[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ISSUES
=======================================================================
(113-39)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 29, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-300 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
------ 7
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska JOHN GARAMENDI, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey RICK LARSEN, Washington
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida, LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
Vice Chair CORRINE BROWN, Florida
TOM RICE, South Carolina JANICE HAHN, California
TREY RADEL, Florida NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina (Ex Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
TESTIMONY
Panel 1
Hon. Andy Barr, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Kentucky....................................................... 2
Panel 2
Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney, Judge Advocate General, United
States Coast Guard 4
Hon. Mario Cordero, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission........ 4
Hon. Michael H. Shapiro, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency 4
Hon. Mark R. Rosekind, Ph.D., Board Member, National
Transportation Safety Board.................................... 4
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Hon. John Garamendi, of California............................... 34
PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED
BY WITNESSES
Hon. Andy Barr, prepared statement............................... 35
Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney:
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Answers to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. John Garamendi, of California....................... 43
Hon. Rick Larsen, of Washington.......................... 52
Hon. Mario Cordero, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission:
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi,
of California.............................................. 62
Hon. Paul N. Jaenichen, prepared statement \\............ 66
Hon. Michael H. Shapiro:
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi,
of California.............................................. 81
Hon. Mark R. Rosekind, Ph.D.:
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Answers to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Duncan Hunter, of California........................ 99
Hon. John Garamendi, of California....................... 102
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney, Judge Advocate General, United
States Coast Guard, responses to requests for information from
Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, regarding:
The Coast Guard's views of the proposed funding and personnel
levels in the draft 2014 Coast Guard Authorization Act..... 14
The types of vessels affected by the proposed out-of-water
survival craft requirement................................. 17
Whether or not a charter fishing vessel operating beyond the
San Francisco Bay would be required to be equipped with an
out-of-water survival craft by 1 April 2014................ 17
Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, request to submit the following into the record:
Deborah A.P. Hersman, Chairman, National Transportation
Safety Board, letter to Hon. John Garamendi and Hon. Elijah
E. Cummings, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Maryland, October 25, 2013................................. 27
Letter to Hon. John Garamendi from the following
organizations: Michelle D. Schwartz, Director of Justice
Programs, Alliance for Justice; John Bowman, Director of
Federal and State Relations, American Association for
Justice; Joanne Doroshow, Executive Director, Center for
Justice and Democracy at New York Law School; Martin
Hayden, Vice President, Policy and Legislation,
Earthjustice; Anna Aurilio, Director, Washington, DC,
Office, Environment America; Cynthia Sarthou, Executive
Director, Gulf Restoration Network; Mike Daulton, Vice
President, Government Relations and Director of National
Programs, National Audubon Society; Sarah Chasis, Director,
Ocean Initiative, Natural Resources Defense Council;
Christine Hines, Consumer and Civil Justice Counsel, Public
Citizen; and Athan Manuel, Director, Lands Protection
Program, Sierra Club; October 25, 2013..................... 30
----------
\\ Hon. Paul N. Jaenichen, Acting Maritime Administrator,
Maritime Administration, was invited to testify at the hearing
but was unable to attend. He submitted a prepared statement,
and it is included.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.007
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ISSUES
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hunter. The subcommittee will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to examine issues impacting the
maritime transportation sector that the subcommittee may need
to address in legislation.
The subcommittee has already held several hearings this
year to review the budgets and programs of the Coast Guard, the
Federal Maritime Commission, and the Maritime Administration.
We have also heard from nearly 20 experts from industry,
labor and academia with innovative ideas to improve these
programs, reduce regulatory burdens, and grow jobs in the
maritime sector.
I look forward to combining these ideas with information
presented by our witnesses today to form the basis of
bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Coast Guard and FMC
and make improvements to the maritime transportation system.
I have several goals for this legislation. Number one,
reauthorize the activities of the Coast Guard and the FMC in a
fiscally responsible manner that reflects the current budget
environment while ensuring these agencies have the resources
they need to successfully conduct their missions.
Number two, improve the effectiveness of the Coast Guard
missions by reducing inefficient operations and enhancing
oversight.
Three, place the Coast Guard's major systems acquisition
program on a sustainable track that will ensure the delivery of
critically needed assets in a timely and cost effective manner.
Fourth, encourage job growth in the maritime sector by
cutting regulatory burdens on job creation and improving
Federal programs intended to promote and develop a strong
maritime industry in the United States.
I look forward to writing legislation and working with
Ranking Member Garamendi and other members of the subcommittee
on that effort.
With that, I yield to Ranking Member Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Chairman Hunter. Thank you for
this hearing and for the witnesses, thank you for appearing and
testifying. I will submit my opening statement for the record
and try to make it a little shorter.
The maritime industry is rather important. In fact, it is
extremely important. We need to take cognizance of that and use
this opportunity to write a comprehensive maritime policy for
this Nation. Obviously, the Coast Guard is a big piece of it.
As we move into that area, all that you talked about,
Chairman Hunter, we should be doing, and probably a little
more.
With regard to the other parts of the authorization, we are
going to have our hands full.
I think if we can maybe get started and maybe complete--
although I doubt we can do it this reauthorization--we need a
comprehensive re-look at the entire maritime industry, and we
need to write a comprehensive policy. We also need to make it
clear how important this is to the Nation and get about doing
that, and that is everything from shipbuilding to the ports and
obviously to MarAd and the FMC.
With that, I will yield back and submit this for the
record.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the ranking member.
On our first panel today, we have the Honorable Andy Barr,
representing Kentucky's Sixth District in the House of
Representatives.
Congressman Barr, you are recognized for your statement,
and it is good to see you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ANDY BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Barr. It is good to see you, Chairman. Thank you for
your leadership. Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman
Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and the Subcommittee on Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation for holding this hearing.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
and to offer testimony on how the committee can provide a
commonsense and practical remedy to an unnecessary hardship in
my district.
I offer these comments for the record in order to encourage
the subcommittee to include language within the Coast Guard and
maritime transportation authorization legislation or similar
legislation that would transfer the licensing authority for the
Valley View Ferry from Federal operating licensing to a State-
based operating license.
In 1785, the Virginia legislature granted John Craig, a
revolutionary war soldier, a perpetual franchise to operate the
ferry located in what is now Valley View, Kentucky. In
operations since that time, the Valley View Ferry is currently
the oldest, continuous operated ferry west of the Appalachian
Mountains, and is the third oldest ferry in the United States.
Federal regulations changed in 2006 to establish a new
requirement, that the Valley View Ferry must comply with all
U.S. Coast Guard inspection and licensing regulations.
These licensing regulations are threatening the closure of
this historic ferry, because the Valley View Ferry is now
required to employ operators who hold merchant mariner
licenses, which is the highest level of operator licensing
issued by the U.S. Coast Guard.
This new licensing requirement is unnecessary and does not
properly represent the unique operation of the Valley View
Ferry. This toll free ferry does not have steering
capabilities. Instead, it is attached to two overhead cables
that guide the boat onto landings each side of the river, the
Kentucky River, which is only approximately 500 feet apart.
As you can see, there is obviously a huge difference
between the Valley View Ferry and the towboats that operate on
the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers or vessels that operate in the
open seas.
Yet, due to current Federal regulation, a person seeking to
become an operator of the Valley View Ferry must have the same
licensing requirements as someone who wants to operate the
Staten Island Ferry in New York City, a towboat on the
Mississippi, or the Belle of Louisville on the Ohio River.
As a result of the Federal Government changing how the
ferry is regulated and because of the overbroad nature of this
particular regulation, the Valley View Ferry Authority which
manages this historic ferry, has been forced to reduce
operating hours and search all over the country to find a
properly certified operator willing to work for less than half
of the normal wages demanded by operators who similarly possess
a merchant mariner's license.
While the Valley View Ferry is currently able to operate,
albeit in a diminished capacity and with tremendous hardship,
there is no guarantee that the ferry's managers will continue
to be able to find a viable operator in the future.
