[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR
2007 BUDGET: COAST GUARD PROGRAMS
IMPACTING MARITIME SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY,
INFRSTRUCTURE PROTECTION, AND CYBERSECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 15, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-64
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] CONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-400 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Don Young, Alaska Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Lamar S. Smith, Texas Loretta Sanchez, California
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Norman D. Dicks, Washington
John Linder, Georgia Jane Harman, California
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Tom Davis, Virginia Nita M. Lowey, New York
Daniel E. Lungren, California Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Columbia
Rob Simmons, Connecticut Zoe Lofgren, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Katherine Harris, Florida Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Islands
Dave G. Reichert, Washington Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Michael McCaul, Texas James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
______
Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and
Cybersecurity
Daniel E. Lungren, California, Chairman
Don Young, Alaska Loretta Sanchez, California
Lamar S. Smith, Texas Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
John Linder, Georgia Norman D. Dicks, Washington
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Mike Rogers, Alabama Zoe Lofgren, California
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Katherine Harris, Florida James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York (Ex (Ex Officio)
Officio)
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, an Cybersecurity. 1
The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi.................................. 4
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Washington........................................ 11
The Honorable James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Rhode Island................................. 19
The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas........................................ 18
The Honorable Mark E. Souder, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Indiana........................................... 13
Witness
Admiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
For the Record
Questions for Admiral Thomas H. Collins.......................... 21
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2007
BUDGET: COAST GUARD PROGRAMS
IMPACTING MARITIME SECURITY
----------
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Economic Security,
Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 5:00 p.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Lungren
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lungren, Souder, Sanchez,
Thompson, Dicks, Jackson-Lee, Langevin, and DeFazio.
Mr. Lungren. [Presiding.] The Committee on Homeland
Security's Subcommittee on Economic Security Infrastructure
Protection and Cybersecurity will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
president's fiscal year 2007 budget and Coast Guard programs
impacting maritime border security.
Today, we will hear from Admiral Thomas Collins, the
commandant of the United States Coast Guard. I want to thank
the commandant for his testimony and his appearance before us
today.
I know you leave tomorrow for a long trip overseas, and
thank you for making it a priority to appear before this
subcommittee.
As the lead federal agency for maritime security, the Coast
Guard has the awesome task of protecting our waterways and
securing our nation's ports. For over 200 years, the Coast
Guard has done a great job patrolling and protecting our
coastlines, which total over 95,000 miles.
The Coast Guard also plays a key role in pushing out our
borders further from our shores in order to prevent terrorists
and terrorist weapons from arriving at U.S. shores.
2005 proved to be a banner year for the Coast Guard,
testing its assets, capabilities and personnel like never
before. The year began in January of 2005 when the Coast Guard
was called upon to provide support to Tsunami relief
operations. The Coast Guard also maintained six patrol boats
off the coast of Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom,
and the nation watched in awe as the Coast Guard rescued over
33,000 persons in search and rescue operations in the wake of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The Coast Guard performed admirably under extremely
difficult circumstances, and I want to take this opportunity to
commend the Coast Guard for its performance this past year.
But with such performance we want to ensure that the
president's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $8.4 billion for
the Coast Guard accounts for the inevitable toll placed upon
legacy assets while also allowing for continued performance of
the Coast Guard's vital homeland security missions, which does
include ports, waterways and coast security, drug and migrant
interdiction, defense readiness and other law enforcement as
well as continued performance of the Coast Guard's non-homeland
security mission.
Specifically interested to hear about the long-term effects
this successfully arduous year may have had on the deepwater
assets delivery schedules, including the Coast Guard's HH-65C
Helicopter Reengineering Program and the delivery of the first
national security cutter expected in fiscal year 2007.
The Coast Guard's budget plans to add another important
homeland security mission to its repertoire: protection of the
National Capital Region's airspace. This may beg the question,
how does the Coast Guard plan to add this mission? Also the
question, where will the assets and personnel in support of
this mission come from?
We are very interested in your thoughts on the mission
creep and would ask you to explain to us why the Coast Guard is
the best suited federal agency for this particular mission.
Another are that I would like to explore today is the
proposed transfer of the drug interdiction mission from the
homeland security mission to a non-homeland security mission. I
am concerned about such a proposal, because time has shown and
intelligence has proven that drug traffickers and human
smugglers often use the same routes, routines and techniques.
A hidden compartment on a ship conceals drugs, people or
both. In addition to the fact that terrorist organizations
utilize the drug trade as a means to finance its operation, I
am concerned that that transfer in categories might somehow
result in a loss of assets for that mission.
Coast Guard has announced its intention to transfer the
current enhanced maritime safety and security team, commonly
referred to as EMSST, to an interagency effort with the
Departments of Defense and Justice with the 24/7 capability to
be called the Maritime Security Response Team. This appears to
be a worthwhile effort, but I have questions about the
interagency negotiations that have taken place to date and how
the responsibilities will be delineated and chain of command
issues resolved.
Lastly, the committee is interested in learning about the
proposed relocation of the Coast Guard headquarters. I
understand the initial cost will be $50 million, not to mention
$306 million GSA will be investing in fiscal year 2007. Is this
the best use of federal resources at this time for this agency,
and what will be the organizational benefits achieved through
the new facility?
I have also been informed of an unfortunately accident that
occurred this last week involving one of your older rescue
helicopters not too far from my district on the coast of
California. What does that say about the state of your current
assets and their maintenance and also assets to take their
place?
I look forward to the insights that you will provide us on
these important issues today, and, again, I thank you for your
appearance before the subcommittee.
I would now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Sanchez, for
any opening statement she may wish to make at this time.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And hello, Admiral Collins. Good to see you again here.
Thank you for you coming up to talk to us today.
Whether it is rescuing the victims of Katrina or protecting
our ports or stopping the flow of illegal drugs or rescuing
distressed boats, people who are out for recreational reasons,
the Coast Guard has actually proven to be really the bright
light in most of what we see in our capability as far as a
government agency.
Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has taken the lead in securing
our ports in our maritime transportation system, and that is
critical, especially to someone like me who lives just 20
minutes away from the third largest port system in the world,
L.A. Long Beach Port, where 20 percent of trade that moves from
outside comes through that area. So I am very thankful for the
work that the Coast Guard is doing.
And I think you also understand, and you understood it
almost from the very beginning, that an attack on our port is
something that is significant. I remember the slowdown a few
years ago at Christmastime in the port system where we had all
of the ships lined up going all the way down almost to the
Mexican border in California. And just the economic impact of
things slowing down, I think it cost us, they estimated
something like $2 billion a day for the 10 days that we had
that lockout on the ports.
So I am very glad that you have all done a good job, have a
commitment, have an agenda, have really managed well the port
system, not just where I live but to the north up in the
Oakland area. And I am sure across the United States you have
been just as agile and wonderful about doing this. All from
Katrina we saw the bright light was really the Coast Guard.
I am concerned on a lot of fronts. I am just concerned that
your agency is taking on a lot of responsibility, that we are
pushing a lot of new responsibility onto you in particular. For
example, the mission of airspace security in the National
Capital Region. And I am glad that the budget includes funding
for that, but I am just apprehensive.
It almost seems like you are the good employer that is
working harder, working better, and so the more you work the
more things we throw at you, and there are other agencies and
things that just are not getting the job done and not
performing well and therefore more and more of the burden is
falling to the Coast Guard.
So I want to voice my support for the development of the
Maritime Security Response Team, which will be stationed in
Virginia. I think it will enhance the federal government's
counterterrorism capabilities in the maritime arena. And
although the budget only funds an east coast team, I really
would like to stress the importance of also having an east and
a west coast team. I think that is important to both the
chairman and myself as Californians.
I am also worried about the pace of Deepwater, the
Deepwater Program, and I think that decreasing the funding for
that program is going to put the Coast Guard behind in having
the fleet, the cutters, the aircraft that you need. So maybe
you can during your time talk a little bit about if you have
any concerns with respect to that.
I just think that we need to make available the assets that
you need in order to do the good work that you are doing.
And, finally, Admiral, I understand that you will be
retiring in May, and I want to thank you for giving 38 years of
your life in service to this country.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, look forward to hearing the
admiral's comments.
Mr. Lungren. I thank you for your comments, and you can
understand that we view you as the antithesis of the government
Maytag repairman. You guys are always ready but you are always
used.
I would like to recognize now the Ranking Minority Member
of the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr.
Thompson, for any statement he may make.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Sanchez.
Admiral Collins, welcome. I want to join the chorus of
those individuals who thank you and other members of the Coast
Guard for a job well done during the Katrina disaster that we
had. My district and a lot other districts was significantly
impacted by it. The bright star was the Coast Guard. Thirty-
three thousand people absolutely could not have made it without
your help and assistance.
I only wish the rest of FEMA and DHS could be equally as
competent about how they do their job.
The other thing I am concerned about Deepwater. If we
continue on the program as outlined with the cuts, I do not
think we will make it. 2026 is far too long to try to retool
our Coast Guard. I do not know what we will have left to retool
if 2026 is the out-year. So some of us, as you know last year,
supported significant resources for Deepwater in order to
accomplish what we all agreed, that the Coast Guard is needed.
I am a little concerned that we get from this
administration lip service, but when it comes time to really
put the money where their mouths are, we come up short. I can
assure you that a lot of us will work hard during this
authorization effort to try to put additional monies where we
know they have to be. Equipment wears out; it has to be
replaced. So we will work on that.
I would like to also at some point get you to talk a little
bit about what kind of equipment the Coast Guard used during
Katrina and how did it fair under that, and have we replaced we
wore out during Katrina? If not, we need to look at that as a
source of concern for our part.
And, lastly, Ms. Sanchez indicated that you will, I would
assume sometime this year, depart from the Coast Guard, and I
would want to make sure that you know how I feel, along with
the other members, that you have done a wonderful job. Your
leadership has been admirable. And as they say, I wish you fair
winds and following seas.
I yield back.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
Other members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have the distinguished witness before us
today on this important topic. And if I were to adequately go
through your biography, we would have no time.
So I am just going to say that the chair recognizes Admiral
Thomas Collins, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, to testify.
And let me just remind you, sir, that your entire written
statement will appear in the record.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THOMAS H. COLLINS, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST
GUARD
Admiral Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. It is a real pleasure and
opportunity to appear before you to talk about the 2007 budget.
We are a very interesting organization. We have got a blend
of law enforcement authorities, regulatory authorities,
military authorities, Title 10 authorities. It is kind of a
unique blend of authorities in our government, and it gives us
a military, multi-mission, maritime character to our
organization and a unique blend of humanitarian, law
enforcement, regulatory, diplomatic capability that we can
bring to bear.
And as you noted, Mr. Chairman, I think we did work pretty
successfully at bringing all those authorities and capabilities
to bear in 2005. I think it is pretty--we do not have a totally
unbiased view of this but I think a pretty impressive record of
accomplishment across our missions.
We have noted our aggressiveness and response to the
hurricane disasters in the Gulf, but I would submit the
lifesaving got a lot of the recognition, as it should, but we
also responded to 8 million gallons of oil spills. We got the
ports and waterways back, assessed and cleared and back in
operation within a matter of--some were moving the next day.
The intercoastal waterway was brought back to life.
We worked very, very hard, especially when about 80 to 90
percent of, in some cases, our aids-to-navigation were
destroyed by the storm, and those were all put back either
temporarily or permanent aids to keep the traffic moving.
So we were busy across the board, whether it was lifesaving
or environmental protection or our waterways management
business.
Other notable things that I am very, very proud of our men
and women is our continued effort in our counterdrug
operations. We have got this exponential curve of success
going, which is a nice trend. We keep beating each year by some
substantial margin the preceding year's total seizure of
cocaine. We are surpassing last year 300,000 pounds of cocaine
seized at sea, and our interagency coordination is being
refined and getting better and better, our application of intel
better and better, coalition forces, et cetera. And I think we
are really making a dent on that and very, very proud of that
trend of performance within the counterdrug operation.
Counterdrugs and counterdrug operations remain a very, very
high priority with the United States Coast Guard.
But our people our delivering. You mentioned our role in
port security and the implementation of these national ship and
port security code and Maritime Transportation Security Act. It
is the biggest regulation in the history of the United States
Coast Guard that we put into effect in less than a year, and we
are getting great, great compliance rates out of that.
The 2007 budget, this is a challenging budget environment,
as we all know, but I think I am pleased with the presentation
that we have in the 2007 budget. It does position the Coast
Guard to continue our record of operational excellence. It does
provide for investments that strengthen our preparedness, that
invest in our ability to be more aware of things going on in
the maritime environment, and it builds on our capability to
respond effectively as first responders.
For instance, nearly $100 million in operating expense
funding to support our operation and maintenance of our
cutters, as well as bringing on the new assets that we are
requiring, and important funds within that envelope for
sustaining our older cutters.
