[Senate Report 110-72]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     110-72
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 171

                INTEGRATED DEEPWATER PROGRAM REFORM ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                 S. 924



                                     

         DATE deg.May 24, 2007.--Ordered to be printed


       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                       one hundred tenth congress
                             first session

                   DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
                   TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice-Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West         JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    Virginia                         TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts         KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California            GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BILL NELSON, Florida                 JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas                 DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS CARPER, Delaware              JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
          Margaret Cummisky, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
         Lila Helms, Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
     Christine Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
  Kenneth Nahigian, Republican Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel


                                                       Calendar No. 171
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     110-72

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



 
                INTEGRATED DEEPWATER PROGRAM REFORM ACT

                                _______
                                

                  May 24, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

       Mr. Inouye, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 924]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill joint resolution deg. (S. 
H.R. deg. 924) TITLE deg. to strengthen the 
United States Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater Program, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that 
the bill joint resolution deg. (as amended) do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

  The purpose of S. 924 is to correct problems with the United 
States Coast Guard's (Coast Guard) Integrated Deepwater Program 
that were discussed at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oceans, 
Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on February 14, 2007. 
Significant concerns with the program have been raised by the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Inspector General 
(IG) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the 
Defense Acquisition University (DAU), including: the Coast 
Guard's reliance on a single private entity, Integrated Coast 
Guard Systems (ICGS), to make significant procurement decisions 
under a unique Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) contract; 
incorporation of terms adverse to the Coast Guard in the 
contract; a lack of competition of subcontracts; and weak 
oversight by the Coast Guard.

                          Background and Needs

  Deepwater is the largest and most complex procurement project 
in the Coast Guard's history. Its primary purpose is to 
modernize an aging fleet of 90 cutters and 200 aircraft used 
for missions that occur beyond 50 miles from the shoreline 
through a mix of new acquisitions and retrofits to existing 
``legacy assets.'' In 2002, the Coast Guard selected ICGS, a 
joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, as the 
primary contractor under the non-traditional LSI approach 
intended to develop new Coast Guard assets as an integrated 
``system-of-systems.'' The LSI contract approach provides the 
contractor with significant decision-making and management 
authority over many aspects of the acquisition, including 
decisions on whether to ``make or buy'' assets to be delivered. 
The contract also did not require competition for subcontracts.
  In 1998, the Coast Guard's initial estimated cost for the 
project was $17 billion with all new and retrofitted assets to 
be delivered by 2018. The Coast Guard submitted a revised 
Deepwater implementation plan to the Congress in February 2005, 
to address increased costs and to account for new security 
capabilities and the service's new missions following its shift 
from the Department of Transportation to DHS subsequent the 
events of September 11, 2001. Under this revised plan, the 
overall program cost increased to $24 billion, with the final 
assets scheduled for delivery in 2027.
  Problems with the Deepwater program, many of which have been 
documented in reports from the DHS IG and the GAO, have raised 
serious concerns about specific acquisitions under the program, 
as well as more fundamental problems with the program as a 
whole. The GAO issued a report in March 2004, citing 
significant risks with the use of the LSI contracting model, 
and recommended changes to address three broad areas of 
concern: (1) improving program management; (2) strengthening 
contractor accountability; and (3) promoting cost control 
through greater competition among potential subcontractors. A 
report of the GAO in January 2006 detailed problems with the 
design of one of the three major new vessel assets to be 
acquired, the Fast Response Cutter (FRC), that led the Coast 
Guard to issue a stop-work order to ICGS. On November 30, 2006, 
the Coast Guard announced the decision to suspend all 
operations of the eight 110-foot patrol boats that had been 
converted to 123-foot patrol boats, due to structural damage 
and safety concerns. A report of the DHS IG issued on January 
23, 2007, found that the largest new vessel to be delivered 
under the contract, the National Security Cutter (NSC), would 
not meet the Coast Guard's performance requirements and had 
design flaws that could result in significant additional costs. 
Another report from the DHS IG dated February 9, 2007, found 
that ICGS failed to install low-smoke cable and other elements 
of the command, control, communications, computers, 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) system 
on the converted 123-foot vessels, as required by the contract 
specifications.
  The DAU, housed within the Department of Defense (DOD), 
released a study on February 5, 2007, which found problems with 
nearly every aspect of the Deepwater program, including the 
implementation of the ``system-of-systems'' approach; the LSI 
contractual arrangement; and Coast Guard management, workforce 
and organizational structure, financial management, and 
logistics. The report encompasses many specific recommendations 
on all fronts, including improvements to acquisition strategy, 
contract structure, and management.
  The Coast Guard has started to take steps to respond to these 
recommendations; however, many specific details of reforms 
remain unclear. The Coast Guard is currently negotiating with 
ICGS on anew contract, possibly for the full 43-month period of 
the next award term, to replace the existing contract which expires in 
June 2007. Although the Coast Guard has stated that it is making 
changes to the contract to address Congressional concerns, significant 
uncertainty remains.