Rather than rely on the current temporary fix, what the
Valley View Ferry truly needs is the permanent solution that
can be provided by this committee's members.
The current regulation imposes an unnecessary burden on the
local economy as well. The Valley View Ferry supports jobs and
commerce in central Kentucky. Every day the Valley View Ferry
is not in operation, it causes economic disruption for nearby
businesses and tremendous hardship for merchants and workers
who need to use the ferry to commute to and from work.
With your help, I seek to remedy this one-size-fits-all
regulation by transferring the licensing authority for the
Valley View Ferry from Federal operating licensing to a State-
based operating license.
My bill, H.R. 2570, the Valley View Preservation Act of
2013, is designed to act in conjunction with Kentucky State
law, and therefore will not take effect until the Commonwealth
of Kentucky establishes a safety and licensing program tailored
to the Valley View Ferry.
While my bill is designed to prevent any lapse in Federal
or State regulations, I would be open to working with members
of this committee to make any changes your Members might deem
appropriate to remedy this hardship.
In conclusion, the situation with the Valley View Ferry is
a classic example of overbroad regulation, impeding the ability
of State and local governments to operate, and impeding the
local economy.
I am confident there is a simple and practical fix to this
problem, and I would again like to thank Chairman Hunter,
Ranking Member Garamendi, and committee members for affording
me this brief opportunity to speak this morning.
I ask for your consideration and support on this very
important issue to central Kentucky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hunter. I'd like to thank Congressman Barr for his
testimony. This is just one of those things that really shows
this is going back to the 1700s, and you should not need the
highest classification license to drive a cable ferry.
We thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Congressman
Barr. If no Members have questions, you are dismissed, and we
will take a break while we seat our second panel.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, gentlemen.
On our second panel of witnesses today are Rear Admiral
Frederick Kenney, Judge Advocate General of the United States
Coast Guard; the Honorable Mario Cordero, Chairman of the
Federal Maritime Commission; the Honorable Michael Shapiro,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Water
at the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Honorable Mark
Rosekind, Board Member of the National Transportation Safety
Board.
Rear Admiral Kenney, you are recognized for your statement,
sir.
TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL FREDERICK J. KENNEY, JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD; HON. MARIO CORDERO,
CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION; HON. MICHAEL H. SHAPIRO,
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND HON. MARK R. ROSEKIND,
PH.D., BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Admiral Kenney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee.
As the officer responsible for the Coast Guard's
legislative development program, I am pleased to appear before
you today to discuss the Coast Guard's legislative proposals.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my written statement be included
in the subcommittee's record.
The Coast Guard has transmitted 12 legislative proposals
for the subcommittee's consideration. I refer to my written
statement for extended remarks on four specific proposals, but
wish to highlight the following:
First, the Coast Guard proposal to authorize the Secretary
to order Coast Guard reservists to active duty for a continuous
period of not more than 120 days in the event of a disaster,
emergency or spill of national significance, to align Coast
Guard response authorities with those of the Department of
Defense.
The proposal mirrors the authority that Congress has vested
in the Secretary of Defense except that it would cover spills
of national significance such as the Deepwater Horizon water
spill, as well as disasters and emergencies.
Simply altering the existing current law limitations would
not address the impacts that would flow from sustained or
multiple activations that occur within a 12- to 18-month
period. The Coast Guard proposal would address this effect.
Next I turn your attention to the Coast Guard proposal to
require agency heads to release the drug testing results from
mariner applicants in the same way agency heads must report
drug testing results for mariner employees.
Closing the existing gap in current law may not address a
secondary issue, whether or not an agency head may release
results without the prior consent of a mariner applicant or
mariner employee.
Some agencies have claimed the current law to be ambiguous
on this point. The Coast Guard's proposal would settle this
issue, and I recommend the subcommittee consider adopting this
comprehensive approach.
Next, the Coast Guard proposal to reauthorize the Sport
Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, and ensure that monies
derived from the Fund are administered by the Coast Guard and
the Fish and Wildlife Service in a like manner.
The Service had offered up elements of this proposal during
the 111th and 112th Congresses and again now.
I urge the subcommittee to take up this measure, and the
Coast Guard stands ready to assist.
Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to highlight one
other Coast Guard legislative proposal, protection and fair
treatment of seafarers. The enforcement and prosecution of
environmental crimes under the Act to prevent pollution from
ships has been widely successful.
Yet, some vessel owners and operators have aggressively
employed litigation tactics as a means of frustrating the
Government's prosecution of these crimes, chiefly the threat to
abandon a seafarer witness whose testimony is essential to the
Government's case.
When the vessel owner or operator resists paying or refuses
to pay the seafarer witness's support, the United States is
often left then to acquiesce to unsatisfactory conditions or to
abandon an investigation altogether.
Since 2007, the Coast Guard has advocated the establishment
of a fund to pay for the necessary support of the seafarer
witness as a means of neutralizing this litigation tactic.
A significant feature of the Coast Guard proposal is that
monies for such support would be derived from reimbursements
paid by the vessel owner or operator who fails to provide the
necessary support, not the taxpayer.
I would appreciate the subcommittee's further consideration
of this proposal.
As a final matter, I draw the subcommittee's attention to
18 U.S.C. section 39(a), which establishes the criminal
prohibition against knowingly aiming a laser pointer at an
aircraft, yet allows an individual to use a laser emergency
signaling device to send an emergency distress signal.
The physical properties of lasers can cause temporary
blindness, also known as flash blindness, retinal bruising, and
in extreme cases, permanent blindness, if the beam strikes the
eyes of rescue personnel.
For the Coast Guard, the consequences could not be more
disastrous. The use of such a signaling device could
temporarily disrupt a search and rescue mission, and possibly
cause the loss of equipment and death of our personnel employed
to effectuate the rescue.
In fiscal year 2013, there were 54 lasing incidents
involving Coast Guard aircraft and vessels, including one just
10 days ago. The number of these incidents has increased every
year since fiscal year 2007. More often than not, the incidents
occurred with aircraft at dangerously low altitudes and
overwhelmingly involved green laser light which most severely
affects human vision.
In light of the limited utility of lasers as an emergency
signaling device and the grave harm such devices could cause, I
recommend that the subcommittee reconsider this exception to
the general prohibition.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for your
continued support of the United States Coast Guard. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Cordero is recognized.
Mr. Cordero. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member
Garamendi, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to address matters related to the Commission's
authorization.
The Commission carries out important statutorily mandated
programs aimed at maintaining an efficient and competitive
international ocean transportation system; protecting the
public from unlawful, unfair, and deceptive ocean
transportation practices; and resolving shipping disputes.
These key FMC initiatives allow the Commission to resolve
issues that have an impact on importers and exporters, as well
as support one of the Commission's primary objectives--to
increase exports and further the interests of the greater
shipping community.
A fair, efficient and adequate ocean transportation system
depends on the FMC's ability to evaluate carrier and terminal
agreements for anticompetitive impact, license ocean
transportation intermediaries to protect the shipping public,
and facilitate international trade.
U.S.-foreign oceanborne commerce valued at $930 billion
moves through our Nation's ports annually, over 99 percent of
our trade is done on the water.
Make no mistake--maritime policy is linked directly to
freight policy.
The public-private partnerships the Panel on 21st-Century
Freight Transportation heard about at the hearing on October 10
regarding the operations at the Port of Norfolk in Virginia and
the Port of Baltimore in Maryland may not have been possible
without the Shipping Act. The Commission oversees similar
marine terminal operator agreements from nearly every port that
moves containerized cargo; Tampa, New Orleans, Miami, New York,
Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Houston, Philadelphia,
Seattle, Portland, Mobile, and others.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget request of $25
million represented the minimum necessary for the Commission to
fulfill its statutory mandate.
Continuing the Commission at fiscal year 2013 post-
sequestration funding amounts is unsustainable, after the many
years of severely restricted funding levels the Commission has
borne in the recent past.
