House Report 107-79 - COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001

[House Report 107-79]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 107-79

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

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001

_______

May 24, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 1699]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 1699) to authorize appropriations
for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the bill do pass.

purpose of the bill

The primary purpose of H.R. 1699 is to authorize funds for
the United States Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002. Funding is
authorized for the following accounts within the Coast Guard's
budget: Operating Expenses; Acquisition, Construction and
Improvement; Research, Development, Test and Evaluation;
Retired Pay; Alteration of Bridges; and Environmental
Compliance and Restoration.
This bill also sets end-of-year strength levels for active
duty military personnel and establishes military training
levels.

background

The United States Coast Guard, established in 1915 as part
of the Department of the Treasury, is responsible for
performing Federal functions that trace their beginnings back
to the founding of this country. The Coast Guard assumed the
duties of five previously established agencies: the Lighthouse
service, established in 1789; the Revenue Cutter Service,
established in 1790; the Steamboat Inspection Service,
established in 1838; the Life-Saving Service, established in
1848; and the Bureau of Navigation, established in 1884.
The Coast Guard remained a part of the Department of
Treasury until 1967, when it was transferred to the newly
created Department of Transportation.
Today's Coast Guard has primary responsibility for the
promotion of safety of life and property at sea; the
enforcement of all applicable Federal laws on, over, and under
the high seas and United States waters; the maintenance of aids
to navigation, the protection of the marine environment;
icebreaking activities; and the safety and security of vessels,
ports, waterways, and their related facilities.
As a military service and a branch of the Armed Forces, the
Coast Guard also maintains a readiness to operate as a
specialized service in the Navy upon the declaration of war or
when the President directs. The Coast Guard has defended our
Nation in every war since 1790, including the 1990-1991
conflict in the Persian Gulf.
The Coast Guard's legal responsibilities have expanded over
the past 20 years. Many of the laws the Coast Guard administers
are codified in subtitle II of title 46, United States Code.
Beyond the broad responsibilities described above, the Coast
Guard enforces the following laws:
The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, which provides
a three-year increase of Coast Guard drug interdiction
resources to respond to the illegal drug threat facing our
country.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, which expand the
Coast Guard's role in waterborne and airborne marine drug
interdiction.
The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, which authorizes the
Coast Guard to search and seize any vessel that is
manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with the intent to
manufacturer or distribute, any controlled substance in the
United States.
The Deepwater Port Act of 1974, which directs the Coast
Guard to oversee offshore oil port operation and construction.
The Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1974, which directs
the Coast Guard to ensure port and merchant vessel safety.
The Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978, which authorizes
the Coast Guard to inspect foreign tankers, evaluate crew
standards, and monitor offshore lightering activities in U.S.
waters.
The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of
1986, which requires the Coast Guard to maintain and improve
port, harbor, and coastal facilities security.
The Federal Boating Safety Act of 1971, which authorized
the Coast Guard to prescribe standards for the manufacture of
pleasure boats and associated equipment.
The Recreational Boating Safety Improvement Act of 1998
(subtitle D of title VII of P.L. 105-178) amended the Wallop-
Breaux amendments to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (P.L.
98-369) which established the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. The
Coast Guard uses this fund to promote recreational boating
safety and access through a state grant program.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (popularly
known as the Clean Water Act), which requires the Coast Guard
to regulate discharges of oil and sewage from vessels.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), which expands the
Coast Guard's authority over oil spills, and establishes a
comprehensive regime for oil spill compensation, liability,
response, and research and development.
The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, which gives the Coast Guard enforcement authority over
ocean dumping and marine sanctuaries.
The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, which requires the
Coast Guard to administer and enforce international
environmental pollution agreements through vessel and port
certification and inspections.
The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of
1987, which requires the Coast Guard to enforce prohibitions on
the disposal of plastic materials and other garbage at sea and
to establish regulations for vessel waste management.
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which requires
the Coast Guard to enforce safety standards for the waterborne
transportation of hazardous materials.
The Intervention on the High Seas Act, which authorizes the
Coast Guard to intervene in situations involving pollution
discharges on the high seas that pose a threat to the United
States and its territorial waters.
The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which
assigns joint responsibility to the Coast Guard and the
National Marine Fisheries Services to enforce U.S. fisheries
laws within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone of the United
States.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978,
which authorizes the Coast Guard to enforce environmental and
safety regulations governing oil and gas development activities
on the outer Continental Shelf.
The National Invasive Species Act of 1996, which amended
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
of 1990 to strengthen and improve the nation's response to
threats posed by aquatic nuisance species.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 1699