                         Summary of Provisions

  The bill would direct the Coast Guard to stop using an LSI on 
future Deepwater acquisitions, while allowing the LSI to 
complete limited work as follows: upgrades of the HC-130J 
aircraft which would be completed in fiscal year (FY) 2008; 
acquisition of the C4ISR system; and completion of only those 
NSCs and Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPAs) on contract for 
production as of the date of enactment. The bill also allows 
the Coast Guard to use the LSI for the remaining NSCs and MPAs 
currently planned for under the program but only after a third-
party analysis of alternatives is completed, and the Coast 
Guard concludes that: (1) this approach is in the best 
interests of the Federal government, (2) Federal justifications 
on sole-source contracts are met, and (3) conflicts of interest 
for subcontracts are addressed. The bill would require the 
Coast Guard to fully compete all other Deepwater assets for 
which the Coast Guard is using an outside contractor. The 
requirement for full and open competition is not intended to 
apply to procurements for which a simplified acquisition 
procedure is allowed under the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 
Part 13.
  The bill would require an analysis of alternatives by an 
independent third party expert of all proposed Deepwater 
assets, other than those already under contract or which the 
LSI is allowed to complete, or those being competed. This 
analysis would include additional NSCs and MPAs, and any major 
future changes to the Deepwater acquisitions program. It also 
would require a plan from the Coast Guard outlining how the 
agency will move forward with the program, including revised 
cost and schedule information.
  An analysis of alternatives is routinely used for major 
changes to DOD contracts. The rationale for undertaking such a 
review for the Deepwater program is two-fold. First, various 
concerns with proposed Deepwater assets, including the NSC, 
have been identified. Second, since problems with the program 
surfaced, the Coast Guard has made many significant changes to 
what it plans to procure. For example, the Coast Guard has 
decided to alter its plans for three of the four planned major 
vessel components. It has halted the conversion of its 110-foot 
patrol boats to 123-foot vessels, stopped work on the original 
Fast Response Cutter and is rethinking whether to build a 
newly-designed vessel for its Offshore Patrol Cutter or to 
purchase a different vessel. It also has put on hold the 
development of the Vertical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV), 
after Bell Helicopter, the company making the VUAV, encountered 
problems in the asset's development. The VUAV was to be a 
``force multiplier'' used in combination with the NSCs and was 
a factor in the decision to purchase only eight NSCs to replace 
the twelve Hamilton Class 378-foot cutters. Given this 
situation, an analysis of alternatives for proposed Deepwater 
assets is warranted to ensure that the Coast Guard will procure 
the mix of assets that best meets its needs.
  The bill would require changes to terms of new Deepwater 
contracts, including changes to award term and award fee 
criteria, as recommended by the GAO and the DAU. It would 
require the Coast Guard to adhere to the Systems Acquisition 
Manual, which the Coast Guard waived in order to enter into the 
current contractual arrangement but has since asserted that it 
will apply to Deepwater projects moving forward. The bill also 
would end the practice of allowing the private contractor to 
self-certify the design and performance of assets being 
delivered to ensure adherence to accepted industry-wide 
standards and procedures.
  The bill would require a number of improvements to the Coast 
Guard's internal management of the Deepwater program. It would 
ensure better technical oversight by the Coast Guard's 
engineering staff, and it would allow the Coast Guard new 
authority to shift personnel to support acquisitions projects.
  The bill would require the Coast Guard to provide significant 
information to Congress regarding the status of the Deepwater 
program, including information similar to what the DOD provides 
to Congress for major acquisitions. It would require a specific 
report from the Coast Guard on the 110-foot patrol boat gaps 
and a report from the IG on cost overruns for Deepwater assets. 
It would also require the GAO to provide an annual report to 
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure on the Coast Guard's progress in 
implementing the provisions of the bill, the GAO 
recommendations in its March, 2004 report, GAO-04-380, and any 
subsequent recommendations issued before March 1, 2007.