We considered all options, but in fiscal year 2013, we were
forced to impose 6 days of furlough across the entire agency.
Our strategic plan sets forth two goals: One, to maintain
an efficient and competitive international ocean transportation
system; and two, to protect the public from unfair, unlawful
and deceptive ocean transportation practices, and resolving
shipping disputes.
We recognize the need to accomplish these goals through
high-performance leadership and efficient stewardship of
resources.
In addition, the Commission has been closely following the
ocean carriers' business model of providing chassis to U.S.
shippers, and has given related agreements filings close review
to ensure that the transition does not cause disruption or
anticompetitive harm to shippers.
The fiscal year 2013 post-sequestration funding level will
have severe impacts on the shipping public, and just to name a
few:
Consumers may be harmed due to the Commission's lack of
ability to monitor fully the impacts of agreements of marine
terminal operators and liner operators, leading potentially to
higher transportation costs, and reduced transportation
services.
Cruise passengers, individuals moving their household goods
abroad, and small importers and exporters will not have access
to the Commission's services.
Shippers, carriers, port officials and consumers in the
Houston region will not have the ability to contact a local FMC
representative, as this position remains unfilled.
Applicants for ocean freight forwarder and nonvessel
operating common carrier licenses, typically small businesses,
will encounter significant backlogs and waiting times.
U.S. importers and exporters could no longer be assured
that the ocean carriers and the NVOCCs serving their needs
would have unrestricted access to international oceanborne
trades, given that the Commission would no longer be able to
carry out its statutory mandate to address the restrictive
practices of foreign governments.
Increasingly large global vessel alliances, such as the
proposed P3 alliance, and their effects on costs and services
to the U.S. importers, exporters, and shipping community would
go unmonitored.
Public studies and analysis, such as the Commission studies
of the repeal of the European block exemption and possible
freight diversion from the U.S. to Mexican and Canadian ports
would cease.
As in fiscal year 2013, prior to instituting agencywide
furloughs, costs for the following, nonsalary/benefits and
nonlease expenditures would be examined and reduced:
Travel: Domestic and international travel associated with
investigations, enforcement, litigation and necessary
interaction with the industry and the public would be severely
limited to bare levels.
Training: Except for statutorily mandated training--equal
employment officer, inspector general, ethics officer--training
would be completely eliminated.
Commercial data used to monitor, enforce and analyze
industry impact would be severely cut, thereby eliminating the
Commission's ability to analyze properly competitive conditions
in foreign oceanborne trades, which may in turn harm consumers
and create disadvantages for U.S. importers and exporters.
Information technology services: Cuts would impact the
maintenance of existing IT systems to a level that would put
these systems at risk of catastrophic failure and create
security concerns.
The Commission is pursuing several information technology
initiatives to comply with governing IT statutes and
regulations, as well as examining the FMC's business functions
that require or benefit from integration with existing data,
technology and systems to increase the efficiency,
productivity, and communication with the public, particularly
in the licensing process.
We believe enhanced information systems are essential to
efficient identification and licensing of regulated entities
and for information sharing with our counterparts at CBP and
other Federal agencies.
These IT systems would also enable our Area
Representatives, Bureau of Enforcement and CADRS staff to have
timely and comprehensive access to data needed to address
practices that abuse or defraud the shipping public.
Because technology is so essential to running the FMC, the
Commission proposes to implement new IT solutions that will
streamline business processes and facilitate better
coordination and communication between the public and the
agency.
In fiscal year 2011, the agency, in response to
governmentwide transformation initiatives, identified a new
business productivity infrastructure and application platform
that would be incorporated into its business processes model.
The scope and speed of these technology investments will
depend on availability of funds. These investments will lead to
greater productivity, efficiency and transparency.
Also due to funding constraints, our succession planning
program has been delayed; while the FMC staff are dedicated and
hard working, a serious drain on experience has occurred and
our efforts to maintain a talented and knowledgeable staff have
been derailed.
If our funding continues at the current fiscal year 2013
sequester level of $22.8 million or less, it will continue to
significantly impede the Commission's ability to carry out our
statutory duties and dispute resolution functions, which have
grown increasingly important to the success of both the U.S.
importers and exporters.
The requested funds for fiscal year 2014 have a direct
impact on the underpinnings of the economic recovery of our
Nation's international ocean commerce transportation system.
The Commission has carefully scrutinized its operating
costs and will continue to use its limited resources wisely.
The fiscal year 2014 budget request represents one of the
lowest funding increase requests by the FMC in over a decade.
It will not restore the Commission to previous capabilities but
will allow the Commission to meet the responsibilities Congress
has entrusted to the agency.
We respectfully urge Congress to approve our full fiscal
year 2014 $25 million budget request.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Cordero.
Mr. Shapiro is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shapiro. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Hunter,
Ranking Member Garamendi, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA's
regulation of vessel discharges, including ballast water, under
the Clean Water Act.
My testimony will provide an update on our regulation of
vessel discharges under the 2013 Vessel General Permit or VGP
that was finalized in March of this year and which will become
effective on December 19 of this year.
I will also provide background and an overview of the draft
Small Vessel General Permit, the sVGP, which was published for
comment in December of 2011 and on which the Agency has not yet
taken final action.
My full testimony has been submitted for the record and I
will summarize it here.
The Vessel General Permit regulates discharges incidental
to the normal operation of vessels operating in a capacity as a
means of transportation. The VGP includes general effluent
limits applicable to a number of specific discharge streams,
narrative water quality-based effluent limits, inspection,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and
additional requirements applicable to certain vessel types.
The effluent limits are primarily in the form of best
management practices or BMPs, which were developed based on
standard industry practices that were already being performed
on vessels.
The original 2008 Vessel General Permit expires on December
19, 2013, at which time the 2013 VGP will become effective. The
2013 VGP covers the same universe of approximately 70,000
vessels as the current permit. We finalized the new permit in
March of this year so that vessel owners and operators would
have time to plan for and implement any new permit conditions.
In developing the permit, we focused on increasing
environmental protections based on sound science, ensuring
vessel safety, and minimizing the burden for permittees with
commonsense and easy to implement provisions.
In developing ballast water limits for the VGP, we
considered limits based on both the technology available to
treat pollutants and limits that are protective of water
quality as required under the Clean Water Act.
The EPA used the results of studies conducted by the EPA's
Science Advisory Board and the National Academy of Sciences to
inform the ballast water discharge limits in the VGP.
The limits are generally consistent with those contained in
both the International Maritime Organizations Ballast Water
Management Convention and the final Coast Guard ballast water
rule.
As EPA begins to implement the VGP, we will continue to
work closely with Rear Admiral Kenney and his colleagues in the
Coast Guard.
In addition, the EPA has finalized in the VGP a requirement
to continue existing ballast water exchange practices as water
quality-based effluent limits for certain vessels entering the
Great Lakes. The purpose of this requirement, which is not
included in the Coast Guard's final rule, is to add another
measure of protection against potential new invasive fresh
water species that are transported via ballast tanks to the
fresh water environment of the Great Lakes.
Public Law 110-299 enacted in 2008 provides a 2-year
moratorium on clean water permitting requirements for
incidental discharges from commercial vessels less than 79 feet
and commercial fishing vessels regardless of size, except for
their ballast water discharges.
This moratorium was subsequently extended by Congress to
December 18, 2013, and again to December 18, 2014. The EPA
proposed the Small Vessel General Permit, or sVGP, to provide
the Clean Water Act authorization for commercial vessels less
than 79 feet in length if and when the moratorium expires.
Recognizing that these small commercial vessels are
substantially different in how they operate, the draft Small
Vessel General Permit is shorter and simpler than the permit
for large vessels. The draft permit specifies BMPs for several
broad discharge management categories that contain commonsense
practices to reduce environmental impacts from these
discharges, including measures to reduce risk of spreading
invasive species.
We are currently in the process of considering public
comments received which will inform our development of a final
sVGP.
Once again, Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the EPA's vessel permits. I look forward to answering
any questions that you may have.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.
