[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: COAST GUARD SEA,
LAND, AND AIR CAPABILITIES, PART 1
=======================================================================
(115-17)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 7, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-727 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JERROLD NADLER, New York
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DUNCAN HUNTER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JEFF DENHAM, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DINA TITUS, Nevada
TODD ROKITA, Indiana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Vice Ranking Member
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
DOUG LaMALFA, California DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JOHN J. FASO, New York
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota
------ 7
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska JOHN GARAMENDI, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana RICK LARSEN, Washington
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota, Vice Chair Columbia
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio) Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Vice Admiral Charles W. Ray, Deputy Commandant for Operations,
U.S. Coast Guard............................................... 5
Vice Admiral Sandra L. Stosz, Deputy Commandant for Mission
Support, U.S. Coast Guard...................................... 5
Marie A. Mak, Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 5
John Acton, Chairman, Coast Guard Affairs Committee, Navy League
of the United States........................................... 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. John Garamendi of California................................ 42
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Vice Admiral Charles W. Ray and Vice Admiral Sandra L. Stosz,
joint statement................................................ 46
Marie A. Mak..................................................... 50
John Acton....................................................... 74
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Response from U.S. Coast Guard to request for information from
Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California............................................ 27
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: COAST GUARD SEA,
LAND, AND AIR CAPABILITIES, PART 1
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 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. Thanks for
being here, everybody, today. And before we start off, I want
to just call out a few people.
Reyna, this is her last hearing. Lieutenant Commander Reyna
McGrail, she has been our Coast Guard Fellow. She has been
working with John Rayfield quite a bit. Just want to give her a
happy sendoff, and tell you thank you very much for your
service to the committee and the country.
Next, Captain Tom Allan--there he is, he is sitting back
there--this is his last hearing, too. And they are really--they
are all very happy about this, actually.
[Laughter]
Mr. Hunter. This is it for them. They don't have to do this
any more.
But Captain Allan is going on to do bigger and better
things, right? And we will miss you sorely here.
And lastly, Jo-Ann Burdian, Commander Burdian, is leaving
to go be a dependent----
[Laughter]
Mr. Hunter [continuing]. Or whatever you are doing in
Washington State. And we just want to thank you for what you
have done. Especially Jo-Ann Burdian, we have spent countless
hours with Joe Kasper and Jo-Ann, talking Coast Guard stuff. We
have learned so much from you, and hopefully you were able to
take a lot from us, too.
We think that this has been one of the most legislatively
ambitious chairmanships of this subcommittee. At least that is
what we have been trying to do, really pushing acquisition
reform, really pushing icebreakers, and trying everything we
can do to make the Coast Guard love itself. We want to
weaponize cutters, we want to give you your own UAS. You are
going to be on par with the Navy now, when it comes to block
buys and lead-time materials, so--and icebreakers, eLoran
system, all of these things that we thought were needed.
Jo-Ann definitely is responsible for helping put the Coast
Guard on the right track. I know there are lots of Coasties, it
takes a lot of people to make the liaison office stuff work.
But I will just tell you, Jo-Ann, you are going to be sorely
missed, too. We don't know what we are going to do.
And we actually introduced a bill yesterday that said we
are going to withhold $1.3 billion until Jo-Ann Burdian is
reinstated as the House liaison.
[Laughter]
Mr. Hunter. So we will see how far that goes.
But you are all going to be missed. Thank you very much for
what you have done for the country and for the Congress, and
for working with us, and making us better at what we do.
So, with that, the subcommittee is meeting today to review
the status of Coast Guard infrastructure and how ongoing
infrastructure improvements will move the Coast Guard into the
21st century.
The Service has been undergoing a recapitalization of its
assets for over two decades to replace assets that are over 30
years old. It has been a long record with some hard lessons
learned along the way, but progress is being made to ensure the
Coast Guard has the assets it needs to conduct its missions. We
now need to assure that the Service has the resources to
operate their recapitalized assets.
The subcommittee has held oversight hearings over many
Congresses to review the Coast Guard's progress from fledgling
acquisition capabilities to its now fully developed acquisition
programs. In addition, our oversight has included hearings on
Government Accountability Office reports reviewing Coast Guard
acquisition programs and how the new assets will support
Service missions, along with where gaps may exist.
An important part of this subcommittee's oversight is to
understand mission capabilities within the asset
recapitalization: how to identify mission gaps with new and
aging assets; how maintenance of aging vessels can impact
budget decisions; where new technologies could be used to
provide improved mission domain awareness and assist the Coast
Guard with better utilizing its assets and its personnel; and
how other Coast Guard infrastructure may have been affected by
the cutter recapitalization.
The cost to recapitalize Coast Guard assets is in the
billions of dollars, and the Coast Guard has worked to do so
within smaller budgets and appropriations since 2010. The
Service has done its best to keep asset acquisition moving
forward, but has been forced to make choices on what programs
its limited funding will support. To focus on the much-needed
new assets, the Coast Guard has continued funding for these
acquisitions programs, while shoreside infrastructure, shore
maintenance, and the environmental cleanup and restoration
programs have incurred backlogs.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard, in his state of the
Coast Guard address, acknowledged the shore infrastructure
backlog, stating the current backlog exceeds $1.6 billion. We
understand the shore maintenance backlog is roughly $708
million. The bottom line is Congress needs to understand the
needs of the Coast Guard, clearly and succinctly.
I have requested the Coast Guard send a wish list of
projects to Congress, a wish list and unfunded requirement
list. The list will not be available until the end of June,
according to the Coast Guard. However, I look forward to
discussing with our witnesses today the status of existing and
new assets, any known gaps and measures being taken to address
them, areas that can be streamlined, and impacts of operations
and maintenance costs.