                          Legislative History

  On March 20, 2007, Senators Cantwell and Snowe introduced S. 
924, the Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act. The bill was 
referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  On April 25, 2007, the Committee considered this bill and 
reported it unanimously, along with two manager's amendments 
offered by Senators Cantwell and Snowe. The manager's 
amendments modified the bill as introduced to reflect comments 
received from members and other parties and incorporated 
additional changes to streamline the process requiring the 
Coast Guard to consult with GAO.

                            Estimated Costs

  In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

S. 924--Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act

    Summary: S. 924 addresses the contracting practices used by 
the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for the Integrated 
Deepwater Program (IDP), a 25-year, $24 billion initiative to 
replace many of the agency's vessels, aircraft, and other 
assets. CBO expects that implementing the bill would add about 
$20 million to USCG's costs over the next 2 years, but that 
increase would probably be more than offset by savings in 
future years. Enacting this legislation would not affect 
revenues or direct spending.
    Several provisions of the bill could increase contract 
administration and other program costs, but those provisions 
and other reforms required by the bill also could result in 
lower procurement costs. Moreover, many of the bill's required 
reforms may be implemented by the Coast Guard even in the 
absence of legislation. CBO expects that implementing those 
reforms (whether under current law or as a result of enacting 
S. 924) would reduce the long-term cost of the Integrated 
Deepwater Program, but CBO cannot estimate the likely size of 
that cost savings or clearly identify what proportion of any 
long-term savings would be attributable to this legislation and 
what share would result from changes the Coast Guard would 
implement under current law. Any annual costs or savings 
realized by the agency as a result of the legislation would 
depend on future changes in the level of discretionary 
appropriations for this initiative.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would not affect the budgets of State, local, or tribal 
governments.
            Major provisions
    S. 924 would restrict the Coast Guard's reliance on private 
entities to manage IDP and would require the agency to revise 
other procurement practices to rectify problems identified by 
the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), and the Government Accountability Office. S. 
924 also would mandate that future acquisitions for the program 
be open to competition and be subject to formal analyses of 
alternatives carried out by an independent entity. For 
acquisitions that exceed $10 million, the agency would have to 
certify that it has performed appropriate technological 
research and feasibility studies. Finally, the bill would 
require the Coast Guard to produce various reports on its 
contracting and acquisition activities.
    Estimated effect on the Federal Budget: CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 924 would increase USCG's administrative costs 
by $20 million over the next two years. Most of this cost would 
be incurred in 2008 to obtain an independent analysis of 
alternatives (AoA) for the Deepwater program, as required by 
section 3. Under this requirement, the USCG would contract with 
an independent entity such as DOD or a federally funded 
research center for a comprehensive review of the agency's 
existing deepwater plan and feasible alternatives. We estimate 
that the costs of implementing other administrative 
requirements, such as certifications on large contracts or 
smaller AoA's on future acquisition projects, would not add 
significantly to the costs of the Deepwater program.
    The budgetary impact of other provisions of the bill is 
uncertain--as is the cost of the deepwater initiative under 
existing law. According to the DHS Inspector General, the Coast 
Guard's most recent cost estimate for the program--$24 
billion--is likely to be too low because it does not take into 
account costs of hundreds of millions of dollars resulting from 
delays, design failures, and other problems. S. 924 would seek 
to address those problems by requiring greater agency 
supervision and more reliance on competitive bidding. CBO 
expects that those reforms would result in savings, but we 
cannot estimate the magnitude of such savings or predict the 
extent to which some savings would be realized by implementing 
certain reforms under current law.

            Pending acquisitions
    CBO expects that implementing the bill would not directly 
affect pending acquisitions of certain classes of assets, such 
as the national security cutter and the maritime patrol 
aircraft, two assets that the USCG has already begun acquiring 
from its chosen contractor. The bill would exempt those and 
other specified projects from its requirements on management 
andcompetitive bidding if certain conditions are met. The 
administrative burden of meeting those conditions could cause delays in 
acquiring some fleet replacements and thus result in additional 
operating and maintenance costs over the next few years for existing 
assets.Similar delays, however, may occur under current law; the Coast 
Guard has already had to begin revising the design of those assets to 
address known problems.