Mr. Rosekind is recognized.
Dr. Rosekind. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today on behalf of the National Transportation
Safety Board.
Working together, the U.S. Coast Guard and the NTSB
evaluate accidents that meet the threshold of a major marine
casualty as set forth in our joint regulations. The NTSB
investigates all major marine casualties, usually about 30 to
35 per year.
Just recently, the U.S. Coast Guard's Commandant and NTSB
Chairman at their annual meeting in June 2013, acknowledged the
ongoing cooperation between our agencies and the effectiveness
of collaboration involving each other's investigative
expertise.
The NTSB plays a critical role in transportation safety by
providing independent and unbiased investigations that lead to
determining the probable cause and issuing safety
recommendations to prevent future accidents.
Throughout its history, the NTSB has investigated hundreds
of marine accidents involving a broad array of safety risks. As
a result, it has issued 2,400 recommendations to the U.S. Coast
Guard and other entities to improve marine safety.
Although there are several topics pertinent to the
subcommittee included in my written statement, today, I would
like to highlight a longstanding and important issue to the
NTSB, the safety benefits of out-of-water survival craft,
particularly for passengers and crewmembers aboard small
passenger vessels.
This issue is certainly not new to our agency. Over 40
years ago in its first safety recommendation on this subject,
the NTSB called for out-of-water flotation survival craft
aboard passenger vessels to save lives and prevent injuries.
Humans are not designed for prolonged water immersion, even
in relatively warm water such as the Gulf of Mexico. Our body
temperatures begin to decrease with sustained exposure. The
NTSB saw this in its investigation of the gulf-based Trinity II
liftboat stationed only 15 miles from shore. Ten crewmembers
abandoned the vessel and four died after extended water
immersion.
The NTSB's most recent recommendation in this area is from
its 2008 investigation of the Queen of the West engine room
fire. Nearly 200 people were on board the vessel and many were
elderly. If the fire had spread, the only option available to
keep passengers out of the 40 degree water was a single six-
person rescue boat.
The recipients of NTSB's recommendations often cite
difficulty and cost as barriers to implementing critical safety
improvements. There are real challenges that must be addressed
to make transportation safer, but the bottom line is if
operators fail to make needed changes, more people will die or
suffer life-altering injuries.
Today, there are so many commonsense safety improvements
like seat belts and air bags, yet few people remember the
initial arguments over their effectiveness or cost.
Safety requirements have also stimulated innovation, where
creative thinking has produced new approaches to address
longstanding safety risks. For example, in aviation, technology
innovations led to the invention of traffic collision avoidance
systems and enhance ground proximity warning systems. These
changes were hotly debated at first, but now are standard
safety equipment in today's modern aircraft.
It is ironic that commercial aircraft, not designed to be
in the water but fly over it, are required to carry out-of-
water survival craft when small passenger marine vessels are
not.
Just as passenger planes with extended over-water
operations must have out-of-water survival craft and other
survival equipment for the rare safety risk associated with a
water accident, so should all passenger vessels that traverse
the Nation's waterways every day. This is simply common sense.
Ranking Member Garamendi and Congressman Cummings recently
asked the NTSB for its perspective on the U.S. Coast Guard's
2013 report, ``Survival Craft Safety,'' regarding out-of-water
survival craft.
Last week, the NTSB provided specific comments on this
report with our views and raised a number of important issues
worthy of your consideration. I encourage you to read it.
Although it is generally safe to travel aboard a passenger
vessel, when something goes wrong it can be deadly. Maintaining
the full requirement for out-of-water survival craft to keep
people from prolonged water immersion is critical for saving
lives and preventing injuries.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. The NTSB is
ready to work with Congress on these and other transportation
safety issues. I am available to answer your questions.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Rosekind. I am going to now
recognize Members for questions. I am going to defer my
questions and pass it on to Mr. LoBiondo, the former
subcommittee chairman of this subcommittee.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel
for being here today. I have the honor of representing the
second largest commercial seaport on the east coast by value of
catch, but the commercial fishermen in my district are barely
making ends meet. I think it is a story we have heard
repeatedly.
One of the problems they have in addition to just being
able to catch the fish they need, the regulations by NOAA
limiting catch limits and new operating rules by the Coast
Guard are taking a huge toll on the industry that is already
reeling from a very tough recession.
The EPA is coming in to impose regulations to govern the
discharge of such things as rain water run off from the decks
and condensation from cabin air conditioners.
It is really hard for me to understand, but even the amount
of vegetable oil used to cook dinner for the crew and type of
dish soap used to clean the frying pan will be regulated.
I think this is really going over the top. We are going to
put people out of business, and if that is the intention, that
is exactly what we are going to do.
Vessel owners that do not receive a permit from the EPA or
maintain a log book for these discharges are subject to very
harsh Clean Water Act criminal and civil penalties of more than
$32,000 per day for violations, $32,000 per day.
On the incidental rain water run off, I wonder, do you
measure by the raindrop? How do you do that? We have been
fighting this for a couple of years now. I hope my colleagues
will join with me in legislation I plan to offer to address
that situation.
Mr. Shapiro, the current moratorium expires in 13 months.
Unless Congress takes actions, over 135,000 vessels will need
to comply with the EPA's permit, and when will the EPA release
a final Small Vessel General Permit so these vessel owners can
adequately prepare for this huge, new, damaging regulatory
burden that is facing them?
Mr. Shapiro. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are working
on that Small Vessel General Permit. We intend to issue it
early in 2014. Again, as is the case with the Vessel General
Permit, our plan is to do that well in advance of the date the
moratorium expires, should it not be renewed.
Mr. LoBiondo. Excuse me for not having a lot of confidence
in the bureaucracy to meet its deadlines, but these are real
hard working small business people. If they knew what they were
facing now, they would have a difficult time piecing this
together.
I am going to ask the chairman of the subcommittee and the
chairman of the full committee to track this, because this has
a real impact.
Can you tell us what are the estimated costs of compliance
with these VGPs and does this include compliance costs
associated with the additional requirements added by the States
that submitted Section 401 certifications?
Mr. Shapiro. Clarification. Are you talking about the full
VGP or small VGP?
Mr. LoBiondo. The full.
Mr. Shapiro. In the case of the full VGP, the costs range.
Obviously, there is a huge range in size of vessels and the
kinds of requirements, the per vessel cost in our evaluation
ranged from about $51 to $7,000 per vessel annually. Again,
there is about 70,000 vessels in total coverage. There is a
broad range of vessel types and sizes, and therefore,
requirements that apply.
Mr. LoBiondo. What about the small?
Mr. Shapiro. In the case of the small, our estimate was in
a range of $17 to $98 per vessel per year. Actually, to
complete the question you had, these estimates do not include
the costs associated with any specific State 401 certification
requirements, to the extent they are not consistent with EPA's
requirements.
Mr. LoBiondo. Can vessel owners or operators face citizen
suits for failure to comply with 401 certifications?
Mr. Shapiro. The short answer to that is yes, they can.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Chairman, I am really at a loss here. You
are going to regulate rain water wash off from decks of ships.
This is the stuff that Jay Leno and the late night shows would
have real fun with, if it wouldn't be so consequential and so
damaging.
I do not know how we can be so far out of tune with the
real world, and while all these people want to do the right
thing for our environment, Mr. Chairman, I have to believe this
is a terrible direction. I would hope we can find some way to
correct this. I yield back.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr.
Garamendi is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. My first question goes to Admiral
Kenney. In your testimony, you raised, I think, six issues that
are of importance, but you did not discuss in any way the
overall authorization.
Is there anything in the current authorization, besides
these six issues, that the Coast Guard would want to change?
Admiral Kenney. Thank you for that question, Mr. Garamendi.
Of course, we received the subcommittee's draft authorization
bill just last Tuesday, and it is quite complex and
multifaceted. There are various items that we would like to
discuss further with the subcommittee. There are items that we
fully support, that we think are welcome additions to the Coast
Guard's cache of authorities and responsibilities.
