[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.