            Future acquisitions
    The bill would require that future phases of IDP be subject 
to open competition and other reforms. The resulting savings 
from such reforms could be significant--perhaps hundreds of 
millions of dollars--but cannot be estimated with any 
precision. Moreover, many of the contracting changes may occur 
even in the absence of legislation. For example, the Coast 
Guard recently announced that it intends to begin managing the 
program itself rather than relying on a private systems 
integrator. The agency has also begun implementing some of the 
other reforms suggested by DHS, such as more reliance on 
competition and independent analysis.
    Any costs or savings that result from implementing S. 924 
would depend on corresponding changes in annual appropriation 
acts. Annual funding for acquisitions under the program has 
varied widely--from $320 million in fiscal year 2002 to more 
than $1.1 billion to date for 2007. The President's budget 
request for 2008 includes nearly $840 million for the program.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 924 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Deborah Reis; Impact 
on state, local, and tribal governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact 
on the private sector: Craig Cammarata.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

                       NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

    The reported bill would require changes to the contracting 
approach used by the Coast Guard in its Deepwater program, and 
improvements to the Coast Guard's management of this program. 
It does not authorize any new regulations and therefore will 
not subject any individuals or businesses to new regulations.

                            ECONOMIC IMPACT

    The reported bill would have little, if any, impact on the 
United States economy or on United States citizens. The 
provisions of the bill, including changes to the contracting 
approach and the requirement for increased competition, are 
aimed at reducing costs under the Deepwater program.

                                PRIVACY

    The reported bill would not have any adverse impact on the 
personal privacy of the individuals that will be impacted by 
this legislation.

                               PAPERWORK

    The reported bill would not increase paperwork requirements 
for the private sector.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents

    Section 1 would entitle the legislation as the ``Integrated 
Deepwater Program Reform Act.''

Section 2. Procurement structure

    Section 2(a) would direct the Coast Guard to stop using a 
LSI on future Deepwater acquisitions and to have a full and 
open competition of all Deepwater assets that have not yet gone 
on contract, other than those that the LSI can complete or that 
the Coast Guard is doing in-house.
    Section 2(b) would allow the Coast Guard to use the LSI to 
complete any specific work for which a contract or order had 
already been issued. It would also allow the Coast Guard to use 
the LSI to complete the C130-J modifications and the C4ISR 
program in their entirety, and to complete procurements of the 
NSCs and MPAs already under contract for construction. It would 
allow the Coast Guard to use the LSI to complete all of the 
remaining NSCs and MPAs only after an analysis of alternatives 
has been conducted, and the Coast Guard concludes that: (1) 
these procurements and the use of an LSI are in the best 
interest of the Federal government, (2) justifications for not 
competing assets under the Federal Acquisition Regulations are 
met, and (3) financial conflicts of interest for subcontracts 
are addressed. This section also would allow the Coast Guard to 
directly award any work to a subcontractor that it could award 
to the LSI under this section.

Section 3. Analysis of alternatives

      Section 3 would prevent procurement of additional assets 
under the Deepwater program, except those already under 
contract or which the bill allows the LSI to complete, or those 
for which a request for proposals had been issued prior to the 
date of enactment, until completion of an analysis of 
alternatives. Such review would have to be conducted by an 
independent third party entity with expertise in major 
acquisitions and no financial conflict of interest. It would 
require the Coast Guard to provide a plan to Congress for how 
to move forward with Deepwater procurements based on this 
review, including a revised cost and schedule for the program. 
A similar review would be required for any major changes to the 
agreed plan in the future.

Section 4. Certification

      Section 4 would require the Commandant to certify to 
Congress, prior to issuing new contracts, delivery orders, or 
task orders for procurements exceeding $10 million, that the 
proposed procurement meets objective criteria on feasibility, 
maturity of design, and costs.

Section 5. Contract requirements

      Section 5 would require improvements to any contract 
entered into by the Coast Guard for Deepwater assets, including 
changes to award term and award fee criteria as recommended by 
the GAO. It would end the practice of allowing the private 
contractor to self-certify the design and performance of assets 
being delivered to ensure adherence to accepted industry-wide 
standards and procedures. This would be accomplished by 
requiring an independent third party to certify any procurement 
for performance and safety. However, such third-party 
certification is not intended to apply to certain performance 
standards, such as sea trials of vessels, for which the Coast 
Guard has the appropriate internal expertise. This section also 
would require the Coast Guard to adhere to its Systems 
Acquisition Manual.