We look forward to continuing the conversation with respect
to certain aspects. I can get into particulars. If you have any
specific questions, I am happy to answer them.
Mr. Garamendi. I have many, many questions, sir. I think it
is frankly the responsibility of the Coast Guard to provide
that information in an open public hearing such as this,
recognizing that you may not have had much time, but there may
have been ideas and thoughts, proposals, that the Coast Guard
had before receiving the draft legislation.
Do you have any comments on those kinds of issues? For
example, the level of funding, that is the authorized level of
funding for various programs?
Admiral Kenney. Yes, sir. When we look at both the
authorized levels of funding and the authorized level of
personnel strength, it is clear that the dynamics between the
President's budget, the numbers in the 2010 and 2012 Coast
Guard Authorization Acts, and the committee's bill are very
complex and require careful consideration by the Coast Guard in
consultation with the administration.
If I could take that for the record, I would be happy to
provide you with our views on that issue. As I said, we have
already begun the process of consulting with the
administration. We are looking very closely at the numbers that
are contained in the draft bill. We will have views for you,
sir.
[The information follows:]
With regard to authorizations of appropriations for
fiscal year (FY) 2014, the authorization level
corresponding with the President's Fiscal Year (FY)
2014 Budget request would be $7,807,085,000 [Operating
Expenses (OE) $6,755,383,000; Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvement (AC&I) $909,116,000;
Reserve Training (RT), $109,543,000; Environmental
Compliance and Restoration (EC&R), $13,187,000; and
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E)
$19,856,000]. Were Congress to pass a FY14
appropriation based on the President's request, the
corresponding authorization level, including funding
for Overseas Contingency Operations, and excluding
proposed rescissions, would be $8,076,085,000 [OE
$6,982,383,000; AC&I $951,116,000; RT $109,543,000;
EC&R $13,187,000; RDT&E $19,856,000].
On the other hand, given that the Coast Guard is
currently operating under a continuing resolution that
is based on FY13 levels, the corresponding
authorization for the aforementioned appropriations
would be $8,394,251,740 [OE $6,863,640,917; AC&I
$1,367,045,276; RT $131,440,686; EC&R $12,460,845;
RDT&E $19,664,016].
Were Congress to pass a FY14 appropriation based on the
FY14 House Appropriations Committee/Senate
Appropriations Committee marks, the corresponding
authorization level, assuming the higher of the two
marks for each appropriation, including funding for
Overseas Contingency Operations, and excluding proposed
rescissions, would be $8,451,537,000 [OE
$7,066,416,000; AC&I $1,229,684,000; RT $122,491,000;
EC&R $13,165,000; RDT&E $19,781,000].
The Coast Guard currently estimates FY14 end strength
to be 40,865. However, this number could increase
unexpectedly due to reductions in attrition.
With regard to authorizations of appropriations and
personnel end strength for FY 2015, as well as the
authorized levels of military strength for that period,
the Coast Guard notes that the President is presently
formulating his annual request.
To make any recommendation independent of, and prior
to, the release of the President's annual request would
be inappropriate. The Service will be in a position to
make recommendations with regard to fiscal year 2015
after the President transmits his request.
With regard to the authorization of appropriations and
personnel end strength for fiscal year 2016, as well as
the authorized levels of military strength for that
period, the Coast Guard notes that any recommendation
that the Service might make today cannot fully
anticipate the budgetary realities that the President
and Congress will face two years hence. The efficacy of
such recommendations too would be extremely limited.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you for that. Several times the Coast
Guard administrators, various folks have requested my
assistance in obtaining 14 C-27s for the Coast Guard. Do you
want authorization for those?
Admiral Kenney. Well, sir, as you know, we have been in
extensive consultations with the Department of Defense, with
the Forest Service, and internally with the Department of
Homeland Security regarding the potential acquisition of C-27s.
The Coast Guard is supportive. We view this as an important
addition to our mid-range patrol aircraft capabilities.
Mr. Garamendi. You almost sounded like you're a politician
running for office. I think I'm not going to get a clear
answer. We're in the business of writing law here, and we're in
the business of authorizing what the Coast Guard can and cannot
do. If you want the C-27s, it seems to me that this committee
may very well want to write into your authorizations the
authority to get them, countering the sentence that was added
in some obscure piece of legislation by some senator, that the
Forest Service would get them. So work with us if you want
them.
Let me ask a question about the survival craft. This would
be to Mr. Rosekind. Has the NTSB commented on the Coast Guard's
review of the survival craft, the report that the Coast Guard
put out?
Dr. Rosekind. Yes, we sent a letter to you and Congressman
Cummings, reviewing the report that came out. It was not a full
evaluation, but it does highlight eight specific areas that
need to be addressed that question the findings from that
report.
Mr. Garamendi. Basically you thought that it was
inadequate. Is that correct?
Dr. Rosekind. We highlight it is inadequate in that there's
insufficient data to address the questions that were posed.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. For the Coast Guard, what vessels--what
kind of vessels are covered by the proposed out-of-water
survival craft issue?
Admiral Kenney. Mr. Garamendi, it would cover a wide range
of passenger vessels, pretty much every inspected passenger
vessel. Of course, we've taken a close look at the NTSB's
recommendations over time, and as you just alluded to, the
report that we submitted in August of 2013 we believe was a
comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of out-of-water
survival craft-based on data.
As our report notes, the number of casualties that we can
attribute to a lack of out-of-water survival craft is actually
quite low, and while certainly we work very closely with the
NTSB on a daily basis and we are both committed to improving
safety, with the Coast Guard's additional responsibilities, to
consider costs and benefits in terms of any particular
regulatory program we might initiate to improve safety----
Mr. Garamendi. So if I were to get on a chartered fishing
boat in San Francisco Bay to fish for salmon outside the Golden
Gate, would that charter boat that holds 10 to 20 customers
have out-of-water survival craft under the current regulations?
Admiral Kenney. Under the current regulations, I'd have to
get back to you on that, sir. I would imagine it would have to
have some capability. But with respect to the voyage that you
describe, the Coast Guard believes that with the current suite
of authorities that we have to regulate inspected vessels--and
the vessel you just described coming out of San Francisco Bay
would be an inspected vessel, it would be a T-boat----
Mr. Garamendi. So the answer is going to be for the record?
Admiral Kenney. No, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. The answer to my question will be for the
record?
Admiral Kenney. No, sir. I can continue. With the
authorities that we have, the officer in charge of marine
inspection has the ability to make a determination based on the
vessel itself, based on the route, and based on the particular
voyage that it's taking. The OCMI has the flexibility to
require the addition of out-of-water survival craft. I would
think--I don't know what the answer is for that particular
voyage, but if I were the sector commander, I would expect that
we would ask for out-of-water survival craft in the cold waters
of northern California.
Mr. Garamendi. Could you please give me a specific answer
to my question. If I've been offered a charter ride outside the
Golden Gate to go for salmon fishing, given the water
temperature, et cetera, would that vessel have an out-of-water
survival craft on April 1st of next year?
Admiral Kenney. I would imagine that it would, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. I'd like to know.
Admiral Kenney. I----
Mr. Garamendi. OK? The proposed regulations, what you're
basically saying is there's a considerable flexibility in the
proposal for out-of-water safety craft. Is that correct?
Admiral Kenney. What I'm saying, sir, is our current
authorities, regardless of the current proposal with respect to
mandating out-of-water survival craft, our current suite of
authorities contained in 46 U.S. Code, Subtitle 2 give us the
flexibility to require out-of-water survival craft where the
officer in charge of marine inspection feels it's appropriate.
Mr. Garamendi. So you can do it?
Admiral Kenney. Yes, sir.
[Additional information follows:]
Currently, the following types of vessels are required
to carry out-of-water survival craft under all
circumstances:
(a) For small passenger vessels certificated under 46
CFR Subchapter T, all vessels without subdivision
operating in cold water on Oceans routes; all wood-
hulled vessels without subdivision operating in cold
water on Coastwise and Limited Coastwise routes more
than 3 miles from shore; and all wood-hulled vessels on
Great Lakes routes more than 1 mile from shore.