It also includes $89 million to build what we term maritime
domain awareness. It is a fancy term to say, how do you get
transparency of the people, cargo and vessels in the maritime
through processes, systems and so forth? So there is investment
in that, as part of Deepwater and elsewhere, automatic
identification system infrastructure that we are implementing
nationwide.
And, finally, of course, the big investment, as you have
already alluded to, Mr. Chairman, is Deepwater. That is just
the most important acquisition in the history of our service,
back to 1790, as far as I am concerned. Incredibly important
acquisition that is spread over a number of years.
And this budget does in fact allow us to keep going,
pushing ahead forward on a number of important items within
that budget, including the national security cutter, the
modernization and the conversion of our helicopter fleet, the
acceleration of our fast-response cutter, the patrol boat that
does so much in the Caribbean and elsewhere. We are
accelerating that by over 10 years and moving that forward.
So on a number of fronts, and this is just tip of the
iceberg that I have mentioned, but a number of fronts that
allows us to, again, build up preparedness, to get better at
awareness of things happening in the maritime and in building
the capabilities we need to do the job.
Look forward to the committee to work through these issues.
I would be glad to answer the questions that you have already
posed in your statement and be pleased to respond to those
specific questions.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The statement of Admiral Collins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Thomas H. Collins
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Coast
Guard's FY 2007 budget request.
The Coast Guard is one of the Nation's five Armed Services. Its
mission is to protect the public, the environment and U.S. economic
interests--in the Nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on
international waters and in any maritime region required to support
national security. The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for
maritime homeland security; a role supported by its unique complement
of authorities, maritime capabilities, proven competencies, and
longstanding domestic and international partnerships. Executing this
role requires a Coast Guard that is ready to act, enabled by awareness,
as well as equipped to sustain an effective presence and mount an
effective response to maritime threats.
Coast Guard forces are flexible, rapidly employable and able to
respond to crises with a full range of capabilities. It is a military,
multimission and maritime service that has adapted to growing mission
demands to enhance maritime security while continuing to meet other
mission requirements. For example, in 2005, the Coast Guard:
--Secured the maritime border:
Completed verification of security plans, required by
the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), for U. S. port
and facilities and vessels operating in U. S. waters;
Completed 31 foreign port security assessments in
order to improve our awareness of foreign port compliance with
international requirements;
Prevented more than 338,000 pounds of cocaine (an all-
time maritime record) and over 10,000 pounds marijuana from
reaching the United States;
Interdicted nearly 9,500 undocumented migrants
attempting to enter the country illegally by sea, the second
highest number of any average year in the past 20 years;
--Enhanced national maritime preparedness:
Began comprehensive security reviews of waterside
nuclear power plants;
Created formal processes for addressing security
concerns and requirements involving the siting of new shore-
side Liquefied Natural Gas facilities;
Established a new Area Maritime Security Exercise
program requiring annual local exercises, and is designed to
assess the effectiveness of the Area Maritime Security Plans
and the port community's preparedness to respond to security
threats and incidents. Funding appropriated for FY 2006 will
bolster this effort significantly.
--Strengthened partnerships:
Established a National Maritime Security Advisory
Committee in order to provide a strategic public-private forum
on critical maritime security topics;
Launched America's Waterways Watch, a citizen
involvement program that leverages the Coast Guard's
relationship with the maritime public;
Deployed the Homeport information sharing web portal,
which allows for collaboration and communication in a
controlled security environment (for sensitive but unclassified
material) among Area Maritime Security Committee members and
port stakeholders at large;
Conducted more than 268,000 port security patrols,
5,800 air patrols and 26,000 security boardings; and
Provided security escorts to over 10,000 vessels.
Saved lives and property:
Saved over 33,000 lives in the wake of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, one of the largest search and rescue
operations in United States history;
In addition to hurricane response, responded to more
than 32,000 calls for maritime rescue assistance;
Saved the lives of over 5,600 mariners in distress;
Protected the environment:
Boarded more than 6,000 fishing vessels to enforce
safety and fisheries management regulations, a 30 percent
increase over 2004;
Conducted more than 3,000 inspections aboard mobile
offshore drilling units, outer continental shelf facilities and
offshore supply vessels;
Responded to 23,904 reports of water pollution or
hazardous material releases from the National Response Center,
resulting in 4,015 response cases;
--Facilitated maritime commerce:
Kept shipping channels and harbors open to navigation
during the Great Lakes and New England winter shipping season;
Ensured more than 1 million safe passages of
commercial vessels through congested harbors, with Vessel
Traffic Services;
Maintained more than 50,000 federal aids to navigation
along 25,000 miles navigation channels;
--Supported national defense
Safely escorted more than 169 military sealift
movements at 13 different major U.S. seaports, carrying more
than 20 million square feet of cargo;
Maintained an active patrol presence in the Arabian
Gulf in support of the U.S. Navy and allied naval units.
More than singular statistics or accomplishments, the above list,
in total, demonstrates the winning formula of a military, multimission
service founded on core operational principles such as flexibility, on-
scene initiative and unity of effort. It is this time-tested
operational model that allows the Coast Guard to meld its safety and
security roles into a seamless set of maritime strategies designed to
guarantee the safety and security of the U.S. maritime domain.
The FY 2007 budget request supports critical initiatives needed to
preserve the Coast Guard's ability to respond to current mission
demands, while enhancing capabilities to counter emerging threats and
strengthen its preparedness across a broad range of missions.
2007 Budget
The above accomplishments are only possible with a Coast Guard that
is Ready, Aware and Responsive. The President, Congress and public
expect nothing less: Ready to prevent and respond to a broad range of
maritime safety and security requirements; Aware of what is going on in
our ports, along our coasts and on the high seas; and most of all,
Responsive whenever and wherever there is a need for the Coast Guard to
save lives, secure maritime borders, protect natural resources,
facilitate maritime commerce or contribute to national defense. The
fiscal year 2007 request delivers on these expectations through its
focus on three key investment priorities:
Strengthen Preparedness [READY],
Maximize Awareness [AWARE], and
Enhance Capability [RESPONSIVE]
The Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) acquisition program remains
the centerpiece of a more ready, aware and responsive 21st-century
Coast Guard. The 2007 Budget provides a Deepwater investment plan that
provides funding for:
--Constructing the fourth National Security Cutter;
--Producing the first Fast Response Cutter;
--Acquiring the sixth Maritime Patrol Aircraft;
--Bolstering the network of command, control, communications,
computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
(C4ISR) technology;
--Completing the HH-65 re-engining; and
--Initiating several essential legacy conversion projects,
including installation of airborne use of force equipment
aboard 36 helicopters.
While the Deepwater program necessarily invests in capabilities
adequate to operate in the often unforgiving offshore environment, it
is these same capabilities that are instrumental to effective response
operations in port and coastal areas as well. For example, assets
scheduled for modernization under the Deepwater program include every
Coast Guard aircraft type. These aircraft, rotary-wing in particular,
are critical parts of our port and coastal response infrastructure as
well as extended offshore operations. The Deepwater program's
conversion and/or enhancement of legacy aircraft and cutters are making
an impact now. The operational benefits were apparent during the Coast
Guard's response to Hurricane Katrina. As an example, three more
powerful re-engined HH-65C helicopters flew 85 sorties to save 305
lives. The converted aircraft can hoist 280 more pounds and stay on-
scene longer than its predecessor. Similarly, the C4ISR improvements to
high and medium endurance cutters enabled more effective on-scene
coordination of rescue operations in New Orleans, LA, and Gulfport, MS,
with local first responders and other Federal agencies.
Strengthen Preparedness. Coast Guard readiness is a cornerstone of
national maritime preparedness. Strengthening preparedness within the
U.S. maritime domain is a core competency and responsibility of the
Coast Guard. It depends directly on the readiness of Coast Guard
cutters and aircraft, infrastructure and personnel. The FY 2007
requests funding to preserve and strengthen Coast Guard readiness.
Relevant budget initiatives include:
Depot level maintenance and energy account: $51.3
million to close inflationary cost growth gaps. These are bills
that must be paid; without increased funding, Coast Guard
readiness will be eroded.
Medium endurance cutter mission effectiveness project:
$37.8 million to support the Mission Effectiveness Project
(MEP) for 270-foot and 210-foot Medium Endurance Cutters
(WMEC). Our 210-foot and 270-foot cutters are currently
operating with obsolete equipment and subsystems that must be
replaced. The project includes replacing major sub-systems such
as small boat davits, oily water separators, air conditioning
and refrigeration plants, and evaporators. The main propulsion
control and monitoring systems will also be upgraded. This
effort is vital to sustain our legacy fleet of medium endurance
cutters until they are recapitalized.
Operations and Maintenance for new assets: $30.5
million to fund operations and personnel for the airborne use
of force program, the first national security cutter, new
maritime patrol aircraft and secure communications systems;
$42.3 million for Deepwater logistics support.
Personnel protective equipment: $7.2 million to
replace obsolete oxygen breathing apparatus aboard ships and
training centers with safer self-contained breathing apparatus
(SCBA). Over the past 30 years, all shore-based Federal and DOD
fire fighters, the Military Sealift Command, all western
navies, all merchant ships, the U.S. Air Force and all U. S.
Navy flight deck personnel have adopted and use exclusively the
open circuit SCBA. The Navy is currently replacing all their
OBAs with SCBAs. This leaves the Coast Guard as the only fire
fighting organization without SCBA for its personnel. In order
to ensure the personal protection of Coast Guard personnel
while serving aboard Coast Guard cutters, the transition from
using the obsolete OBA to the SCBA is essential.
Shore infrastructure and aids-to-navigation: $25.9
million to recapitalize aids-to-navigation nationwide and
rebuild or improve aged shore facilities in Cordova, Alaska
(housing), Integrated Support Command Seattle and Base
Galveston. Facing a $1.4 billion shore maintenance backlog,
funds are necessary to improve critical shore infrastructure
essential to supporting Coast Guard personnel as they execute
missions and operational requirements.
Maximize Awareness. Securing our vast maritime borders depends upon
our ability to enhance maritime domain awareness (MDA). Effectively
addressing maritime vulnerabilities requires maritime strategies that
not only ``harden'' targets but detect and defeat threats as far from
U.S. shores as possible. Identifying threats as far from U.S. shores as
possible requires improved awareness of the people, vessels and cargo
approaching and moving throughout U.S. ports, coasts and inland
waterways. Relevant budget initiatives include:
Nationwide Automatic Identification System: $11.2
million to continue procurement plans and analysis for
deployment of a nationwide system to identify, track and
exchange information with vessels in the maritime domain.
Maritime Domain Awareness: $17 million to support
follow-on and new initiatives, including a new Coast Guard
counterintelligence program, prototype Sector and Joint Harbor
Operation Center support, and expanded secure communications
system infrastructure.
Deepwater C4ISR: $60.8 million to develop and install
systems and subsystems that are part of the Deepwater Command,
Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance
and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) system. This system is designed to
support designated Coast Guard commanders in the exercise of
authority while directing all assigned forces and first
responders across the full range of Coast Guard operations.
This system of ``eyes and ears'' allows us to see, hear and
communicate activity occurring within the maritime domain,
which is critical to deterring and defeating threats before
reaching our shores.
Enhance Capability. Just as important to being ready and aware is
equipping and training Coast Guard personnel with the capabilities and
competencies to respond effectively. For example, the advance
information required of vessels arriving to the United States is
critical to understanding who and what is arriving in order to identify
potential threats. However, if Coast Guard cutters and aircraft do not
have the capabilities necessary to deal with identified threats early
and effectively, an opportunity to mitigate risk is lost. Relevant
budget initiatives include:
Deepwater: $934.4 million (total). The FY 2007 request
for the Deepwater program reflects the Administration's
continued commitment to the recapitalization of the Coast
Guard's aircraft and ships and the network that links them
together into an integrated system. More capable and reliable
cutters, boats, aircraft and associated systems will enhance
safety and security in U. S. ports by improving the Coast
Guard's ability to perform all its missions. Specifically, the
FY 2007 request provides funding for: the fourth National
Security Cutter, the first Fast Response Cutter, HH-65 and HH-
60J conversions, new maritime patrol aircraft, HC-130J
operations, sustaining the HC-130H, arming two HH-60's and 34
HH-65's at seven Air Stations, and development of shipboard and
land-based vertical unmanned aerial vehicle systems.
Rescue 21: $39.6 million to continue system design
(two locations), preparation (four locations) and installation
(seven locations). The Rescue-21 project represents a quantum
leap in maritime communications technology, enhancing
effectiveness across all coastal missions.
National Capital Region air defense: $62.4 million to
establish infrastructure, acquire additional aircraft and fund
operations for this newly assigned homeland security mission in
the Nation's capital. The Air Defense mission in the National
Capital Region rests with the Department of Defense (DOD) under
the construct of OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE. Through a Memorandum of
Understanding, DOD has assigned this requirement to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard has been
directed to execute this requirement on behalf of DHS.