Section 1. Short title

This section states that the Act may be cited as the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 2001.

Section 2. Authorization of appropriations

H.R. 1699 authorizes $5.4 billion for Coast Guard programs
and operations.
Operating expenses
Section 2(1) of the bill authorizes approximately $3.7
billion for Coast Guard operating expenses for fiscal year
2002. This section also requires that $5.5 million be available
for the Coast Guard commercial fishing vessel safety program to
insure that the Coast Guard has adequate funding available for
additional personnel to perform voluntary safety examinations
of commercial fishing vessels.
During the past several years, the Coast Guard has
experienced budgetary shortfalls resulting from the enactment
of new and expanded military entitlement programs. In addition,
the cumulative effects of streamlining, personnel shortages,
inexperienced personnel and increased demands for services have
reduced the Coast Guard's overall readiness posture. The Coast
Guard has deferred maintenance on vessels and cannibalized
aircraft to overcome readiness shortfalls. However, the Coast
Guard has deferred maintenance on its aircraft, vessels and
shore facilities to the point that it is no longer able to
sustain an adequate level of operations. During fiscal years
2000 and 2001,the Coast Guard reduced law enforcement
operations to pay for unbudgeted cost increases such as new and
expanded entitlement programs, rising utility costs and critical spare
parts.
While the President's budget request proposes a solid
increase to the Coast Guard's operating and acquisition
accounts, the Coast Guard needs additional resources in the
fiscal year 2002 budget to avoid the destructive cycle of
budget shortfalls, operational cuts, and end-of-year
supplemental funding bills. The Coast Guard readiness problems,
related to a sharp increase in military entitlements, personnel
training needs, and new operational demands, leave the Coast
Guard approximately $300 million short in operating expenses
for fiscal year 2002.
Operating expenses account for about two-thirds of the
Coast Guard's budget and fund Coast Guard search and rescue,
aids to navigation, marine safety, marine environmental
protection, and law enforcement operations.
Acquisition, construction, and improvements
Section 2(2) of this bill authorizes $659.3 million in
fiscal year 2002 for the Coast Guard's acquisition,
construction, and improvement (AC&I) account.
The bill authorizes $338 million to implement Phase II of
the Deepwater Capabilities Replacement Project. In August 1998,
the Coast Guard awarded contracts to three industry teams to
design an Integrated Deepwater System that maximizes
operational effectiveness and minimizes total ownership cost.
Industry team proposals to design and construct the Deepwater
project are due in July 2001. The Coast Guard intends to award
a Phase II contract in the second quarter of fiscal year 2002,
and to begin acquiring, constructing, or improving existing
assets under the accepted proposal.
The Committee strongly supports the Coast Guard's
integrated approach to the Deepwater Modernization Project. The
Committee opposes breaking apart the Deepwater Project and
acquiring Coast Guard assets piecemeal. Breaking up the Project
may cost the Government even more, without providing the
benefits inherent in an integrated approach. The Committee
believes that the Integrated Deepwater System is our best hope
to prepare the Coast Guard to meet future challenges.
H.R. 1699 also authorizes $42 million for the Coast Guard's
National Distress and Response System Modernization Project and
$63 million to support Coast Guard housing, facility
improvements, and aids to navigation projects.
Research and development
Section 2(3) of H.R. 1699 authorizes $21.7 million for
Coast Guard research and development for fiscal year 2002. This
account funds the development of techniques, methods, research,
hardware, systems, and planning to improve the productivity of
existing Coast Guard missions. Priorities for fiscal year 2002
include drug interdiction surveillance, fuel cell vessel
propulsion, as well as ballast water management and aquatic
nuisance species neutralization research.
Retired pay
Section 2(4) of this bill authorizes $876.4 million in
fiscal year 2002. These funds provide annuities and medical
care for retired military personnel and former Lighthouse
Service members, their dependents, and survivors.
Alteration of bridges
The Bridge Alteration program provides the Federal
government's share of the costs for altering or removing
bridges determined to be obstructions to navigation. Currently,
under the Truman-Hobbs Act of 1940 (33 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the
Coast Guard shares, with the bridge owner, the cost of altering
railroad and publicly-owned highway bridges which obstruct the
free movement of vessel traffic.
Section 2(5) of H.R. 1699 authorizes $15.5 million in
fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2002 authorization includes
funds to begin construction on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad Bridge in Burlington, Iowa.
Environmental compliance
Section 2(6) authorizes $16.9 million for fiscal year 2002
to mitigate environmental problems resulting from the operation
of former and current Coast Guard facilities, and to ensure
that Coast Guard facilities are in compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations.