(b) For small passenger vessels certificated under 46
CFR Subchapter K (i.e., with more than 150 passengers,
or with overnight accommodations for more than 49
passengers), all vessels on cold water Oceans routes
(must carry inflatable liferafts); all vessels with
overnight accommodations on warm water Oceans routes,
Coastwise or Limited Coastwise routes more than 3 miles
from shore; all vessels on Great Lakes or Lakes, Bays
and Sounds routes more than 1 mile from shore; and all
vessels without overnight accommodations on cold water
Coastwise routes more than 3 miles from shore.
All vessels not specifically listed above could be
affected by the new requirement to carry out-of-water
survival craft, depending on what they currently
actually carry.
The second question relates to survival craft on a
charter vessel with 10-20 passengers fishing for salmon
outside the Golden Gate on 1 April 2014. Such a vessel
presumably would be under 100 gross tons, and as such
inspected and certificated under 46 CFR Subchapter T
(Small Passenger Vessels).
The water in the Pacific outside the Golden Gate is
cold all year with the exception of September (per
Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
(NVIC) 7-91), so the ``cold water'' requirements in 46
CFR 180.200(c) apply.
Within 20 miles of shore, the vessel would be required
to carry out-of-water survival craft (inflatable
buoyant apparatus) if it is a wooden vessel without
subdivision. Other vessels can carry 100 percent life
floats.
If the vessel goes beyond 20 miles (i.e., Oceans
route), it would be required to carry out-of-water
survival craft (inflatable buoyant apparatus) if it is
without subdivision. Otherwise it can carry 100 percent
life floats.
Notwithstanding the above minimum requirements, the
Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection may require any
vessel to carry additional lifesaving equipment if the
OCMI determines that the conditions of the voyage
render the requirements in the regulations inadequate.
Mr. Garamendi. Under the current law. And you do listen to
the NTSB or at least take their counsel into consideration?
Admiral Kenney. Always, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Always. One more question if I might, Mr.
Chairman, and this has to do with the--I guess Mr. Cordero.
What's this about the major shipping lines--Maersk, CMA-CGM,
and the Mediterranean Shipping Company--forming some sort of
pact?
Mr. Cordero. Yes, thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Garamendi. And what effect does that have on shipping,
the cost of shipping, et cetera?
Mr. Cordero. What you've alluded to is an alliance known as
the P3 alliance. And that alliance essentially is a vessel
sharing agreement. Given that, that's within the specific
purview of the FMC.
As to the question, what is involved and its impacts, I
will represent to the subcommittee at this point that we will
thoroughly report on that, and the reason is because that
agreement has just been filed at the FMC, and our staff is, as
we're speaking, currently reviewing that agreement and
addressing the questions with regard to potential
anticompetitive impacts or costs that may be impacted,
including with regard to port of coverage and how it impacts
terminal operators, port authorities. Essentially, they're
going to be asking all the appropriate questions on review of
the agreement.
Mr. Garamendi. So if you have the budget, you're going to
have a summit on this?
Mr. Cordero. With regard to the summit, Congressman, I
think there is a question with regard to this particular
alliance. It is not unprecedented in terms of an alliance by
carriers for a vessel sharing agreement. What is unprecedented
about this particular alliance is the large scope--the three
largest carriers in the world coming together in this proposed
vessel sharing agreement. In relation to the summit----
Mr. Garamendi. Do you know the details of the agreement?
Would you have the authority to find out the details of the
agreement?
Mr. Cordero. We will know the details. The agreement has
just been filed, Congressman, Thursday, I believe, of last
week, and again, our staff right now, as we're speaking,
they're reviewing that agreement, and they will be reporting to
the Commission as to their findings and observation, and we
will, of course, have further details as to the agreement
itself.
Mr. Garamendi. Would it be fair to say that you have
concerns about the competitiveness or the anticompetitiveness
of the agreement?
Mr. Cordero. Well, I would definitely represent to the
subcommittee that we're going to look to those concerns.
There's a number of stakeholders that already have indicated
their concerns in the shipping community, so of course the FMC
and our staff will be looking to address those concerns.
Mr. Garamendi. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much. I yield back.
Mr. Hunter. Thank the ranking member.
Admiral, I've got a quick question for you. Current law
gives the Service Secretary--in the case of the Coast Guard,
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security--the
authority to determine the fitness to serve of members of that
Secretary's Service. However, current law limits that authority
with respect to flag officers.
Current law prohibits the service--the Secretary from
retiring a flag officer for disability without a review of that
flag officer's case by medical personnel and approval by the
Sec Def. Does the Flag Officer Corps of the Coast Guard vesting
final authority for flag officer disability requirement
decisions with the Secretary of Homeland when the Coast Guard
is operating in the Department of Homeland Security?
Admiral Kenney. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question,
and thank you for highlighting what is somewhat of a unique
issue for the Coast Guard in that the authority of the Service
Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary is vested in one person,
namely the Secretary of Homeland Security.
What you're asking us, I believe, is to make a choice
between having an additional layer of appeal that is enjoyed
over in DOD where it would go to the Service Secretary and then
the Sec Def, as opposed to potentially streamlining the process
that the Coast Guard currently has where it goes to the
Secretary of Homeland Security and then to the Secretary of
Defense.
And after evaluating the two different systems and look--
balancing the need for someone to potentially have an appeal
right as opposed to streamlining the process, it's the Coast
Guard Flag Corps' preference that we have the final decision
authority rest with the Secretary of Homeland Security for
timeliness and efficiency.
The incidents of aggrieved flag officers, we're unable to
find any in recent history, and we don't feel that that appeal
ability is outweighed by the desire to have the system move
more effectively and efficiently. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hunter. Thanks, Admiral.
Mr. Cordero, when it comes to IT systems--you talked about
that a little bit--I think what we're going to do here is have
a little bit of permanent oversight on anybody getting any new
IT systems, because whether it's DOD or Homeland Security, it
seems like those always go over budget, they always go over
time, and you end up getting an inferior product for your
money.
So we encourage you to do that. We just want to do it the
right way, and that's because you can't make up for it in the
long run. I was looking at your testimony, too. You said--a lot
of trouble with your employees in 2013--fiscal year 2013 due to
sequester and due--you had a--you said you had 6 furlough days
for all the employees?
Mr. Cordero. That's correct, Chairman.
Mr. Hunter. And I think we're authorizing at the sequester
number, which is about, what, $3 or $4 million less than your--
than the $25 million authorized by the President?
Mr. Cordero. As I understand that number, the proposed
authorization is $23 million, but in terms of what we're
operating now is $22.8 million, and what I've referenced in my
statement is $25 million. And that's just to keep us at a
sustainable level.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Cordero.
Gentlemen--Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Rosekind, it seems like you
guys are out of things to do, so you need to pile on more and
more stuff and try to find ways that you can be relevant. If
you're looking at Florida where the water is 80 degrees or in
the South Pacific where the water is 80 degrees and you're
talking about, in this case, Mr. Rosekind specifically, the
out-of-water survival crafts, why not let the Coast Guard
determine what types of ships have to have what where?
Dr. Rosekind. Using the Coast Guard's own report to
determine how they would apply those kinds of rules shows that
they don't have the data to determine that.
Mr. Hunter. They have the data that says how cold the water
is, and if the water's not very cold, then you can be in it
longer, and if it's cold, then you can't.
Dr. Rosekind. The Coast Guard has a risk management
approach to deal with many of the different variables,
including vessel structure, the temperature of the ocean, et
cetera. The problem is there are no specific formulas or data
that show that those are effective. NTSB investigations have
found that the requirement for all passenger vessels to have
out-of-water survival craft will save lives and prevent
injuries.
