
Question 2.b. The OIG also found that the Coast Guard did not have
metrics to monitor the program's performance. How will the Coast Guard
monitor the program's (existing or expanded) performance over time and
what metrics will be used to determine whether it results in a higher
level of safety?
Answer. Through a new SIP Key Performance Indicator Process Guide
(CVC-PG-024, referenced by the DHS Office of the Inspector General),
two primary metrics are tracked: (1) company-reported corrective
actions vs. Coast Guard-identified deficiencies to ensure self-
correction, and (2) that SIP-enrolled vessels maintain casualty rates
equal to or lower than the traditionally inspected fleet.
Question 2.c. How will the Coast Guard address potential conflicts
of interest that may arise when vessel operators have an increased role
in evaluating their own compliance? What measures will be in place to
ensure that commercial or operational pressures do not influence the
identification, reporting, or correction of safety deficiencies?
Answer. The Coast Guard retains 100 percent enforcement authority.
Omitting maintenance, skipping drills, or falsifying records
constitutes a major compliance issue. Operators who fail to accurately
report issues may face immediate operational controls, Program
probation or disenrollment, and Certificate of Inspection (COI)
revocation.
Question 2.d. How will the Coast Guard validate the accuracy and
integrity of information provided?
Answer. The Coast Guard plans to validate information integrity
through a multi-layered approach. First, Marine Inspectors conduct
inspections and unannounced boardings to physically verify that the
vessel's actual condition matches the company's records. Second,
operators are strictly bound to Vessel and Company Action Plans with
verifiable tracking of all maintenance and drills. Finally, as
operators transition to digital systems, we are establishing rigorous
standards for electronic recordkeeping to ensure data features are
immutable, timestamped audit trails for tamper-proof accountability.
Question 3. Vice Admiral Schofield, during the hearing, I asked
about the recent decision to change engine room manning standards on
articulated tug barges. At a budget hearing in April of 2025, the
Commandant stated:
`` . . . we do not believe that the technology is sufficiently
advanced in robotics and automation to be able to reduce below the
current levels . . . ''.
Yet, last month, we got notice that the Coast Guard made the change
through regulatory action. Please further elaborate on why the Coast
Guard decided to change these standards.
Answer. The Coast Guard policy, CVC-W1-037(1) Articulated Tug-Barge
(ATB) Vessel Manning: James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2023, H.R. 7776, SEC. 11508, reflects a balanced
approach that incorporates a deliberate focus on safety for a limited
vessel population on limited routes. Earlier proposals to revise policy
were rejected due to practical safety concerns associated with only one
licensed engineer and unlimited routes. The Coast Guard issued updated
policy which authorizes reduced engine room manning only on Subchapter
M towing vessels that are an articulated tug and barge combination,
have a gross tonnage of between 200 and 300 Gross Registered Tons, have
a valid COI with Periodically Unmanned Machinery Space approved by the
Coast Guard, and have a valid COI issued before July 19, 2022, that
authorized reduced engine room manning. Additionally, the Coast Guard
will physically inspect the automation systems and review shore-based
monitoring and maintenance programs. Lastly, all proposals submitted in
accordance with the policy will specify how they will meet and maintain
the statutory or convention work/rest hour requirements.
[all]