Requested funding is critical to stand-up this new capability
and avoid negative impacts to other Coast Guard mission-
programs.
Response Boat--Medium: $24.8 million to begin low-rate
initial production to replace 41-foot utility boats and non-
standard boats.
Maritime Security Response Team (MSRT): $4.7 million
to provide additional personnel and transform the prototype
Enhanced Maritime Safety and Security Team in Chesapeake, Va.
into an MSRT, providing on-call maritime counter-terrorism
response capacity. This request will also enhance maritime
counter-terrorism training facilities at the Coast Guard
Special Missions Training Center at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Conclusion
During the response to Hurricane Katrina, the Nation saw the value
of a ready, aware and responsive Coast Guard. Rescuing more than 33,000
people in a two-week period, Coast Guard men and women from around the
Nation contributed to this historic operation. Of course, that was only
the most visible Coast Guard achievement in 2005. From record-breaking
drug interdictions to continued implementation of the Maritime
Transportation Security Act, the Coast Guard again delivered tremendous
results for the American people. Full support of the 2007 budget
request is vital to ensuring we sustain these results.
No one can predict the timing of the next catastrophic event akin
to Katrina, or whether it will be natural or man-made. Nonetheless,
history tells us it will come. When it does, it will be vital that we
have done all we can to build a Coast Guard that is prepared to answer
the call, supremely aware of the maritime environment and poised for
dependable response. The Nation saw in 2005 what I have known for
decades--if we give Coast Guard men and women the training and
equipment to do the job, they won't let us down.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much. I yield myself 5 minutes.
On the Deepwater Program, how do you compare it with what
you were coming up with last year to this year?
What have been the negative effects, if any, as a result of
Katrina, both in terms of--obviously, it added more service
time to your assets, but also isn't Pascagoula the location of
where you are going to get one of your major assets? And as I
understand it, they took a pretty big hit as a result of the
storm.
If you could respond to those two things.
Admiral Collins. Yes, sir. As far as the overall plan, we
are working on the revised implementation plan for Deepwater
that we presented to Congress last summer. We are still on
course for that program. That program adjusted for the post-9/
11 environment and made some programmatic adjustments,
capability adjustments to some of the platforms and adjusted
when they appear in the transition of the overall program.
Mr. Lungren. Let me just interrupt for a second. But as a
result of the budget you are presenting to us today, does that
get you further along toward your goal of your deepwater assets
in terms of a timeline?
Admiral Collins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. --or how do we?
Admiral Collins. No. It is moving ahead, sir. For instance,
the national security cutter is our fourth cutter. The national
security cutter, that is a big one. We are building eight of
those. That is in this budget. Patrol boat money is in the
budget, aircraft conversion money is in the budget. So we are
advancing along that timeline.
In terms of Katrina and the impact on Pascagoula, there was
adverse impact, just like there was for Navy shipbuilding
programs as well. We roughly estimate probably a 4-month delay
or so in the first and second national security cutter because
of that storm. There is impact on equipment in the yard, impact
on workforce and so forth, impact on the vessel itself.
And probably some increased costs. We know that somewhere
between probably $20 million and $80 million additional because
of the delay and the problems associated with that hurricane,
some of which has already been appropriated in the supplemental
and more we are going to have to identify in the fourth
supplemental that we are likely to come forward with Katrina.
So, yes, there has been impact by Katrina, but the shipyard
is back in operation. I was just down there last week walking
around that new ship, the Coast Guard cutter, Bertholf. It is
about 50 percent done. It is going to be a terrific ship. It is
going to have vertical UAV capability, helicopter capability,
twin stern launch with over-the-horizon small boats. It is
going to be a very, very capable platform for our missions.
Mr. Lungren. What about the impact of the actual increased
use of your assets during those two hurricanes? I mean, I know
you project you are going to use your assets, but those are
pretty heavy loads.
Admiral Collins. We build to increase maintenance, and
operation cost is built into our Katrina supplemental to pay
for those costs and for some of the maintenance. And as I
mentioned, we also have an uptick in operation and maintenance
funding within our 2007 budget request to account for some of
those as well.
Mr. Lungren. And the question I was not going to ask until
I was made aware of the accident that occurred off Humboldt Bay
this past week, I guess it was, you have been warning us for
some time about the useful life of your helicopters, about the
standards that you have to use versus what would be allowed in
the civilian arena. Is this an unfortunate evidence of the need
to accelerate our effort to modernize that element of your
assets?
Admiral Collins. Probably a little too early to rush to
judgment on that. It just happened. In all of these type of
things, we have a formal Mishap Investigation Board that will
look at every nook and cranny of that accident, how it
happened. The helo was set down in the water. The folks all
egressed safely and successfully. We have recovered the helo;
the engineers say it is salvageable. So those are good things.
The investigation is ongoing, and we do not have, again,
even an interim report on some of the issues, but very, very
preliminary it looks like there may be human factors, issues
associated with that accident, more than a maintenance or
reliability issue with the helicopter. But we will know more
when we get the mishap investigation completed. We would be
more than happy to provide the committee with a full blow-by-
blow on that accident.
Mr. Dicks. Will the chairman yield just briefly?
Mr. Lungren. I will yield the 1 second I have left.
Mr. Dicks. How old of a helicopter was this?
Admiral Collins. These helicopters, oh boy, I think they
are about 18 years old, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Lungren. My time has expired.
I recognize the gentlelady for 5 minutes.
Ms. Sanchez. Again, thank you, Admiral.
When you testified before the committee in June, I asked
you about the maritime infrastructure recovery plan required by
HSPD-13. All of us are aware of the significance of a shutdown
of a port.
I would like to know when it was released, when the
strategy was released on June 21, the maritime infrastructure
recovery has still not been completed. So according to the
Department, the completion of the plan was delayed because the
administration wanted to incorporate some lessons learned from
the Katrina incident.
So I would like to know when is the plan going to be
completed? And what were the challenges faced by the Coast
Guard during Hurricane Katrina, and what challenges are faced
in terms of restoring port operations? And what steps are taken
to ensure that commerce will continue to flow?
Admiral Collins. I will have to get back to you on our best
estimate on when you will get that report. The overarching
strategy, of course, was published last September, the national
maritime security strategy, and there were several moving parts
to that, about eight different subordinate plans, that being
one of them. Hopefully it will be a this spring thing, but let
me get back to the committee with a specific--give you the best
date I can on that.
In terms of Katrina, obviously, there are a whole bunch of
people studying that, what went right and what went wrong, and
just this week, obviously, a lot of things coming out. I think
that common to a lot of them is the issue of unity of command
issues and information flow and timeliness of information. I
mean, those are going to be central features to every--
Ms. Sanchez. The whole issue of the port facilities.
Admiral Collins. The port facilities itself, I mean, I
think our response to the port, I think, and how we dealt with
the port and got the port and the waterway back in operation, I
think a lot of things went right.
What went right was we live and work in the communities we
serve. We do not parachute in when there is an incident. We are
there. We have over 2,400 people in Mississippi and Louisiana,
for example. They are stationed there; they live there. Many of
them lost their own homes as well.
They build partnerships in the community, they build
partnerships with the American waterways operator, they build
partnerships with the pilot, they build partnerships with the
salvage operators.
And when we moved our district office from New Orleans to
Alexandria, Louisiana, that was our emergency site, if you went
into that command center in there, it was a bevy of activity:
Sticky yellow with the bulkhead people, the phones in the area,
and it was really a neat thing to see.
But if you look at all the special teams working on the
subject matter stuff, private sector folks wove it in. Salvage
folks were over here, the waterways over there. Why? Because we
had developed partnerships in the safety end of our business,
in the environmental end of our business, in the security end
of the business for years. And we build collaborating
mechanisms, including planning for a crisis, and that served us
extraordinarily well.
I will give you an example. The salvage plan that we
developed to clear the channels and so forth was done
collaboratively with the salvers who have great insight and
expertise. And we did that collaboratively. Within a day and a
half we had a salvage plant that we floated up and got funded
to get the ports open.
So when we decided how we are going to manage this
particular waterway with the aids down, we did it
collaboratively with the users of the waterway.
We put agreed upon restrictions. Maybe we said, ``Only
daylight transit or one-way transit,'' or whatever we had to do
to ensure safety, protection of the environment but yet get the
commerce flowing. If you talked to the people in Florida, that
east-west intercoastal waterway is very important to them,
because all their petroleum products move along that waterway.
So I was very impressed with the job of our district folks,
Admiral Bob Duncan and all his folks in Louisiana, Mississippi,
and the great, great partnerships. And I was down in
Mississippi and the Gulf coast, up in Gulfport, walked into the
county EOC there and the Coast Guard was embedded there two or
three days before the incident, and there was constant
communication between the local folks and out at EOC.
So it is those partnerships, day-to-day partnerships that
you have that you can build on and use in a crisis situation.
And I think it worked very, very well to ensure the flow of the
port and the waterway.
Ms. Sanchez. Had you practiced that? I mean, had you done
these drills where you were integrated?
Admiral Collins. Yes, ma'am. We stuck to our knitting, the
basics. We have a plan, we train and equip to the plan, we
exercise the plan, and we implement the plan. And every one of
our districts have disaster emergency plans and hurricane plans
that they have drills on and exercise and have their partners
included.
Ms. Sanchez. Great.
Thank you, Admiral.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
What kind of short stick did you draw? Usually when the
Coast Guard guys are retiring, you get Diamondhead or Old Point
Loma. You get to come in front of the committees and defend the
budget?
[Laughter.]
What kind of final tour is that?
A couple of things. As you know, as narcotics chairman, I
have very particular things, as much as I appreciate everything
you do. I am a little concerned about this National Capital
Region. I will insert my full statement in the record, and I
hope you will respond to some of the written questions so we
can fill out this whole record.
But we are already taxed for air resources in the transit
zones, and the Coast Guard has old--you did not get enough
dollars really to add this and still do that. And I am very
concerned about the weakening one mission in return for what is
a thankless mission and that is, man, you have a mild screw-up
here, you are going to have every committee down your throat.
And so I am concerned this is going to be kind of an
overreaction of the capital region and instead thousands of
Americans may die because we have taken the helicopters out of
the transit zone. Far more people are dying, 20,000 to 30,000,
from illegal drugs, and we have had very few to none on our
soil die of terrorism.
And it is important that we work on the terrorism question,
but narcotics are part of the terrorism, which then leads to
the bigger question: How in the world in the budget here did
drugs get moved out of the terrorism mission when we, when we
drafted this agency, put it specifically that narcotics are
part of the terrorism mission? And in my opinion, this budget
request violates the organic nature of this act. Did you
propose that or how did this get into the budget?
Admiral Collins. Sir, it was sort of a budget accounting
mechanism and also how it fits into the out-year budget.
Obviously, the implication is the homeland security designation
in terms of budget allowed budget growth over the 5-year plan
more robust than if you are not in that category. I mean, so
that is really the implication is in your budget.
Clearly, this was an attempt, I think, to get us on the
same, or my understanding is, budget accounting level as
everyone else in the Department. Their budgets for drugs are
not counted as ``homeland security mission.''
So purely as a budget accounting mechanism, sir, but I do
share your concern about what it will do to the glide path, if
you will, budget glide path for the segment of our mission set
going forward.
Mr. Souder. Illegal immigration is listed under homeland
security, which is far more complex than this homeland
security, and you have other things listed under homeland
security. Narcotics have at least the same nexus. Forget that
narcoterrorism is terrorism and defined in your act not to be
separated.
But at the same time, that even the interlinks between the
different groups that are moving people, that are moving drugs,
that can move chemical and biological weapons, are
increasingly, as we drive them underground, as we seal of their
financial tactics, as we look at this, it is clear they are
moving even more in that direction. This is an artificial
distinction that is not real and is going to become even more
dramatically wrong.
In my opinion, Director Walter should be screaming at the
top on this. We are having similar problems with the defense
missions, as you know, from JATF. We have already seen because
of improved intelligence, more drug loads that we are not
seizing. We are seizing but we are seeing more, and we do not
have enough to do that.
And by separating this out, we compound the problem of not
intercepting. Then local law enforcement is overwhelmed, and
they are basically, at the end of the day, going to be the same
groups. The drug runners, the trucks that are running the drugs
are running other things too. They are smuggling people with
them.
I do not understand how--did OMB propose this, is that what
you are saying? Is this something Director Chertoff said inside
the Department? Who can move your numbers around in those
charts? I mean, I do not think it is going to some kind of CPA
at a lower level; it has got to be a policy decision.
Admiral Collins. Yes, sir. I think this was a policy
decision within the administration in terms of having this
accounting framework. I am very sympathetic with some of the
observations you have made about the linkages and so forth.