Mr. Hunter. I would go back to the ranking member's
question. I would guess if you're in San Francisco, then you
should have an out-of-water survival craft, because it's cold,
and you have great white sharks there, too. It's not as much
fun to surf there as in San Diego. But if you're in San Diego,
you probably don't need the same level of survival crafts.
What I don't understand is why isn't the Coast Guard
considered the preeminent expert on what they need when they're
the ones that are out there doing it every day. They're the
ones that see the bodies, see the people, and they do, I think,
have the numbers on how many people they rescue, how long those
people were in the water for, and how they were able to stay
alive, right?
Dr. Rosekind. The NTSB has investigated accidents in which
those holes, those vulnerabilities, have become apparent. For
example, the report does not adequately address the
vulnerabilities of disabled and elderly passengers.
Mr. Hunter. So here's my question, though. You have records
of people getting hypothermia in 85-degree water?
Dr. Rosekind. Not to my knowledge in 85-degree water.
Mr. Hunter. OK. So if you're operating in 85-degree water,
you probably don't need an out-of-water survival craft, right?
Dr. Rosekind. Survivability depends on more than just the
water temperature. Determining which vessels need out-of-water
survival craft using risk management requires data. The Coast
Guard's records and its report do not have sufficient data to
repeal the statutory requirement for out-of-water survival
craft.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you.
Ms. Hahn recognized, if you're ready.
Ms. Hahn. I was born ready. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is--I'm going to direct this to the Honorable Cordero,
and you and I have talked a lot about this, but sequestration
certainly has had a drastic impact on all of our Government
agencies, and smaller agencies are much more sensitive to any
funding reductions since, really, every dollar counts.
So the President has requested that the FMC receive $25
million next year, but there have been some suggestions that
the Commission could continue to still operate effectively even
if it was funded to levels as low as $22 or $23 million,
potentially putting even larger strain on your agency and
inhibiting the Commission's mission of regulating the U.S.
international maritime transportation system.
It seems easy around here sometimes to defund agencies like
yours, because, frankly, I think a lot of folks aren't exactly
clear on what FMC's mission really is as opposed to, for
instance, the Coast Guard. But why don't you tell this
committee how the current sequestration levels have impacted
the allocated 126 employees.
For an agency of only 119 people presently, what would
funding at $23 million for the next 4 years mean to your
agency? How would this affect your ability to achieve your
mission? You might want to retell us what exactly your mission
is, and how would it impact the current IT infrastructure?
And maybe even staff morale, I think, is something that we
should pay attention to, because during this time, I think all
of staff in all of our agencies and departments certainly have
felt less than appreciated probably during some of these budget
cuts. So I don't know if you got all those four questions.
Mr. Cordero. Yes, Congresswoman.
Ms. Hahn. OK.
Mr. Cordero. I appreciate your questions, and you've
covered a lot of areas and I'm glad to have the opportunity to
address those questions. And let me just say that in my
statement I referenced that the maritime industry is part of a
freight policy.
I will say the work of this subcommittee and Chairman
Shuster in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, one
thing that the industry has admired, maritime is no longer seen
as a stepchild when it comes to the important aspect of the
industry, be it the FMC, be it MarAd, or the Coast Guard.
So with that context in mind, for me, it's challenging for
a small, independent agency, and I'm thinking of the current
119 people we have in this agency, the authorized requests in
terms of the FTE is 126, but because of retirements and people
who had left the agency, we're down to 119. We haven't been
able to backfill. And I will represent to this subcommittee
that as I answer this question, I'm thinking of the 119 people
who are there right now. They are dedicated and work hard.
And I think if you inquire of our staff, from what I hear,
they're a little concerned about the Chairman, who is asking
the line, rank-and-file staff to go beyond their expectations.
And that's just my point, we are very lean, and on the other
hand, we are part of that $930 billion of ocean transportation
commerce. Congresswoman, your district includes the largest
port complex coverage in the Nation and has represented your
district in an excellent fashion, and you recognize the growth
of containerization.
Last month, the President's Export Council, Secretary of
Commerce reported that since 2009 to the present there has been
a 30,000 increase in small businesses in the import-export
industry. Secretary Vilsack, Agriculture Secretary reported
that in the last 5 years, the growth in agriculture exports has
far exceeded numbers beyond any time in our history. Coming
from California, it's fair to say that California has a great
interest in agricultural exports.
So in that context, the challenges and mandate of the FMC
pursuant to the Shipping Act, post-OSRA, has been extremely
challenging. Now, I will say, lastly, I thoroughly respect the
subcommittee in terms of the funding levels and the challenges
that you have, but I'm here and would be remiss not to continue
to give the message of the great job this agency does with a
limited staff, and emphasize the $25 million is just to
survive. There's no fat in that budget.
Ms. Hahn. Thank you. Could I just have a couple more
seconds, Mr. Chairman? Thanks.
I just--when I slipped away briefly here, I just went
upstairs where the Panel on 21st-Century Freight
Transportation, which I'm one of 11 Members of Congress that
has been on for the last 6 months, and we just presented our
recommendations for a national freight policy, first time that
we've actually ever said we should have a national freight
policy, and these were our recommendations. Honorable Cordero,
if your agency was to suffer more reductions, how would that
impact your ability to oversee or make sure that the freight
industry in this country was operating properly?
Mr. Cordero. Well, for one, there's been a couple of good
questions presented to me in some of those areas. For example,
the filing and the monitoring of agreements like the P3
alliance, an agreement that many people in the industry see it
as a game changer.
Ms. Hahn. Which was one of our recommendations, by the way,
that we have more public-private partnerships.
Mr. Cordero. Right, see it as a game changer, and thus is
paramount that this agency continue to do the job that, in
fact, it was mandated to do when formed in 1961. And when you
look from that perspective of what the FMC was about in 1961,
let us reorganize--in 1961 containerization as we know it today
was nonexistent.
Today in the 21st century, the challenges that the FMC has
before it given containerization, to address the cargo demands,
the services--in the case of Long Beach, Los Angeles, I spoke
last week--2 weeks ago at the WESCCON Conference. And I was
really taken by the number of positive commentary I had from
people, from the OTI industry that I spoke before who
acknowledge the great service that the FMC has given by way of
our area representatives at the major port complexes, be it New
York, be it Florida, be it Long Beach, Los Angeles.
As I mentioned in my testimony, right now we don't have
anybody in Houston, one of our Nation's great bulk ports. And
we don't have one right now because we are unable to backfill
that position given the concern about the pending budget.
Ms. Hahn. Thank you very much for the extra time, and I
know--I just want to go on the record saying at a time when the
maritime industry--we're finally getting it in terms of what
that means to this country's economic development, to job
creation. I for one would not be in favor of cutting this
agency from what the President has asked, which is still sort
of bare bones, but thank you for the extra time.
Mr. Hunter. Thank the gentle lady. I think the contrast
here, too, Mr. Cordero--and if Mr. Jaenichen was here from the
Maritime Administration, you would have three folks, including
the admiral whose job it is to try encourage the maritime
industry, encourage maritime strategy, encourage trade,
encourage best practices on ships.
And then Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Rosekind, I guess your job is
to make it as onerous as possible on these gentlemen sitting
over here. And that's what it looks like to me, and you just
take the Clean Water Act for example, it went about 30 years
not referring to boats, right? The Clean Water Act until, what,
just this last decade did not refer to ships at all. It was
about having a plant by a river or something like that.
And then all of a sudden, it seems like the EPA ran out of
things to do and regulate and so it's now going to refer to
ships, and like Mr. LoBiondo was talking about, you're going to
regulate the rain runoff on small fishing vessels. It just
seems a little bit crazy to me.
Mr. Shapiro. Could I respond, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hunter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shapiro. Well, the history of this particular permit is
such that EPA initially determined not to hold vessels subject
to permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act. That
decision was challenged and ultimately through a court process
it was decided that given the language of the Clean Water Act,
discharges from vessels had to be subject for permitting under
the Clean Water Act absent a moratorium such as Congress passed
or an extension or some other act.