Section 6. Improvements in Coast Guard management

      Section 6 would require improvements to the Coast Guard's 
management of the Deepwater program, including implementation 
of the Coast Guard's Blueprint for Acquisition Reform, as well 
as recommendations for improved management included in a 
February 5, 2007, DAU report and in reports by the GAO. It also 
would ensure better technical oversight by the Coast Guard's 
engineering staff by requiring the Coast Guard to make the head 
of its Engineering and Logistics program the technical 
authority for all design, engineering, and technical decisions 
for the Deepwater program. It also would allow the Coast Guard 
to shift personnel to support acquisitions projects.

Section 7. Procurement and report requirements

      Section 7 would require the Coast Guard to provide 
significant additional information to Congress regarding the 
status of the Deepwater program. It also would require a report 
on how the Coast Guard will address gaps in operational hours 
stemming from its suspension of the eight converted 123-foot 
cutters.

Section 8. GAO review and recommendations

      Section 8 would require the GAO to closely monitor the 
Coast Guard's implementation of improvements to its management 
of the Deepwater program. It also would require the GAO to 
provide an annual report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the Coast 
Guard's progress in implementing the provisions of the bill, 
the GAO recommendations in its March, 2004 report, GAO-04-380, 
and any subsequent recommendations issued before March 1, 2007.

Section 9. Inspector General review of Deepwater program

      Section 9 would require the IG of DHS to provide Congress 
with a report regarding decisions under the Deepwater program 
that have led to cost overruns or cost increases for Deepwater 
assets.
Section 10. Definitions
      Section 10 would set forth definitions for certain terms 
used in the bill.

                        Changes in Existing Law

  In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the 
bill as reported would make no change to existing law. deg.
  In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, 
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed 
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown 
in roman):