So it really is sort of the budget folks wanting to have
neat little categories. And also as you increase the non-
homeland security designated missions in terms of the budget
category, there is more downward pressure on the out-year
budgets.
Mr. Souder. Yes. Quite frankly, we ca not have some--I have
a business degree and an MBA and have taken many accounting
things, did our payroll in our business and so on. You do not
want a CPA make terrorism and drug policy in the United States
because of the boxes where the stuff goes.
Now, I have some specific questions to follow up on the
capital region, on some of the Hetron helicopters. I very much
appreciated visiting in Jacksonville and down at JATF as well
as in northern California. The Coast Guard has been great in so
many missions, and if you are not careful, we are going to give
you the land border in the Southwest too.
Admiral Collins. Sir, we would be very, very glad to give
you a detailed brief, your staff, on the whole initiative for
the National Capital Region. And I think in terms of the
current baseline of effort, it is mission-neutral. And we will
lay that why it is, how we are able to do that with the
inventory of helicopters we have. And I think you will see very
clearly that really, really minimal or no impact on the drug
mission against the current baseline.
Mr. Lungren. I thank the gentleman. I also sense that what
the admiral is telling us is that while it has no impact this
time, those categories that are called homeland security have a
greater slope of increase in probably the out-years versus non-
homeland security. So if you take the drug mission out of it,
it is probably going to be less dollars in the future.
The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral we talked a little bit about the Deepwater Program
and the fact that the request this year is less than last year.
And in light of Katrina and the fact that some of the areas of
the country impacted by Katrina were damaged that goes
specifically to the Deepwater, how are we going to make up for
the shortfall?
Admiral Collins. Well, it is approaching $1 billion, the
request. If it is successful in Congress and it puts us on an
equivalent level of last year--last year we got in the mid-90s,
$900 million, although with 1 percent rescission it did take
some money off the table--allow us to push ahead on the fourth
national security cutter, and it does allow us to move ahead on
the fast response cutter and a lot of the important aviation
conversions, the conversions of existing platforms that we are
doing. And it puts us on the 25-year plan that we submitted
last summer.
So it is fairly close to that plan that we submitted last
summer in terms of the schedule.
Mr. Thompson. So your testimony is that it has no
significant impact on Deepwater, the cut that is being proposed
in the budget.
Admiral Collins. Really, we are not--I mean, we are even
with last year, for all intents and purposes, in terms of the
level, and it keeps us on pace with the bulk of that plan going
forward. The big thing is it does provide for--and one
adjustment too is we have had some progress on the maritime
patrol aircraft. There was one added in, there were two added
in on the congressional action last year. So that end of the
program is moving ahead as well.
Obviously, the issue is--I think the real question is, is
25 years the right length of the program and what kind of
challenges does a program that is 25 years long present to you?
And can we wait 25 years to get all the necessary capability
that we have in the plan over a 25-year timeframe? That is the
issue de jour, and it is all about affordability and how it can
fit in the budget.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I am glad you brought that up. So if we
give you $1 billion every year, we make 25 years. Do we have
anything left at the end of 25 years, is my question, to fix
it?
Admiral Collins. What we have tried to do is carefully
manage the legacy assets under this plan as well as introduce
the new. So you will see the substantial investments. For
instance, it is over, I think, if I recall right, $35 million
or so out of that total request is being invested in what we
call a Mission Effectiveness Program, which is a shipyard
availability on steroids. It is a long shipyard availability
program. We pull the crew off and we change the major
subsystems on the ship--the heating and air conditioning, the
sewage system and so forth?so we can keep those ships going
until they are ultimately replaced.
So the big change, because of the 25-year plan, has been a
more robust allocation to the legacy assets so we can keep them
alive until they are changed. So we have had to do that kind of
tap dance between the legacy systems.
Mr. Thompson. But is keeping them alive, Admiral, the
highest and best use of our money or are we using baling wire
and bubble gum and other things to keep them afloat? And I am
just saying that if the budget request is not as realistic as
it needs to be, then some of us are just looking for somebody
to say, ``Look, if you gave us more money, we could do it in a
shorter period of time. From a cost-benefit ratio, we could
save taxpayers money over the long run.''
Admiral Collins. Well, of course, we at the--I think it was
the very first report that came of the Department of Homeland
Security after it was formed, a report to Congress, was on
Deepwater, and it was a response to a requirement by Congress
that asked for, could you accelerate Deepwater? Is it possible?
Did we have the shipyard capacity? The answer is absolutely
yes. And what kind of benefits would accrue? That report came
up and it said, ``Yes, you could accelerate. Here is the
distinct advantages of accelerating.
What it comes down to is, again, an affordability issue and
a pacing issue of what can we fit into the envelope. And that
is a decision, of course, much above my pay grade on those
issues.
Mr. Thompson. But if more money showed up in the envelope,
we could get it done in a shorter period of time.
Admiral Collins. Absolutely, sir. And we would get the
capability and the performance enhancements much earlier.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Lungren. And we might be alive to see it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Thompson. In our life?
Mr. Lungren. In our life? Well, that is usually what I say
when I am alive, my lifetime.
The gentleman from Washington, the always pensive, Mr.
Dicks.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commandant Collins, you have done a great job and I
appreciate the good work you have done out in the Pacific
Northwest. And you and I had a chance before the meeting to
discuss the situation on the heli.
I am not going to get into that in much detail, but I just
would reiterate my view that this is a mistake, that this ship
should remain home ported in Seattle, Washington, not in my
district. But we have invested money there in a new pier. If we
do not do this and it is moved to Alaska, it will wind up
having some of the Coast Guardsmen crew away from home for 300
days a year. It is bad for the crews, it is bad for the Coast
Guard.
And I know that this is sensitive because it involves some
very senior members of the Congress, but this is a waste of
taxpayers' money. I mean, this is going to be $8 million every
single year, and the cost of building a new facility up in
Alaska, at Kodiak, a new pier. So I just do not know why some
people want to do these kind of things when it is just bad
policy.
And I know you have done what you can do and this is up to
the Congress to resolve, and I just want to say I appreciate
your good service over your 38-year career, and I am a big
supporter of Deepwater, and we are going to continue to work,
Senator Murray and I, in our state to be supportive of the
Coast Guard.
I enjoy going up to Port Angeles in particular and go out
on the new safeboat and some of the patrol missions and see how
the Coast Guardsmen do their good work.
So, again, I appreciate your efforts and hope that you get
through this next few months.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Collins. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you for the comments.
Before I recognize Ms. Jackson-Lee, I should mention that
we are going to go back in in about 2 minutes and there will be
2 votes--one a 15-minute vote, one a 5-minute vote--so I would
hope that would could finish this round of questions for the
two remaining members so that maybe we could allow the admiral
to leave.
With that, I would recognize the gentlelady for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased
that the chairman and ranking member, that we are holding this
budget hearing.
And let me say, Admiral, I am not sure if you read verbatim
your statement but allow me to just briefly say that in your
words, ``No one can predict the timing of the next catastrophe
event akin to Katrina or whether it will be natural or manmade.
Nonetheless, history tells us it will come. When it does, it
will be vital that we have done all we can to build a Coast
Guard that is prepared to answer the call, supremely aware of
the maritime environment and poised for a dependable
response.''
Let me echo your words and applaud and thank you for the
heroic, powerful efforts that were made by the Coast Guard. I
know the Coast Guard is equal to people. To the young men and
women who risked their lives saving people from roofs and oily,
dirty water. Let me pronounce to you our enormous debt.
I come from the Gulf region, I have been in hurricanes and
floods, and so let me thank you very much for that.
I have two very brief questions and in addition two
statements just to put on the record briefly. And that is that
as generous as you have been with your kindness, I do not find
any comfort in a $32 million cut in Deepwater regardless of
your stoic response, and I find no comfort in the fact that
your budget has been frozen. And I, frankly, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member, I think we need to be in the fight on this
issue.
And, as well, let me just simply do as I will continue to
do throughout this timeframe is to ask the chairman and ranking
member but as well this is conveyed generally for the
committee, that the work of Katrina task force appointed by the
Speaker has ended. It is now time for a responsible oversight
committee, such as Homeland Security to have before it, in
addition to yourself, Admiral, not on the budget but on the
issue of Katrina, Secretary Chertoff, the acting director of
FEMA, and it is time for us to do our oversight, and it is time
for us to do it now. I will continue to raise this point
consistently.
Admiral how fast could you do the constructing the fourth
national security cutter and acquiring the sixth maritime
patrol aircraft with additional money? What is the timeframe
for that now? Am I to see that in 2007 or what?
Admiral Collins. The first national security cutter is
under construction right now; 50 percent done; delivered in
late 2007. It will go through an operational evaluation and so
forth. So that is sort of the timeline of the first. And then--
Ms. Jackson-Lee. And you have the money to make sure you
stay on time?
Admiral Collins. That is under discussion. There is a
request for equitable adjustment by Northrop Grumman, the
manufacturer, producer of that ship, that is being adjudicated
right now. It has not been definitized, and there may be some
cost impact.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. All right. With that in mind, that is
another fight we need to be into. This budget cut is impacting
us negatively.
Secondarily, the sixth maritime patrol aircraft, what is
the status of that?
Admiral Collins. Of course, that is in our budget, the 2007
budget. That will give us a total of six of those new planes
that allow us to implement two air stations. We need three in
each air station to have a set. And the associated sparing and
so forth. So with the 2007 budget, we have two complete air
stations that will be implemented.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. But you will be able to get it under this
budget that we are putting forward here?
Admiral Collins. Yes.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Lastly, I represent partly in the area of
the Houston Port, and port security is key and the Coast Guard
is certainly engaged in our port security. What is the impact
on your cuts as it relates to being able to be engaged in ports
around America, particularly the largest ports like Houston,
Texas?
Admiral Collins. We are full up at Houston, ma'am. That is
a very, very important port. We are very active in Houston-
Galveston, and we anticipate no cuts in terms of our operations
in Houston-Galveston.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Lastly, I want to invite you down,
Admiral, and we will engage on that point.
Thank you very much. Yield back.
Mr. Lungren. Thank the gentlelady.
There has been a call for votes. We have 2 votes, one 15-
minute, one 5-minute, but I would hope that we could finish
before we leave.
And so I would recognize the gentleman, Mr. Langevin, for
the next 5 minutes.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be as
brief as possible.
Admiral I want to thank you very much for being here, and
for your testimony. I have had the opportunity to review it,
and let me just ask you this: in your testimony, you mentioned
that the president requested $17 million for maritime domain
awareness operating expenses, plus an additional $62 million
for acquisition, construction and improvement. And I am
certainly excited about the prospect of a fully integrated MDA
system that will alert us to all ships within range of our
shores, as I am sure you are as well.
I hear that a renegotiated NORAD agreement with Canada,
which could include a binational maritime domain awareness
component, is under discussion. Is the Coast Guard
participating in those discussions, and what role will the
Coast Guard have in that effort?
Additionally, who would be charged with monitoring the
maritime domain, and would in fact the Coast Guard be the
primary agency to respond to perceived threats?
Admiral Collins. Great question, sir. We have, of course, a
Maritime Domain Awareness Program Office that is a joint office
between the Navy and us. The MDA plans is a subset of the
National Maritime Security Strategy that was just signed by the
president last September.
There is an MDA plan associated with that and an
implementation team that is working--interagency implementation
team right now that is defining all the answers to the
questions that you asked: What is the architecture, what is the
system, what is the process change, the policy change, the
authority change and the architecture to in fact build out
competencies for maritime domain awareness? So that is playing
out as we speak.
NORTHCOM is involved in that, NORTHCOM, NORAD. We also
obviously had a robust dialogue with the Canadians on a lot of
this as well.
So that team is looking at the architecture, looking at a
technology plan, looking at an investment plan and looking at
the respective jurisdictions and how we are going to put this
together. And we are locking them in a room, putting pizzas
under the door, and they are working hard to develop that game
plan.
I think one of the most important things we can do is
clearly to get transparency of people, cargo and vessels in the
maritime allows us to intervene well before an incident happen.
And it is good for drugs, it is good for migrants, it is good
for counterterrorism. Having good MDA, that is good
intelligence, good senses in tracking, good information fusion,
good command and control systems is the heart and soul of good
performance. So it is a very, very important effort.
Mr. Langevin. And you are confident in the Coast Guard's
role being front and center?
Admiral Collins. We are going to have a very robust role in
that along with the United States Navy. We are joined at the
hip with the United States Navy in all regards for maritime
domain awareness.
For example, for an intelligence function component of
that, we are co-located at Suitland, Maryland, with ONI. Their
headquarters, our headquarters. We are vetting all information
intelligence together, collaboratively, and so it is a very,
very close, close partnership with them.