So we were bound at that point to issue permits to cover
vessels, to address any environmental concerns, but most
importantly, without an applicable permit, discharges from the
vessel would not be permitted, would be a violation of the
Clean Water Act. So in crafting our Vessel General Permit and
our proposed Small Vessel General Permit, we had to be fairly
comprehensive and inclusive in order to allow vessels to
operate legally under the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Any individual discharge you might identify air
conditioning condensate or rainwater as specific examples, but
the broader implication of the court's decision and being
subject to the Clean Water Act and its permitting requirements
is that all discharges had to be covered by a permit in order
to permit the vessels to operate legally without threat of
penalty or citizen suit.
So I just want to make it clear in response to your comment
as well as Congressman LoBiondo's comments that although you
could select individual discharges and say why is EPA
regulating this, I think the broader answer is it's part of a
comprehensive scheme under the Clean Water Act that requires us
to have permit applicability for all discharges whether it's a
wastewater treatment plant or an industrial facility or now
because of the court decisions, vessels that operate in U.S.
waters, you have to have a permit that covers those discharges.
In crafting our requirements, though, we have tried to be
very sensitive to the nature of the discharges, the nature of
the vessels, especially in the case of small vessels. If you
look at what the requirements actually are, they're really good
housekeeping practices for the most part that says: Don't make
it easy for stuff to get washed off the deck; check for leaks
of oil; where applicable, use biodegradable or otherwise
nontoxic lubricants.
So they're things we think are good practices that are, as
cost estimates earlier indicated, are not inordinate to apply
and that do, based on our analyses, provide environmental
protection. So there are clearly benefits of this regulatory
scheme in our view, and water quality is protected.
Mr. Hunter. So give me an example, Mr. Shapiro. Just one
last--so give me an example. Say that the Coast Guard pulls my
boat over, what are they looking for? Say it's raining. That's
what--an actual example. So it's raining. What is the Coast
Guard look for in order to allow me to not get penalized?
Mr. Shapiro. Well, what the Coast Guard would be looking
for--and I'll allow Rear Admiral Kenney, obviously, to weigh in
here--but whether the requirements are in place. So in the case
of a small vessel, should that be the situation, really they
would be checking to see whether you or whoever is
operationally in charge of the vessel conducted checks
periodically--four times over the course of the year--and
certified that those examinations----
Mr. Hunter. So is that paperwork? They would look to see if
I had checked off and done the inspections?
Mr. Shapiro. Yes. This is actually the form that would be
on the vessel. It would not have to be submitted to EPA
separately. It would be something that would be maintained on--
--
Mr. Hunter. But say that again. I would submit to the EPA--
--
Mr. Shapiro. No, you would not have to submit that to EPA.
Under the proposed Small Vessel General Permit, this would be
something that you would keep on the vessel that would be
available should the Coast Guard be on your vessel, and it
would essentially say you've checked for these commonsense
procedures to make sure they're in place, and to the extent
that you've identified some problems or issues, you've
addressed them on the vessel.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you very much for your clarification, and
thank all of you, too, for your service and for doing what you
do.
Ms. Frankel is recognized.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much, and thank you for your
service. My father was a member of the Coast Guard. So I have a
little different area I want to cover. I have a constituent who
called my office and came to see me that was a very proud
recruit, who was a recruit for the Coast Guard. And during her
period of recruit--of boot camp, she began to be sexually
harassed by her commander. Because she feared reporting it, she
didn't know she could be transferred away, she quit. She later
learned that another recruit actually was sexually assaulted by
the same commander. He was eventually prosecuted.
So that's a real life story. Some of this issue of sexual
assault and harassment has come up in all branches of the
Service. And incidentally my son was a Marine, too, so I have
the highest respect for the people in the Service. I want to
make that clear.
But there was--in 2011, the Congress enacted an important
change in the Department of Defense sexual assault policy when
it gave victims of sexual assault the ability to place an
expedited request for transfer away from the location of his or
her attacker. This was a good change. Because the Coast Guard
has--under the Department of Homeland Security and not the
Department of Defense, there was some confusion as to whether
or not this change applied to the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard commandant, to his credit, in March issued
and ordered that the provision would apply, but there are some
folks who are concerned that that order could be repealed, and
we'd rather have a statute in law that binds future Coast Guard
commandants. There is a bipartisan bill by Representative Mike
Turner and Niki Tsongas called the Coast Guard STRONG Act,
which would require the Coast Guard to grant victims of sexual
assault the ability to place an expedited request to be
transferred away from the location of his or her attacker.
I guess I'm going to come to Admiral Kenney and just ask
whether or not that particular provision--how you would feel
about that being added to a reauthorization act here.
Admiral Kenney. Thank you, Congresswoman Frankel and thank
you for your service and for your father and your son as well.
You've raised a very important issue, and as the Coast Guard is
really committed to eliminating sexual assault and sexual
harassment from our ranks, it is--quite frankly, it is a cancer
on our Service that we need to eliminate; not just control, but
eliminate. And when I hear stories of--like those of your
constituent--and I am familiar with that case and Cape May, and
that company commander was brought to justice through the
Uniform Code of Military Justice in a court martial
prosecution.
But there is just no place for sexual assault and sexual
harassment in our Service. Not only does it destroy the
victims, as you alluded to in your statement, but it also has a
tremendous impact on mission readiness. Coast Guard men and
women put their lives on the line every day, and in order to
conduct the missions that we conduct and do it safely and
effectively, you have to trust the people that you're with, and
sexual assault and sexual harassment destroy those bonds of
trust and mutual respect that are so critical to supporting our
people and effectively executing our missions.
As you mentioned, ma'am, the Coast Guard has taken onboard
the STRONG Act as it was passed in the National Defense
Authorization Act, and we have implemented it. Thus, we would
have no objection to the STRONG Act being enacted. We're doing
it now. We intend to continue doing it. Of course, we leave the
option of whether or not the victim desires to be transferred.
Oftentimes, the victim's support network is with the unit. We
may want to have the perpetrator--the alleged perpetrator be
transferred in order to get that separation. But to short-
answer your question, ma'am, there's no objection.
Ms. Frankel. Thanks. Mr. Chairman, I have 30 more seconds
to--thank you.
First of all, thank you for your answer. I think it's a
very good answer.
And Mr. Chairman, I would request that as this committee
considers this reauthorization bill, that we put a provision
adopting some of this language in that bill because I think we
can all agree that no person who signs up to risk their life,
their well-being for our freedom should be subject to any type
of sexual harassment or assault, and I hope we could all work
together on this particular issue. And I thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the extra time.
Mr. Hunter. Thank the gentle lady. I know she has a great
idea, and we applaud you for taking it on voluntarily after
passing it for the four military services out of the Armed
Services Committee. So good on you, Admiral, and the Coast
Guard, and we ought to make it statutory. And if you're doing
it anyway, we ought to just make it legal.
All right. Well, if there are no more questions--we do have
some more, so Mr. Garamendi is recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. A couple of unanimous consent requests. The
first one dealing with a letter into the record from Deborah
Hersman, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board
to myself and Mr. Cummings. And a second letter from
Earthjustice, the American Association for Justice, and others,
that lists concerns with expanding responder immunity under the
oil pollution act. I would like those two letters entered into
the record.
Mr. Hunter. Without objection.
[The requested letters follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5300.013
Mr. Garamendi. And just--this will open up another series
of questions, which I don't think we have time to get to right
now, but this has to do with the--Mr. Rosekind, your expertise
on sleep deprivation as it relates to the worthiness of the
committee to address issues beyond 1 hour and 30 minutes.
On a more serious note, however, there is an ongoing issue
of how we ought to deal with sleep deprivation, six on, six
off; eight on, eight off. You have some testimony in your
written proposal. I would appreciate additional testimony,
additional writing and--on that debate back and forth. So if
you could provide that, I'd like to have that into the record
at sometime in the near future. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. There are no more further questions. I thank
the witnesses for their testimony. And the letters are entered
with no objection, something I said. The subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]