                         TITLE 14. COAST GUARD

                      PART I. REGULAR COAST GUARD

                    CHAPTER 5. FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

Sec. 93. Commandant; general powers

  (a) For the purpose of executing the duties and functions of 
the Coast Guard the Commandant may:
          (1) maintain water, land, and air patrols, and ice-
        breaking facilities;
          (2) establish and prescribe the purpose of, change 
        the location of, consolidate, discontinue, re-
        establish, maintain, operate, and repair Coast Guard 
        shore establishments;
          (3) assign vessels, aircraft, vehicles, aids to 
        navigation, equipment, appliances, and supplies to 
        Coast Guard districts and shore establishments, and 
        transfer any of the foregoing from one district or 
        shore establishment to another;
          (4) conduct experiments, investigate, or cause to be 
        investigated, plans, devices, and inventions relating 
        to the performance of any Coast Guard function and 
        cooperate and coordinate such activities with other 
        government agencies and with private agencies;
          (5) conduct any investigations or studies that may be 
        of assistance to the Coast Guard in the performance of 
        any of its powers, duties, or functions;
          (6) collect, publish, and distribute information 
        concerning Coast Guard operations;
          (7) conduct or make available to personnel of the 
        Coast Guard such specialized training and courses of 
        instruction, including correspondence courses, as may 
        be necessary or desirable for the good of the service;
          (8) design or cause to be designed, cause to be 
        constructed, accept as gift, or otherwise acquire 
        patrol boats and other small craft, equip, operate, 
        maintain, supply, and repair such patrol boats, other 
        small craft, aircraft, and vehicles, and subject to 
        applicable regulations under subtitle I of title 40 and 
        title III of the Federal Property and Administrative 
        Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) dispose of 
        them;
          (9) acquire, accept as gift, maintain, repair, and 
        discontinue aids to navigation, appliances, equipment, 
        and supplies;
          (10) equip, operate, maintain, supply, and repair 
        Coast Guard districts and shore establishments;
          (11) establish, equip, operate, and maintain shops, 
        depots, and yards for the manufacture and construction 
        of aids to navigation, equipment, apparatus, vessels, 
        vehicles, and aircraft not normally or economically 
        obtainable from private contractors, and for the 
        maintenance and repair of any property used by the 
        Coast Guard;
          (12) accept and utilize, in times of emergency in 
        order to save life or protect property, such voluntary 
        services as may be offered to the Coast Guard;
          (13) rent or lease, under such terms and conditions 
        as are deemed advisable, for a period not exceeding 
        five years, such real property under the control of the 
        Coast Guard as may not be required for immediate use by 
        the Coast Guard, the monies received from any such 
        rental or lease, less amount of expenses incurred 
        (exclusive of governmental personal services), to be 
        deposited in the Treasury;
          (14) grant, under such terms and conditions as are 
        deemed advisable, permits, licenses, easements, and 
        rights-of-way over, across, in, and upon lands under 
        the control of the Coast Guard when in the public 
        interest and without substantially injuring the 
        interests of the United States in the property thereby 
        affected;
          (15) establish, install, abandon, re-establish, re-
        route, operate, maintain, repair, purchase, or lease 
        such telephone and telegraph lines and cables, together 
        with all facilities, apparatus, equipment, structures, 
        appurtenances, accessories, and supplies used or useful 
        in connection with the installation, operation, 
        maintenance, or repair of such lines and cables, 
        including telephones in residences leased or owned by 
        the Government of the United States when appropriate to 
        assure efficient response to extraordinary operational 
        contingencies of a limited duration, and acquire such 
        real property, rights-of-way, easements, or attachment 
        privileges as may be required for the installation, 
        operation, and maintenance of such lines, cables, and 
        equipment;
          (16) establish, install, abandon, re-establish, 
        change the location of, operate, maintain, and repair 
        radio transmitting and receiving stations;
          (17) provide medical and dental care for personnel 
        entitled thereto by law or regulation, including care 
        in private facilities;
          (18) accept, under terms and conditions the 
        Commandant establishes, the service of an individual 
        ordered to perform community service under the order of 
        a Federal, State, or municipal court;
          (19) notwithstanding any other law, enter into 
        cooperative agreements with States, local governments, 
        non-governmental organizations, and individuals, to 
        accept and utilize voluntary services for the 
        maintenance and improvement of natural and historic 
        resources on, or to benefit natural and historic 
        research on, Coast Guard facilities, subject to the 
        requirement that--
                  (A) the cooperative agreements shall each 
                provide for the parties to contribute funds or 
                services on a matching basis to defray the 
                costs of such programs, projects, and 
                activities under the agreement; and
                  (B) a person providing voluntary services 
                under this subsection shall not be considered a 
                Federal employee except for purposes of chapter 
                81 of title 5, United States Code, with respect 
                to compensation for work-related injuries, and 
                chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, 
                with respect to tort claims;
          (20) enter into cooperative agreements with other 
        Government agencies and the National Academy of 
        Sciences;
          (21) require that any member of the Coast Guard or 
        Coast Guard Reserve (including a cadet or an applicant 
        for appointment or enlistment to any of the foregoing 
        and any member of a uniformed service who is assigned 
        to the Coast Guard) request that all information 
        contained in the National Driver Register pertaining to 
        the individual, as described in section 30304(a) of 
        title 49, be made available to the Commandant under 
        section 30305(a) of title 49, may receive that 
        information, and upon receipt, shall make the 
        information available to the individual;
          (22) provide for the honorary recognition of 
        individuals and organizations that significantly 
        contribute to Coast Guard programs, missions, or 
        operations, including State and local governments and 
        commercial and nonprofit organizations, and pay for, 
        using any appropriations or funds available to the 
        Coast Guard, plaques, medals, trophies, badges, and 
        similar items to acknowledge such contribution 
        (including reasonable expenses of ceremony and 
        presentation);
          (23) rent or lease, under such terms and conditions 
        as are considered by the Secretary to be advisable, 
        commercial vehicles to transport the next of kin of 
        eligible retired Coast Guard military personnel to 
        attend funeral services of the service member at a 
        national cemetery; [and]
          (24) after informing the Secretary, make such 
        recommendations to the Congress relating to the Coast 
        Guard as the Commandant considers [appropriate] 
        appropriate; and
          (25) notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
        any fiscal year transfer funds made available for 
        personnel, compensation, and benefits from the 
        appropriation account `Acquisition, Construction, and 
        Improvement' to the appropriation account `Operating 
        Expenses' for personnel compensation and benefits and 
        related costs necessary to execute new or existing 
        procurements of the Coast Guard.
  (b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(14), a lease described 
in paragraph (2) of this subsection may be for a term of up to 
20 years.
  (2) A lease referred to in paragraph (1) is a lease--
          (A) to the United States Coast Guard Academy Alumni 
        Association for the construction of an Alumni Center on 
        the grounds of the United States Coast Guard Academy; 
        or
          (B) to an entity with which the Commandant has a 
        cooperative agreement under section 4(e) of the Ports 
        and Waterways Safety Act, and for which a term longer 
        than 5 years is necessary to carry out the agreement.

                                  