Mr. Langevin. And the last part of my question is, would
the Coast Guard still be the primary agency to respond to
perceived threats?
Admiral Collins. We will be one of the primary. How exactly
that is divided up is still to be determined as part of the
architecture.
Mr. Langevin. I think I will end there. I will have some
other questions for the record.
But, Admiral, thank you very much for your testimony. Thank
you and the entire Coast Guard for the great job you are doing.
Admiral Collins. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lungren. There are still 10 minutes left before the
vote is over if any other members have further questions.
Admiral I want to thank you for your testimony. I have a
few written questions, as do some of the other members, as they
have suggested. We will submit them to you, and we hope that
you could respond to these in writing. The hearing record will
be held open for 10 days.
And, again, I would join with my colleagues in thanking you
for your service and recognizing that your retirement date is
not precisely on us but it is on the horizon. And we appreciate
the work that you have done.
You have led the Coast Guard through a very difficult time,
and you have shown us how government ought to work and can work
under extreme circumstances, and we appreciate that. As we
spend a lot of time pointing out the problems, it is nice to
point out where something has worked and worked well.
And also you have built a record of accomplishment that
will justify the requests for the asset modernization program
that you have led and that I think you see how these members
feel about that.
So I thank you for that, and without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
Admiral Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
For the Record
Questions from Mr. Lungren for Admiral Thomas Collins Responses
Deepwater:
Question: The National Security Cutter (NSC) is currently scheduled to
be delivered in August of 2007. Is it currently on time and on budget?
Response: As of March 2006, the National Security Cutter (NSC) is
approximately 40% complete. When the production contract was awarded in
June 2004, a delivery date of May 2007 was established. Preliminary
feedback regarding the impact of Hurricane Katrina indicates that
approximately 4 additional months will be needed, changing delivery
date from May 2007 to September 2007.
The projected cost of NSC #1 was $391.6 million for full post-9/11
capability. Overall the NSC has not experienced significant cost
changes between the budget estimates provided in July 2005 and the
budgeted estimates provided in the fiscal year 2007 President's Budget
Request.
The Coast Guard has identified the following additional major cost
drivers that have not yet been fully quantified:
Hurricane Katrina: The Coast Guard received $20.2 million in
supplemental appropriations for damage related to hurricane Katinra.
The purpose of this funding is detailed below:
Main control system $4.0
Cable assemblies & connectors 2.2
Joiner equipment 1.8
Powered operated valves 1.4
Ship service generator 1.2
Exhaust plume cooling system 1.15
Auxiliary piping 1.0
Steel 0.8
Heating, ventilation, air conditioning 0.6
ducting
Switchboards 0.6
Air Conditioning equipment 0.5
Prime mover exhaust ducting 0.45
TACAN antennae 0.375
Hangers, hydraulic systems, control valves 0.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment and Material Cost 16.435
Additional Labor for rework 3.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $20.235
This cost estimate does not include any facilities, rolling stock
or capital equipment that would remain at the shipyard after NSC #1 was
accepted by the Coast Guard. Likewise, none of this estimated amount is
related to any payment of Federal funds that would be the
responsibility of Integrated Coast Guard Systems/ Northrop Grumman Ship
Systems or their insurers.
Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) for NSC#1 is
pending. The Coast Guard is in the process of determining if the
budgeted amounts are sufficient for the REA or if additional funds
above the current estimate will be required.
Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) for ship production
exceeds inflation amounts above the allowed OMB amounts of 1.85
percent. It is anticipated that an annual cost increase of 3-4 percent
will be realized through EPA.
The Coast Guard is working with the Administration and will advise
Congress as soon as further revisions to the cost estimates become
available.
Question: How will the NSC provide improved homeland security
capabilities over the High Endurance Cutters currently employed?
Response: The National Security Cutter (NSC) will have inherent
capabilities that are a vast improvement over legacy 378' High
Endurance Cutters. The NSC will conduct proactive and reactive patrols
within its assigned operating areas, and will provide a robust Command
and Control capability for duties as Commander, Task Unit and On-Scene
Commander. These improved capabilities include the ability to:
Engage and defeat terrorists and ensure survivability
from Chemical, Biological and Radiological threats in
contaminated environments for up to 36 hours.
Carry and deploy multiple airframes, such as: 1
helicopter and 2 VUAVs, or 2 helicopters, or 4 VUAVs or any
DHS/DoD helicopters up to an including HH-60 variants.
Carry and deploy multiple Over-the-Horizon (OTH)
cutter boats.
Conduct boat and flight operations in higher sea
states due to improved sea keeping capability.
Support the full range of Coast Guard missions and
Coast Guard intelligence element operations through greatly
improved intelligence gathering and C4ISR capabilities. These
intelligence and C4ISR capabilities also enhance the NSC/WMSL's
self-defense capabilities and facilitate operations with
networked DHS, DOD, and national assets.
Operate of 230 days/year compared to 185 days/year for
the legacy 378? High Endurance Cutter (WHEC).
Operate with US Navy Battle Groups with a maximum
sustained speed of 28 knots.
Have a NSC patrol an area of 56,000 square miles a day
with its combined force package of cutter/helicopter and two
VUAVs, vs only 13,500 square miles a day with the current WHEC
378/one helicopter package.
Question: Can you explain why the Coast Guard has decided to
expedite its schedule for the Fast Response Cutter (FRC) and what are
the advantages of doing so.
Response: Increased post 9/11 operational tempo is causing the
continued deterioration of the 110-ft patrol boat hulls and increased
technical difficulties associated with the 123-ft conversions have
necessitated the urgency to acquire the FRC earlier. Expediting the
delivery of the FRC is in direct response to the current patrol boat
shortfall in mission hours created by these technical challenges and
homeland security operational responsibilities.
With 58 FRCs planned, there will be more FRCs in the Deepwater
system than any other single asset. The FRC is projected to be the
workhorse of the fleet with 3,000 annual mission hours per FRC. The
total system impact of these one hundred seventy four thousand (174K)
hours is critical for the Coast Guard to meet its homeland security
operational responsibilities.
Question: Will the Coast Guard replace the FRCs on a one to one
ratio with their current patrol boat fleet?
Response: No, it is not a one to one replacement with the current
patrol boat fleet. The current Deepwater plan replaces the forty nine
(49) 110' and 123' patrol boats with fifty-eight (58) FRCs. While the
final Deepwater plan has more patrol boats, it has less major cutters.
The plan relies on more capable patrol boats taking over some of the
missions major cutters now perform.
Question: Will your Deepwater budget address shoreside
infrastructure, such as longer piers or additional storage?
Response: Yes. Shoreside infrastructure is funded each year within
the budget line for the Integrated Logistics Support Domain of
Deepwater. For fiscal year 2007, $24.4 million in funding has been
requested to:
Upgrade pier/shore ties in Panama City, FL.
Upgrade pier/shore ties and Fenders in Miami, FL.
Upgrade pier/shore ties and Fenders in San Juan, PR.
Upgrade pier/shore ties in Kodiak, AK.
Construction of the National Security Cutter Support
building in Alameda, CA.
Facility upgrades for C4ISR equipment installations in
CA.
Completion of Phase 1 of the NSC related C4ISR
Training building at Coast Guard Training Center in Petaluma,
CA.
Construction of the Simulator Training Building at
Coast Guard Aviation Training Center in Mobile, AL for the CASA
MPA (CG-235).
Question: Deepwater funds will test one ship control station (SCS)
and one ground control station (GCS) for the Vertical Takeoff-and-
Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV). How far along is the VUAV
development?
Response: The VUAV system component production and subassembly
phase is complete, and the project is now advanced to the system design
and demonstration phase. The next project phase will be system assembly
and demonstration, which will result in VUAV first flight and testing
of two ground control stations. It should be noted that Bell Helicopter
Textron, the subcontractor to ICGS, has funded development of their own
VUAV program. Bell's VUAV, the same as the Deepwater model, was
successfully flown for the first time in January 2006.
Question: Has the VUAV designed by Integrated Coast Guard Systems
(ICGS) been successful tested?
Response: No, the Deepwater Vertical Takeoff-and-Landing Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle (VUAV) has not yet been tested. The next phase of the
project is system assembly and demonstration, which will result in VUAV
first flight and testing of the two ground control stations.
Question: What is the status of the Research and Design phase?
Response: The concept and technology development phase of the
Vertical Takeoff-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV) project is
complete. The project is now in the system design and development
phase.
Question: How do you plan on working with the Federal Aviation
Administration to address flight restrictions and operation of VUAVs in
U.S. airspace?
Response: The Coast Guard and Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS)
are working closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to
develop airworthiness standards and operator qualifications for the
Vertical Takeoff-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV) known as
the Eagle Eye. Most of the Eagle Eye operations will be in airspace
outside of FAA jurisdiction. Nonetheless, all applicable FAA standards
will be met by Eagle Eye.
Question: What role did Deepwater assets play in the Coast Guard's
response to Hurricane Katrina?
Response: The re-engined HH-65C helicopters upgraded by the
Deepwater project and Legacy cutters with Deepwater C4ISR upgrades were
used to respond to Hurricane Katrina. On average, HH-65C helicopters
were able to pick up 500 lbs more payload (3-4 additional people,
depending upon the mix of adults/children) than their HH-65B
counterparts. Additionally, the HH-65Cs were able to take off with more
fuel than the HH-65Bs. This extended sortie lengths for the HH-65Cs by
42 to 48 minutes. Legacy cutters with Deepwater C4ISR upgrades
immediately entered the Port of New Orleans and established an on-site
federal communications site for command and control. These cutters were
able to quickly sort out merchant vessel traffic movements using AIS
and took advantage of enhanced communications with DoD assets.
Question: What damages were experienced at Coast Guard facilities
and to Coast Guard assets in Hurricane Katrina?
Response: The following table lists the damages to Coast Guard
facilities and Coast Guard assets as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of
Unit and location Storm Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG Fire & Safety Detachment, Katrina Research Vessel
Mobile, AL State of Maine,
moved from
permanent
mooring,
substantial
dredging
required. Severe
damage to pier,
landing craft,
test facility,
utility building
and other
miscellaneous
infrastructure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Compliance & Katrina Pump & recycle
Restoration Fund diesel & gasoline
and perform
environmental
damage assessment
at affected shore
facilities. Costs
primarily at Base
Mobile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Support Command (ISC) Katrina Damages incurred
Miami as Hurricane
Katrina passed
through Florida
include
unaccompanied
personnel housing
facility water
damage,
administrative
building water
damage, blast
booth building
water damage,
Station Miami
Beach water
damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Station Miami, FL Katrina Twenty percent of
fixed wing hanger
roof blown off as
Hurricane Katrina
passed through
Florida.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Fort Lauderdale, FL Katrina Damages incurred
as Hurricane
Katrina passed
through Florida
include
engineering
building roof
damage, and
unaccompanied
personnel housing
water damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Key West, FL Katrina Incurred
miscellaneous
exterior damage
as Hurricane
Katrina passed
through Florida.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Destin, FL Katrina Minor storm
damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Panama City, FL Katrina Minor storm
damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Pensacola, FL Katrina Roof damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Training Center (ATC) Katrina Hangar roof and
Mobile Gulf Strike Team
roof severely
damaged;
communications
spaces damaged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Mobile AL Katrina Extensive wind and
flooding damage
to entire
facility. All
storage and
HAZMAT buildings
destroyed. Fuel
farm jammed with
debris.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Dauphin Island, AL Katrina One of two piers
damaged, but both
are useable.
Severe flood and
wind damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Pascagoula, MS Katrina Major wind and
flooding damage
to DECISIVE
Storage Area,
DECISIVE shore
tie, MAT
building, Station
building
(interior and
exterior). All
electrical
systems to and
from pier
damaged. Units at
this location
include Station
Pascagoula, MAT/
ESDD Pascagoula,
CCG DECISIVE, CGC
SHAMAL & CGC
TORNADO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Gulfport, MS Katrina The entire station
was completely
destroyed by the
storm surge. .
.nothing
functional
remains. Estimate
of required
repairs:
replacement of
all station
buildings
including garages/
storage
facilities/HAZMAT
& HAZWASTE
buildings/guard
shacks/boat
houses;
replacement of
all pier
facilities/
utilities;
removal of all
storm debris;
clean-up of
spilled HAZWASTE;
installation of
security fences/
equipment/
external
lighting; repairs/
shoring-up of
eroded
shorelines; &
significant
dredging to
entire basin
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
87' CPB Equipment Storage, Katrina Two 87' CPBs
Gulfport, MS maintenance
storage
facilities
destroyed, all
spare parts and
outfitting were
lost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Station New Orleans, LA Katrina Severe wind damage
to facility. Fuel
system out of
commission. North
side of hangar
lean-to roof 50
percent
destroyed. All
spaces under lean-
to damaged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Grand Isle, LA Katrina Unit was heavily
damaged by storm
surge and wind
damage. First
floor sustained
flood damage and
second floor is
saturated. 40% of
roof is down to
concrete deck. 26
housing units
extensively
damaged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Venice, LA Katrina 90% of roof
intact, with
flood damage to
first floor. 2nd
floor dry,
berthing and
messing areas in
good order. Boat
house, mooring,
pier and 87
moorings intact.