Section 3. Authorized levels of military strength and training

This section authorizes 44,000 active duty military
personnel at the end of fiscal year 2002.

hearings and legislative history

On May 3, 2001, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation held a hearing on the Administration's
fiscal year 2002 budget request for the United States Coast
Guard. The Subcommittee received testimony from Admiral James
M. Loy, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard; Vincent Patton III,
Master Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard; and JayEtta
Hecker, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, General
Accounting Office.
In his testimony, Admiral Loy expressed his support of the
President's fiscal year 2002 budget request and explained the
three principal themes of the budget request.These themes
involve restoring the Coast Guard's service readiness by rebuilding the
agency's workforce, shaping the future of the Coast Guard through a
timely recapitalization and modernization program, as well as
facilitating the transformation of the Coast Guard to meet the nation's
needs in the new century.
According to Admiral Loy, the fiscal year 2002 budget
request will restore the readiness of Coast Guard personnel
while ensuring that all of the agency's missions are performed
at a level that can be sustained by its infrastructure. In
order to live within the budget request and prepare for the
future Deepwater Project, the Coast Guard plans to retire some
of the Coast Guard's oldest assets. Finally, the Admiral
stressed that the budget strongly endorses the Integrated
Deepwater System Project which will modernize the Coast Guard's
aging fleet of cutters, aircraft and command centers.
Master Chief Petty Officer Vincent Patton, who represents
the 42,000 Coast Guard reserve and active-duty enlisted
personnel, stated that the National Defense Authorization Act
of 2001 included a number of provisions that will improve the
quality of life for the Coast Guard's military personnel and
their families. These improvements include changes in the
TRICARE family medical program, pay raises, and substantial
increases to the Basic Allowance for Housing rates. The Master
Chief also discussed the problem of retaining Coast Guard
enlisted personnel. As a result of falling retention levels,
the experience levels of enlisted personnel have been falling
at an alarming rate. The Coast Guard has recently increased its
efforts to keep experienced senior enlisted personnel from
retiring.
On the second panel, Ms. JayEtta Hecker, Director of
Physical Infrastructure Issues, at the General Accounting
Office testified about her agency's recently released report on
the Coast Guard's Deepwater Capability Replacement Project. Ms.
Hecker discussed the GAO's evaluation of the major risks
associated with the Deepwater Project. The four major risks
include project costs exceeding budget projections, keeping
costs under control in the contract's later years, ensuring
that procedures and personnel are in place for managing and
overseeing the winning contractor, and minimizing potential
problems with developing unproven technology.
Ms. Hecker concluded that her agency had assisted the Coast
Guard in its efforts to mitigate the risks during the project's
planning phase. She felt that the Coast Guard had listened to
the GAO's concerns and made many changes to improve the project
and mitigate major areas of risk. However, the GAO believes
that the Coast Guard should endeavor to reduce certain risks to
the Deepwater Project before proceeding to the acquisition
phase of the Project.
A bill to authorize the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002
was introduced as H.R. 1699 by Chairman Young on May 3, 2001,
with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. LoBiondo, and Ms. Brown of Florida as
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.