Fuel tanks are in
place, but fuel
is contaminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Support Command (ISC) Katrina Suffered extensive
New Orleans (NOLA) roof damage and
severe flooding
that renders the
facility useless.
ISC NOLA may not
be able to return
to its former
location. The
site is heavily
damaged and maybe
beyond economic
repair. Over the
past two years,
planning
proposals have
been submitted
recommending that
the ISC relocate
to NASA Michoud
due to an Army
Corps of
Engineers project
to enlarge the
Industrial Canal
adjacent to the
ISC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector New Orleans, LA Katrina Sector bldg roof
damaged & ground
level flooded.
Office trailers
flooded. Small
boat shops &
storage flooded.
Temp storage bldg
flooded &
dislodged from
foundation. Main
building looted.
Other leased
spaces received
damage. Rebuilt
Sector Command
Center (SCC) to
be outfitted with
capabilities
necessary to
restore full CG
operational
effectiveness in
New Orleans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Examination Center Katrina Office has been
(REC) New Orleans, LA displaced due to
flooding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recruiting Office New Orleans, Katrina Leased facility,
LA but damaged
property/office
equipment/records
and two vehicles
were damaged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel Traffic Service New Katrina Equipment and
Orleans, LA infrastructure
severely damaged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications Station (COMMSTA) Katrina Severe wind and
New Orleans, LA flooding damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Eight Representational Katrina Replace damaged
Facility New Orleans, LA siding, minor
roof repairs,
interior repairs
from water
intrusion, and
exterior clean up/
debris removal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DGPS Sites Katrina Following DGPS
sites were
damaged: Bobo,
MS; Vicksburg,
MS; English Turn,
LA; Mobile Point,
AL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Seven Aids to Katrina Many ATON assets
Navigation destroyed or lost
in Hurricane
Katrina's initial
landfall in South
Florida.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Eight Aids to Katrina Many D8 ATON
Navigation (AtoN) assets destroyed
or lost in
Hurricane
Katrina.
Replacement
includes
replacing
destroyed high
priority range
towers and
lights; ocean
buoys (with chain
& bridles); river
buoys (including
moorings), day
markers, ranges,
automated light
structures, etc.
Required to open
all navigable
waters to
commercial
traffic,
including: Lower
Mississippi
River, Western
Rivers,
Intercoastal
Waterway,
approaches to
Mobile,
Pascagoula, and
Biloxi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconstitution of Distress Katrina Following NDRS
Communications (OE) sites sustained
various levels of
damage:
Greenville, MS;
Vicksburg, MS;
Marksville, LA;
Plaquemines, LA;
Pecan Island, LA;
Grand Chenier,
LA; South Bend,
LA; Leeville, LA;
Venice, LA;
Gretna, LA; Van
Cleave, LA;
Pascagoula, MS;
Weeks Bay, AL;
Fort Walton, FL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard Property Katrina General property
(GP), non SWS III
& non vehicle,
greater than
$2,500 value from
affected Coast
Guard Units
commensurate with
the level of
damage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Boat Operations and Rita Coast Guard boats
Damages provided SAR,
ATON, and marine
environmental
protection
assistance and
several have been
severely damaged
from the storm.
Also extensive
(near continuous)
use of CG small
boat fleet
responding to
multi-mission
hurricane relief
has resulted in
numerous outboard
engine
replacements and
overhauls, and
increased unit
and intermediate
level maintenance
requirements due
to high operation
hours; costs do
not fall under
FEMA mission
assignments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina impact to Coastal Patrol Katrina Additional
Boat Program delivery costs
associated with
CPB project and
impact to support
personnel. The
87' CPB project
has had cost
growth since the
shipping of the
USCGC AHI. The
cost growth is
solely
attributable to
the market
conditions in the
Gulf Coast.
Bollinger
Shipyards had
extreme
difficulty
securing an ocean
going tug, barge
and crane to load
and transport the
USCGC AHI from
Lockport, LA to
Honolulu, HI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina impact to Deepwater Katrina Damages to NSC1
Program and NSC2, FRC &
OPC material,
equipment and
facilities and
123' schedule
delays. Costs to
specific damages
to the NSC
production line
were covered in
the 3rd Supp. The
contractor
recently briefed
the Coast Guard
on expected cost
increases on the
Cost Plus
contract (first
ship), as well as
modifications to
the fixed price
contract for the
subsequent
cutters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: How has Hurricane Katrina affected Coast Guard current
operations on the Gulf Coast?
Response: Coast Guard Eighth District commands along the Gulf Coast
quickly returned to operations following Hurricane Katrina and are
meeting mission requirements with some exceptions. Operational tempo
for Eighth District units remains above normal due to storm related
impacts. Several of our operational units were severely damaged by the
high winds and storm surge and must be repaired or relocated. Workloads
at many units have increased 15 to 25 percent due to extensive marine
debris and an increase in marine casualties. Unit workloads also remain
high due to ongoing FEMA mission assignment work regarding pollution
response operations. Adequate housing in the impacted areas remains in
short supply, with 20 percent of personnel working from temporary
trailers, and up to 25 percent of personnel having lived out of a
hotel. Many normally contracted functions including security,
maintenance and support, are being performed by unit personnel due to a
lack of contract businesses.
Question: How has the Katrina supplemental funding been spent and
what additional funds are needed for Katrina-related damages?
Response: The enacted Coast Guard Hurricane supplemental funding
($132 million for Operating Expenses and $74.5 million for Acquisition
Construction & Improvement) has been expended/obligated on the damages
and costs that were included in the justification provided with the
Third Katrina Supplemental. These costs include major and minor repairs
of damaged facilities, temporary logistics, Coast Guard Reservists,
replacement of Aids to Navigation, damaged and destroyed small boats,
and the overall re-capitalization and initial construction phases at
Coast Guard facilities throughout the Gulf region, with the exception
of Integrated Support Command New Orleans, for which only survey and
design funding was provided.
The $69.5 million in the Fourth Katrina Supplemental request is
broken down as follows:
Operating Expenses ($7.3 million): The funding will enable Coast
Guard Reservists currently serving in relief and supporting roles of
Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to serve beyond
March 31, 2006, until the end of the fiscal year. This funding will
support up to 200 reservists for the period of April through September
2006.
Acquisition Construction & Improvement ($62.2 million): This amount
is to partially fund the relocation and reconstruction of Integrated
Support Command (ISC) New Orleans, severely damaged by Hurricane
Katrina and its associated flooding. Initial funding of $9.8 million
(provided in the Third Katrina Supplemental) has initiated the
reconstruction process by providing for survey and design. The funding
requested will allow the Coast Guard to continue to actively pursue
construction of the ISC New Orleans at the NASA facility at Michoud,
LA, as well as relocation of salvaged equipment from the current ISC
New Orleans site.
Question: Does the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget account for any of
the damages suffered to Coast Guard assets or to construction of
Deepwater assets in Pascagoula, Mississippi?
Response: No. Funding for damages is being addressed through the
supplemental funding request process. To date, the Coast Guard has
received $20.2 million in supplemental funding to pay for damages to
Deepwater projects.
Question: What are the challenges the Coast Guard is facing with
the labor force in the Gulf region and how will these challenges affect
timing and cost of Deepwater deliverables?
Response: The primary impact on Deepwater program asset deliveries
is for the National Security Cutter (NSC) being constructed at the
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS) facility in Pascagoula, MS. NGSS
employment levels have returned to 90 percent of pre-KATRINA staffing
levels. However, due to personal hardships associated with rebuilding
efforts, NGSS is experiencing higher levels of absenteeism affecting
day-to-day production levels.
Many skilled laborers (electricians, joiners, carpenters, etc.) and
contract laborers have been lured away by higher paying jobs in the
emergent residential and commercial construction boom associated with
KATRINA rebuilding efforts. This creates a ``green'' labor problem
requiring NGSS to train new employees and slowing the completion of
tasks that need to be done by an experienced work force.
The delivery schedules of NSC #1 and #2 have been pushed out by
approximately 15 and 12 weeks respectively. The Coast Guard is working
with the Deepwater contractor to understand the costs associated with
this shift in the workforce.
Question: The Fast Response Cutter (FRC) will eventually replace
the current 110 foot cutters. It was not scheduled to enter service
until 2018. However, the FY 2007 budget request will fund the
production of the first FRC. Please describe for us why the
construction of the FRCs had to be significantly accelerated and
describe for us what we can expect to see in upcoming Coast Guard
budget requests for the FRCs.
Response: Increased post 9/11 operational tempo, post 9/11 homeland
security requirements, the advanced deterioration of the 110-ft patrol
boat hulls, and increased technical difficulties associated with the
123-ft conversions have necessitated the acceleration of the Fast
Response Cutter (FRC) design and production. Expediting the
introduction of the FRC will bring required capability into Coast Guard
service much earlier than previously planned before 9/11. Once the
production line is established the projected Coast Guard budget request
will reflect construction of approximately two to four FRCs per year.
Question: Please describe the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)
for the existing 110 foot cutters and how is the SLEP is being revised
to reflect the acceleration of the FRCs?
Response: Per the Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan, many of
the Coast Guard's 110-foot patrol boats (WPBs) will remain in service
for the next 17-18 years. To ensure the WPB fleet remains capable and
reliable for the duration of its planned service life, a WPB Mission
Effectiveness Project (MEP) is needed to overcome the significant
subsystem obsolescence and service life issues contributing to the high
WPB engineering casualty rates.
The WPB MEP is comprised of two tiers: (1) vessels requiring major
hull repairs and (2) vessels requiring only minor hull repairs. Each
WPB MEP work package includes extensive mechanical and electrical work.
The MEP has three major objectives: (1) completion of hull and
structural repairs; (2) replacement of obsolete, unsupportable or
maintenance-intensive equipment; and (3) completion of depot level
drydock maintenance.
Each MEP will address WPB hull and subsystem issues on a hull-by-
hull basis, taking in to account their expected service life to avoid
over-investing in a particular hull. Therefore, actual WPB MEP costs
will vary from hull-to-hull based on the physical condition of each
vessel, the extent of previously completed work and the planned service
life of the hull. The delivery schedule of the FRCs is accounted for in
the WPB MEP schedule. Eighteen of the Coast Guard's 49 WPBs will be
decommissioned between 2008 and 2015 without receiving a MEP, as these
hulls will be relieved by FRCs.
The fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations, H.R.
1268, conference report included $49,200,000 to remain available until
September 30, 2007 for major refits, renovation, and subsystem
replacement for these boats. This funding will enable the Coast Guard
to conduct the first 6 WPB MEPs in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, starting
with USCGC TYBEE in March 2006. As future needs are clarified, the
Coast Guard will request funding for additional WPB MEPs in the
Service's budget submissions to Congress. As stated in the February
2006 Patrol Boat Availability Report to Congress, the current WPB MEP
plan summary is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WPB MEP Plan Summary Cost Schedule Funding Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110-foot WPB Hulls (18 ea.) N/A FY09-FY14 Decommissioned per Post
9/11 Deepwater Revised
Implementation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
123-foot WPB Hulls N/A FY24-FY26 Decommissioned per Post
9/11 Deepwater Revised
Implementation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Ship WPB MEP Cost $13M FY06 Fiscal Year 2005 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations,
H.R. 1268
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110-foot WPB Hulls 2-6 $36.2M FY06-FY07 Fiscal Year 2005 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations,
H.R. 1268
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110-foot WPB Hulls 7-23 TBD FY08-FY11 Deepwater Legacy Asset
Sustainment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maritime Security Response Team:
Question: To what extent will the Department of Justice participate
in the Maritime Security Response Team program?
Response: The Coast Guard and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
are working more closely together. The FBI's Critical Incident Response
Group (CIRG) may provide training assistance to the Coast Guard, and
the MSRT and Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) may participate in
counterterrorism exercises together to ensure both units are
interoperable.
Question: Will they exercise any operational control? If not, what
chain-of-command structure will the MSRT follow?
Response: No, there are no plans for DOJ to exercise operational
control. The operational and tactical control of the MSRT will be with
the Coast Guard Area Commanders.
Question: Will they provide any particular training programs?
Response: There is no formal training being provided currently, but
it may be possible in the future.
Question: To what extent is the Department of Defense (DOD)
participating in the program?
Response: DOD is participating in the MSRT program by providing
access to training, doctrine, and subject matter experts.
Question: How will this team interact with Northern Command?
Response: The MSRT will participate in selected NORTHCOM exercises
and can respond to homeland defense missions if required.
Question: Will the DOD provide special training to Coast Guard MSRT
members?
Response: Commander, Special Operations Command has issued
direction to the units under his command to assist the Coast Guard as
required in the development of the MSRT program.
Question: How rapid would this team be able to deploy? What kind of
``stand by'' status do you envision?
Response: Currently, the MSRT generally only deploys for planned
events (e.g. National Special Security Events). However, the Coast
Guard is working towards a 12 hour ``stand by'' status capability for
the MSRT. The Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget Request will provide
for a 7x24 response capability, dependent upon availability of adequate
transportation and tactical delivery assets
Question: Where will they be situated initially?
Response: The MSRT is currently located in Chesapeake, VA.
Question: The Coast Guard seeks to be on scene to any mariner in
distress within 50 miles of coast in 2 hours. What will be its response
criteria for the deployment of an MSRT?
Response: The MSRT currently possesses a limited maritime counter-
terrorism capability and is generally only available for planned events
(e.g. National Special Security Events). The Coast Guard is working
towards a 12 hour ``stand by'' status capability for the MSRT. The
Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget Request will provide for a 7 by 24
response capability, dependent upon availability of adequate
transportation and tactical delivery assets.
Question: Are there any plans to locate a second MSRT on the west
coast?
Response: Currently, there are no plans to locate a second MSRT on
the west coast.
National Capitol Region Air Defense:
Question: The Coast Guard has requested about $64 million in
funding and transfers to fund this initiative. How will this impact the
Coast Guard's current mission portfolio?
Response: Support of the President's National Capital Region Air
Defense (NCRAD) Fiscal Year 2007 funding and transfer requests will
ensure no impact to the Coast Guard's current missions as a result of
assuming the NCRAD mission.
Question: Will this expansion of mission sets require a legislative
change given the maritime nature of your traditional jurisdiction?
Response: The Coast Guard's role in the National Capital Region Air
Defense will not require any legislative change. Title 10 and Title 14
US Code contain all of the authority required for the Coast Guard to
execute both the national defense and law enforcement aspects of this
mission.
Question: What are the advantages of Coast Guard performing this
mission versus other Federal law enforcement agencies?
Response: Defense of the National Capital Region (NCR) is a DoD
responsibility under Operation Noble Eagle. Unlike other federal law
enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard has Title 10 U.S. Code authority,
allowing seamless integration into North American Air Defense command
and control.
A secondary mission is air security / law enforcement. Primary
responsibility for this mission rests with the FBI and Secret Service.
If released from its primary mission of Air Defense, the Coast Guard,
under Title 14 U.S. Code authority, will assist these agencies with
their air security responsibilities under Title 14 U.S. Code.
The Coast Guard is working closely with all agencies in the
National Capital Region Coordination Center (NCRCC) to ensure unity of
effort and mission effectiveness within the National Capital Region.
The Coast Guard's entry into the National Capital Air Defense mission
will benefit the NCR's residents and general aviation pilots by
providing a more efficient, safe and effective execution of the air
defense mission.
Question: To the best of your knowledge, what other federal
entities have an active airborne use of force mission?
Response: The Coast Guard is not aware of any Federal agencies,
with the exception of the Department of Defense, that have an airborne
use of force mission.
Question: While exercising this new mission: Who will order the
launch of the Coast Guard helicopters? Who will control the mission?
Will the assets be armed?
Response: NORAD will have tactical control (TACON) of Coast Guard
assets supporting the National Capital Region Air Defense initiative.
This tactical control includes launch authority and mission control.
Some personnel in the helo will be armed with personal defense weapons.
There is no current NORAD requirement for Coast Guard NCR helicopters
to be armed.
Question: Will they shoot down an aircraft that enters the
restricted airspace if ordered to do so? What if air intercepts are not
able to respond in time--will they shoot if ordered to do so?
Response: No. There is no current requirement for Coast Guard NCR
helicopters to have shoot down capability. Other measures will be taken
to respond to non-complaint aircraft. We suggest you contact DOD for
more information.
Question: What is the specific date that the Coast Guard will take
over the NCR mission?
Response: The Coast Guard's target start date for initial operating
capability is during the last quarter of Fiscal Year 2006. That date is
contingent upon the timing of Congressional approval of a DHS request
to transfer $4M of Fiscal Year 2006 funds to the Coast Guard.
Approximately five months after approval of the $4M funds transfer
request, the Coast Guard will be able to assume the mission.
Question: Where will the assets come from?
Response: The President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests funds to
acquire and missionize five (5) new or used HH-65 helicopters to
support the National Capital Region Air Defense (NCRAD) initiative. In
the interim, NCRAD will be supported by existing fleet aircraft (HH-
65Cs) normally dedicated to special missions/cutter support.
Question: How will the Coast Guard ensure that it can meet its
other missions while the requested five helicopters needed to perform
this mission are delivered?
Response: The NCRAD mission will be initially supported by existing
fleet aircraft (HH-65C) normally dedicated to special missions/cutter
support. The Coast Guard will exercise the last year option on the
current HITRON MH-68 helicopter service contract to provide an
additional 1000 cutter helicopter days deployed at sea through January
2008 while five additional USCG HH-65C helos are procured and
missionized. Exercising the last year option of the HITRON MH-68 armed
helicopter service contract will ensure no negative impact to current
USCG missions.
Reclassification of Drug Interdiction as a Non-Homeland Security
Mission:
Question: Is it fair to say that in your experience, drug smugglers
and human smugglers often use the same transit routes?
Response: Yes.
Question: How will this reclassification benefit Coast Guard
operations?
Response: The Coast Guard anticipates no benefit as a result of
this reclassification.
Question: Please describe for the committee why the Office of
Management and Budget is justifying this change.
Response: To align with other Federal counterdrug programs, all of
which are not classified as homeland security activities. Additional
details are available from the Office of Management and Budget.
Questions from Hon. Curt Weldon
Question: How did the Coast Guard decide on using the HH-65 for
National Capital Region response?
Response: The HH-65C helicopter was the ``aircraft of choice'' for
the National Capital Region Air Defense (NCRAD) mission due its (a)
ability to meet NCRAD mission requirements, (b) relatively low
operating cost, (c) the large number of HH-65 helicopters in the Coast
Guard fleet, and (d) the availability and comparatively low cost to
acquire additional assets on the commercial market.
Question: Did you consider other options like the MH-68 that the
Coast Guard currently uses for HITRON?
Response: The Coast Guard did consider the HH-60J, HH-65C and MH-68
helicopters for the NCR mission.
The HH-65C helicopter was chosen as the most ideally suited and
cost effective airframe to meet NCR requirements.
Question: Isn't the MH-68 already in service and authorized for
Airborne Use of Force?
Response: The MH-68 helicopter is Airborne Use of Force air-to-
surface capable, and being used by the Coast Guard for counter drug
operations. However, at present, DOD, DHS, and DOJ do not require an
armed helicopter to support the National Capital Region Air Defense or
law enforcement. Due to its maximum airspeed limitations, the MH-68
helicopter does not meet the NCRAD Rotary Air Wing Intercept
requirements.
Question: Hasn't the MH-68 successfully conducted similar missions
at places such as political conventions and the G-8 Summit?
Response: MH-68 helicopters have been used for port security
missions during National Special Security Events such as the Republican
National Convention, Democrat National Convention, and the G-8 Summit,
where an Airborne Use of Force capability was required for surface
threats. However, the MH-68 helicopter has never been used as a Rotary
Wing Air Intercept platform, as is required for the NCR mission.
Question: What is your plan for fielding the HH-65's for this
mission?
Response: The President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests funds to
acquire and missionize five (5) additional HH-65C helicopters to
support the National Capital Region Air Defense (NCRAD) initiative. In
the interim, NCRAD will be supported by existing fleet aircraft (HH-
65Cs) normally dedicated to special missions/cutter support. The Coast
Guard will exercise the last year option of the armed HITRON MH-68
helicopter service contract to provide an additional 1000 cutter helo
days deployed at sea through January 2008, bridging the time until 5
additional HH-65C aircraft can be acquired.
Question: Will you take existing assets away from their mission to
serve in this role?
Response: The National Capital Region Air Defense mission will be
initially supported by existing fleet aircraft (HH-65Cs) normally
dedicated to special missions/cutter support. The Coast Guard will
exercise the last year option of the current HITRON MH-68 helicopter
service contract to provide an additional 1000 cutter helicopter days
deployed at sea through January 2008, while five additional USCG HH-65C
helos are procured and missionized. Exercising the last year option of
the HITRON MH-68 armed helicopter service contract will ensure no
negative impact to current USCG missions.
Question: Is your plan the most efficient and cost effective
option?
Response: Yes, the selection of the HH-65C for the National Capital
Region Air Defense (NCRAD) mission is the most efficient and cost
effective Coast Guard option.
Question: Are you considering acquiring or leasing used HH-65's for
the Coast Guard, for this mission or any other mission? If so, how will
you certify that these aircraft meet the Coast Guard's safety
standards?
Response: The President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests funds to
acquire and missionize five (5) new or used HH-65 helicopters to
support the National Capital Region Air Defense (NCRAD) mission.
When the Coast Guard acquires and/or missionizes a new or used HH-
65 aircraft, the helicopter will initially be inducted into the Coast
Guard's Aircraft Repair & Supply Center (ARSC). This induction will
ensure aircraft standardization and certification. ARSC has a proven
record for successfully modifying civil AS-365 (USCG HH65 like)
airframes into Coast Guard HH-65 aircraft.
Questions from Hon. Mark E. Souder
New Definition of Homeland Security
When Congress created DHS in 2002, it combined some of the most
important drug interdiction agencies in the Federal Government. While
the Coast Guard's homeland security missions are not new, they were
statutorily defined in Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-296) as follows: ports, waterways, and coastal
security; drug interdiction; migrant interdiction; defense readiness;
and other law enforcement.
Contrary to this statutory definition of the homeland security
missions that includes drug interdiction and other enforcement, the
Administration's 2007 budget request categorizes ``Illegal Drug
Interdiction'' and ``Other Law Enforcement'' missions as ``Non-Homeland
Security'' missions. (Coast Guard Budget in Brief document (page B-2).
This proposed change clearly runs contrary to the organic statute
establishing DHS.
Question: Who has authorized the change of definitions and
therefore priorities for the Coast Guard regarding drug interdiction?
Response: Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296)
authorizes the Office of Management and Budget to compile estimates of
funding related to homeland security consistent with the definition
from the 2002 Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism. That
report refers to ``homeland security'' as those activities that detect,
deter, protect against, and respond to terrorist attacks on the United
States. Upon review of the Coast Guard programs for ``Drug
Interdiction'' and ``Other Law Enforcement,'' OMB determined that these
programs do not meet government-wide standards for the definition in
section 889, and reclassified the funding to ensure consistency in
reporting homeland security programs to the Congress. The ``Other Law
Enforcement'' mission focuses on the enforcement of maritime fishery
boundaries, primarily in the North Pacific ocean around the state of
Alaska, and does not directly focus on terrorism or terrorists. The
``Drug Interdiction'' mission is nearly identical to the activities of
the Drug Enforcement Agency, the funding for which is classified
entirely as ``non-homeland security.''
OMB also closely reviewed section 888 of P.L. 107-296, which
clearly states that categorizing ``Drug Interdiction'' and ``Other Law
Enforcement'' as ``homeland security'' only applies to that specific
part of the legislation, not the separate section 889 which prescribes
how OMB should report homeland security programs government-wide. This
interpretation was approved by the OMB Counsel's office and accepted by
the DHS Counsel's office.
Question: Did lawyers at ONDCP, DHS and Coast Guard sign off on
this abdication of duty?
Response: Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296)
authorizes the Office of Management and Budget to compile estimates of
funding related to homeland security consistent with the definition
from the 2002 Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism. That
report refers to ``homeland security'' as those activities that detect,
deter, protect against, and respond to terrorist attacks on the United
States. Upon review of the Coast Guard programs for ``Drug
Interdiction'' and ``Other Law Enforcement,'' OMB determined that these
programs do not meet government-wide standards for the definition in
section 889, and reclassified the funding to ensure consistency in
reporting homeland security programs to the Congress. The ``Other Law
Enforcement'' mission focuses on the enforcement of maritime fishery
boundaries, primarily in the North Pacific ocean around the state of
Alaska, and does not directly focus on terrorism or terrorists. The
``Drug Interdiction'' mission is nearly identical to the activities of
the Drug Enforcement Agency, the funding for which is classified
entirely as ``non-homeland security.''