committee consideration

On May 10, 2001, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation met in open session to mark up H.R.
1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001. H.R. 1699 was
ordered reported to the Full Committee by voice vote in the
presence of a quorum.
On May 16, 2001, the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee met in open session to consider H.R. 1699. H.R. 1699
was ordered reported to the House of Representatives by a voice
vote in the presence of a quorum.

rollcall votes

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter,
and the names of those members voting for and against. There
were no rollcall votes during Committee consideration of H.R.
1699.

committee oversight findings

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.

cost of the legislation

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.

compliance with house rule xiii

1. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office
included below.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
general performance goals and objectives of this legislation
are to: (a) eliminate deaths, injuries, and property damage
associated with maritime transportation, fishing, and
recreational boating; (b) protect our maritime borders from
intrusion by halting the flow of illegal drugs, aliens, and
contraband as well as suppress violations of Federal law; (c)
eliminate environmental damage associated with maritime
activities; (d) facilitate maritime commerce; and (e) enhance
national security.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R.
1699 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2001.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1699, the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 2001.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.

congressional budget office cost estimate

H.R. 1699--Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001

Summary: H.R. 1699 would authorize the appropriation of
$4.4 billion for discretionary programs of the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) for fiscal year 2002, including about $3.7 billion for
operating expenses, $659 million for acquisition and other
capital projects, $22 million for research activities, $15
million for bridge alterations, and $17 million for
environmental compliance. (For fiscal year 2001, appropriations
for these programs totaled $3.7 billion.) Of the amounts
authorized, $48.5 million would be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF). In addition, H.R. 1699 would
authorize the appropriation of $876 million for Coast Guard
retirement benefits in 2002.
The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 1699
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would
have no impact on the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effects of the bill are summarized in the following
table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget
functions 300 (natural resources and environment) and 400
(transportation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

USCG Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority/Authorization Level \1\.............. 3,652 29 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 3,766 1,010 452 278 137 23
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level................................... 0 4,367 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 0 3,073 755 285 150 46
USCG Spending Under H.R. 1699:
Authorization Level \1\............................... 3,652 4,396 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 3,766 4,083 1,207 563 287 69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2001 level is the amount appropriated for that year. The $29 million in 2002 is the amount already
authorized to be appropriated from the OSLTF for Coast Guard operating expenses and research.

The amount authorized by the bill for Coast Guard
retirement has not been included in the above table because
such pay is an entitlement under current law and it is not
subject to appropriation actions.
Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO
assumes that H.R. 1699 will be enacted during fiscal year 2001,
and that the amounts authorized for USCG programs will be
appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
The authorization level for 2002 is the amount stated in
the bill for discretionary accounts, excluding $28.5 million of
the $48.5 million to be derived from the OSLTF. (This amount,
which consists of $25 million for Coast Guard operations and
$3.5 million for research, has been excluded because such
funding is already authorized under existing law.) Outlays are
estimated on the basis of historical spending patterns for
Coast Guard programs.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1699
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would have no impact on the budgets of
state, local, or tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis. Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Victoria Heid Hall.
Impact on the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

constitutional authority statement

Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or
joint resolution of a public character shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.

federal mandates statement

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).

advisory committee statement

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.

applicability to the legislative branch

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).

constitutional authority statement

federal mandates statement

advisory committee statement

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.

applicability to the legislative branch