OMB also closely reviewed section 888 of P.L. 107-296, which
clearly states that categorizing ``Drug Interdiction'' and ``Other Law
Enforcement'' as ``homeland security'' only applies to that specific
part of the legislation, not the separate section 889 which prescribes
how OMB should report homeland security programs government-wide. This
interpretation was approved by the OMB Counsel's office and accepted by
the DHS Counsel's office. ONDCP was also aware of the change.
Question: Does the Coast Guard support the proposed new change in
categories for its Drug Interdiction mission?
Response: The Coast Guard supports the President's Budget.
Regardless of budget classification, the mission to secure and protect
the maritime domain against all threats, including illegal narcotics,
is critical to the security of the United States. The Coast Guard
continues to have unprecedented success in the counterdrug mission. The
Coast Guard, working with its interagency and international partners,
removed 338,206 pounds of cocaine (including nearly 303,662 pounds
seized) during fiscal year 2005--a record year. This success will be
maintained by pursuing the three principles of its 10-year Strategic
Counter Drug Plan known as STEEL WEB:
Pursuing more tactical, actionable intelligence, then
responding with flexible intelligence-driven operations;
Leveraging technology by fast tracking new tools and
bringing more capable assets to the fight; and
International engagement with our counterdrug partner
nations, which speeds up the seizure and disposition process
and gains U.S. jurisdiction to help feed the intelligence
cycle.
Question: How will the proposed change impact the administration,
management, funding and operations of the Coast Guard's drug
interdiction mission?
Response: The President develops his budget proposal annually to
identify the highest-priority needs of the country. The change in
homeland security classification of the Coast Guard ``Drug
Interdiction'' budget was made to ensure consistent reporting of
homeland security funding in the budget document, not to signal a
revision to the President's commitment to funding the effort to
eliminate the illegal importation of drugs into the country.
The revision to the homeland security classification of the Drug
Interdiction budget will also have no effect on the Coast Guard's
ability to execute this mission, or on the agency's effectiveness in
reducing the illegal drug trade in the maritime environment.
Question: How will this change impact the Coast Guard Drug
Interdiction budget? Will it impact out-year budget projections?
Response: By design, the Coast Guard is a multi-mission, military
service. While it has developed cost models that allow the allocation
of asset hours and resources to its eleven mission-programs, it is
appropriated dollars through general discretionary accounts (e.g.,
Operating Expenses; Acquisition, Construction and Improvements; etc.)
that allow the Coast Guard to efficiently and effectively execute its
broad mission portfolio and surge assets to meet maritime threats.
Coast Guard cutters and aircraft rarely go to sea for a single purpose,
but rather typically enforce all applicable laws and treaties and
protect the safety and security of the maritime domain. For example, a
Coast Guard cutter on patrol in the Caribbean or Eastern Pacific
transit zone may in a single week make a maritime drug seizure,
intercept undocumented migrants at sea, and respond to a vessel in
distress.
This multi-mission character makes the whole of the Coast Guard's
mission-programs much greater than the sum of its individual parts. It
also challenges traditional budget classification. The Coast Guard's
multi-mission character is a trusted and tested operational model
evidenced most recently in the service's stellar response during
hurricane Katrina. The last thing we would want is Coast Guard
operational commanders limited in their ability to respond because of
artificial budget 'stovepipes.?
The Department and Coast Guard remain focused on effective mission
execution and performance results. While I cannot speculate on future
impacts, if any, to the Coast Guard's drug interdiction mission, my
immediate concern is that we fully fund the President's Budget Request
for the Coast Guard each year. Unfortunately, the trend is in the wrong
direction. The enacted fiscal year 2006 budget was almost $150 million
below the President's Request, including more than a $33 million
reduction to the Coast Guard's primary recapitalization effort--
Deepwater. Several of the reductions directly affect drug interdiction
effectiveness, such as deploying airborne use of force capability and
C4ISR improvements. Coast Guard capability and capacity provides a
unique and effective instrument of Homeland Security. As a result, I?m
confident that preserving Coast Guard readiness and capability to
conduct all missions will continue to be an Administration budget
priority. I ask for your continued staunch support to ensure it also
remains a Congressional budget priority.
National Capital Region Air Defense mission
The President's 2007 budget proposes $62.44 million for the
establishment of a permanent National Capital Region Air Defense
(NCRAD) program, a function being transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard
from Customs and Border Protection. On November 2, 2005, I requested
detailed planning documents from the Coast Guard regarding the proposed
new mission. To date, I have still not received any further information
pertaining to these plans.
Question: What is the Coast Guard's plan to support the NCRAD
mission?
Response: In the President's FY07 Budget, funding is requested to
acquire, staff and operate five (5) HH-65 helicopters in support of the
National Capital Region Air Defense (NCRAD) mission. These helicopters
will be assigned to CGAS Atlantic City and conduct NCRAD missions from
a Forward Operating Base (FOB) at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport. Operating under NORAD tactical control, three of the five
helicopters will be located at National's Signature Aviation hangar
with two crews on a 24/7 strip alert.
The target USCG start date is late fiscal year 2006. Approximately
five months after Congressional approval of a pending DHS request to
transfer $4M in fiscal year 2006 funds, Coast Guard will take over the
mission. Until additional HH-65C helicopters are acquired, existing
fleet aircraft currently used to support special missions and cutter
deployments will be used to support this mission. The Coast Guard
intends to exercise the last option year of the HITRON MH-68 service
contract to provide an additional 1000 Armed Helicopter Cutter Days
Deployed at Sea as a bridging strategy, ensuring no impact to existing
missions until the additional helicopters can be acquired and
missionized.
Question: What is the implementation date?
Response: The Coast Guard's target start date for initial operating
capability is late in Fiscal Year 2006. The exact date is contingent
upon the timing of Congressional approval of a DHS request to transfer
$4M of Fiscal Year 2006 funds to the Coast Guard. Approximately five
months after congressional approval to transfer funding, USCG will be
able to assume the mission.
Question: Where will the five aircraft funded in the FY 2007 budget
come from?
Response: An open market acquisition competition will be used to
procure five (5) HH-65 helicopters. The supplier must either provide
missioned HH65C helicopters, or 5 new or used AS-365 N3 airframes which
USCG can modify at the Coast Guard's Aircraft Repair & Supply Center
(ARSC) to USCG specifications. The decision to buy new aircraft or buy
airframes and missionize them will be based on information received
from a pending Industry Request for Information.
HH-65C helicopters are required for fleet standardization, which
ensures efficiencies in logistics, reduces maintenance costs, and
standardizes training for pilots and aircrew.
Question: Will the Coast Guard purchase new aircraft, or will
aircraft be diverted from drug interdiction missions and in subsequent
years be replaced by new acquisitions?
Response: The President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests funds to
acquire and missionize five (5) additional HH-65 helicopters to support
the National Capital Region Air Defense (NCRAD). The NCRAD mission will
be initially supported by existing fleet aircraft (HH-65C) normally
dedicated to special missions/cutter support. The Coast Guard will
exercise the last year option of the current HITRON MH-68 helicopter
service contract to provide an additional 1000 cutter helicopter days
deployed at sea through January 2008, while five additional USCG HH-65C
helos are procured and missionized.
Exercising the last year option of the HITRON MH-68 armed
helicopter service contract will ensure no impact to current USCG
missions.
Question: The FY 2007 calls for the procurement of five helicopters
to support the NCRAD mission, but a DHS Budget Officer has said the
program needs seven. Where will the other two aircraft come from, and
will they be diverted from interdiction efforts?
Response: The acquisition of two additional HH-65 helicopters to
support the National Capitol Region Air Defense (NCRAD) mission will be
requested in future Coast Guard budgets. These last two aircraft will
be used to support increased training needs at Aviation Training Center
Mobile, AL and to add an additional depot level support aircraft. In
the interim there will be no need to divert operational aircraft to
fill these needs.
Deepwater Recapitalization
This year's budget proposal includes $934.43 million for the
Deepwater Recapitalization project. The 2007 Coast Guard Budget in
Brief describes this funding as supporting the ordering of additional
cutters of varying abilities, additional maritime patrol aircraft, and
the completion of the engine upgrade program for the HH-65 helicopters.
The Coast Guard's ability to perform interdiction is spread very thin
by the limited number and age of its assets.
Question: Will these new cutters arrive in time to alleviate the
down time caused by deteriorating legacy cutters and aircraft?
Response: As explained in the Patrol Boat Availability Report, the
schedule does not alleviate the gap in required cutter hours until at
least 2009. Other interdiction platforms are similarly affected,
however, and the Coast Guard is committed to maintaining the
operational capabilities of its legacy assets and minimizing any
downtime caused by traditional long-lead construction times and
deteriorating legacy assets, through legacy sustainment projects. These
sustainment projects are designed to maintain existing legacy asset
capabilities and ensure the reliability of these assets until they are
replaced by their Deepwater counterparts. The Coast Guard has
additionally taken steps to mitigate the impacts of these projects to
the largest extent possible. For example, the Coast Guard has limited
the number of cutter sustainment projects in each fiscal year to
maintain sufficient operational asset capacity.
Question: Will the Coast Guard experience significant ``gaps'' in
capabilities due to the current Deepwater production schedule?
Response: The Coast Guard's Operational Gap Analysis Report details
forecast gaps in cutter and aircraft operational hours during the
transition to its new deepwater fleet. Because of increased
efficiencies that have resulted from Deepwater upgrades to legacy
equipment, Coast Guard hopes to minimize the effect of these gaps on
mission performance. The transition schedule minimizes gaps in
operational capabilities, but some gaps are unavoidable as some legacy
assets are taken offline for sustainment projects. Also some delays are
encountered while newly delivered assets and crews are being trained
and tested before becoming fully operational. The Coast Guard has taken
every effort to minimize fleet impact during this transition, but some
unavoidable operational gaps remain. Full funding of the Deepwater
project within the annual President's Budget Request is also critical
to minimizing these gaps.
Maritime Patrol Aircraft
DoD maritime patrol aircraft hours operating in the transit zone
have drastically decreased over the past three years, for various
reasons, from a high of 5,964 hours in 2002 to only 1,500 hours in
2005. The Coast Guard, CBP, and allies have tried to fill this gap, but
simply do not have the additional assets needed. To respond to this
situation the FY 2007 includes the acquisition of three CASA 235
aircraft to augment MPA for Deepwater.
Question: Are three aircraft included in the FY 2007 budget enough
to meet the Coast Guard's and JIATF-South's immediate need for aircraft
to perform the MPA (detection, monitoring, and interdiction) mission?
Response: The President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests $77.6M
for the acquisition of one aircraft, which would be the Coast Guard's
sixth CASA. In addition, this request funds logistics, spare parts, and
support for CASAs four through six. The Fiscal Year 2007 budget would
also fund two quarters of operations for the third CASA aircraft.
Operating funds for the first two aircraft were contained in the Fiscal
Year 2006 budget.
The first three CASAs are forecast to be fully operational late in
Fiscal Year 2007. Until that time the CASA flight hours will be
dedicated to training, Design Testing and Evaluation and Operational
Testing and Evaluation flights that must be done prior to introducing
these new aircraft to the Coast Guard fleet. Once fully operational,
each CASA aircraft will provide 1200 MPA hours per year.
Question: What type of palletized radar and sensing equipment will
be installed on these aircraft?
Response: The sensors on the CASA CN235 Maritime Patrol Aircraft
include:
EDO ALR-95(V) 2 Electronic Support Measures (ESM),
Saab R4A Automatic Identification System (AIS)
Airborne Transmitter,
FLIR Systems Star Safire III Electro-Optical/Infra-Red
(EO/IR),
Telephonic APS-143B(V) 3 Multi-Mode Radar (MMR), and
Rockwell Collins DF-430F Direction Finder (DF).
Question: How do these aircraft and their sensor packages compare
to the U.S. Navy and Customs and Border Protection P-3 aircraft and the
current sensor package utilized in the HC-130?
Response: The U.S. Navy and CBP P-3, Coast Guard HC-130, and the
Coast Guard CASA 235-300M aircraft, with some variances, have the same
basic sensor capability. All three aircraft types have surface search
radar and an Electro Optical / Infrared package. The Coast Guard's CASA
aircraft will additionally have connectivity to the Common Operating
Picture (COP) and will be able to display the local tactical picture,
increasing situational awareness. The local tactical picture
simultaneously blends electronic inputs from the Automatic
Identification System, surface search radar, an Electronic Surveillance
Measures / Specific Emitter Identification package, and the COP with
aerial charts.
The FY 2007 budget also includes funding to missionize and upgrade
the sensors in Coast Guard HC-130 MPA aircraft.
Question: What type of palletized radar and sensing equipment will
be installed on these aircraft?
Response: The HC-130H has a mission pallet that receives sensor
data from a surface search radar and an electro-optical infra-red (EO/
IR) sensor. The fiscal year 2007 President's budget request includes
funding to replace the aging surface search radar and obsolete avionics
suite.