I would like you to talk about what your June request will
look like, even though it is not the end of June, it is the
beginning of June. But I think you guys know what it looks
like, and we would just like to hear--if you are going to have
icebreakers in there, we authorized six new cutters to go help
CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command]. Those got approved in our
authorization request. We would like to talk about how you plan
on actually building those, what your plans are, going forward,
and if those are going to be on your unfunded list to the
appropriators.
So, with that, I now yield to Ranking Member Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You started off
with an appropriate thank-you to those many men and women that
have assisted us from the Coast Guard, Jo-Ann and all the team.
And we--I could repeat all of that. Shall I?
Mr. Hunter. Sure.
Mr. Garamendi. Sure, we will go ahead and do it.
We will let it go, Jo-Ann. Thank you so very much, to be
able to work with you and your team.
So let's get on with it here. I am looking forward to
renewing our oversight and the progress that is being made to
date in building our ready, capable, and adaptable Coast Guard
for this century. Your enduring role in protecting our shores
and facilitating our maritime commerce, both nearshore,
offshore, and around the world: few things are more important
to our Nation's future prosperity.
In fact, I was talking to my wife last night and she said,
``You got the Coast Guard here?'' I said, ``Yeah.'' She said,
``Why don't you tell them that the real wall is the Coast
Guard?'' So I am going to tell you. The real wall, Mr.
President, is the Coast Guard. So let's pay attention to that.
Considerable progress has been made. The Coast Guard is
nearing completion of building out the program of record for
the National Security Cutter, the most cutting-edge vessel ever
to sail with the Coast Guard's distinctive red racing stripe.
Additionally, the Coast Guard has successfully awarded the
contract and moved forward to begin the second phase of the
Fast Response Cutter program. Ultimately, this program will
provide the Coast Guard with 58 cutters of remarkable
versatility and capability to meet the challenging demands
found in the U.S. coastal waters, and allow the Coast Guard to
retire its legacy fleet of Medium Endurance Cutters and the
110-foot Island class patrol boats.
Perhaps even more important, the Coast Guard last year
awarded the contract to Eastern Shipbuilding to complete the
detailed design and initial construction of the most expensive
segment of the recapitalization, a fleet of 25 Offshore Patrol
Cutters. This progress is real, and I appreciate the work that
has been done by the Coast Guard in moving it along. The Coast
Guard's acquisition directive deserves credit for keeping these
programs on budget and on schedule.
Several challenges remain, however. Always the case. And
that is the critical three-letter B-U-T word. But the Coast
Guard can ill-afford to rest on its laurels.
First, the Coast Guard's icebreaking fleet remains a
liability, potentially a very serious gap in the Coast Guard's
operational capability in high-latitude regions. Prodded by the
chairman and some of us, the Coast Guard has taken steps to
expedite the design for a new heavy icebreaker.
And, yes, Admiral Ray, I will be asking you about this. We
are going to want to hear more details and when can we expect
to have the award, and how are we doing with the Navy on this.
So, yes, there will be questions.
I am also concerned that the Coast Guard's capital planning
has failed to adequately account for the need to recapitalize
the Service's inland river buoy tender fleet, which operates in
my Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. So, we want to hear about
that. What are we going to do about it, and when and how?
Additionally, regarding aircraft, I remain concerned about
the 14 C-27J surveillance aircraft. The Air Force--well, we
won't tell you what the Air Force has done; they seem to have
unloaded something they didn't want on the Coast Guard. I think
we all had a piece of that puzzle. But let's hear about how
that is coming along.
And I remain supportive of the Coast Guard's continuing
efforts to upgrade its fleet of 100 H-65 Dolphin helicopters.
The unfortunate reality is the manufacturer of this aircraft
isn't making them any more. So what are we going to do about
this? This is a long-term program, but we better be thinking
about it today.
Just a few of the issues we will get into in detail. So
thank you.
Oh, the chairman did mention shoreside. We ought to hear
about that, too. Thank you very much. Let's get on with it.
Mr. Hunter. One thing I would like to talk about, too, if
you could--a note for when you give your testimony here, coming
up--is the Navy's budget this year produces no new ships over
last year's budget. They are doing a strategic pause, where
they are going to shore up a lot of their vessels that aren't
able to fulfill--they are at, like, you know, 30 percent
capability. They want to move those to 80 or 90 percent
capability.
So they didn't write in--with the President's budget, they
didn't request any new ships over last year's budget. That is
all going to come on in 2019, right?
Is the Coast Guard doing the same thing? It doesn't look
like it. It looks like you are going to keep on building and
adding new things, like the six additional cutters that we
authorized for CENTCOM. But I'm just curious on your take on
that, and if you have been asked to look at doing the same
thing that the Navy is doing, or if they are in a totally
different place because of the overuse of their assets, and
just having to be out all the time, and not having time to fix
up their stuff.
And the shoreside stuff is important, simply because it is
something you have to do. So, I mean, it is not integral to
your mission, but it is important to your mission. And we want
to know how you are going to balance your operational side with
simply having to put money into repairs and things that have
been taking a back seat to your operational capability.
So today we will hear testimony from Vice Admiral Charles
Ray, Deputy Commandant for Operations with the United States
Coast Guard; Vice Admiral Sandra Stosz, Deputy Commandant for
Mission Support with the United States Coast Guard; Ms. Marie
Mak, Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management with the
GAO; and Mr. John Acton, Chairman of the Coast Guard Affairs
Committee with the Navy League of the United States.
Admiral Ray, I recognize you right now for your statement.
TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL CHARLES W. RAY, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR
OPERATIONS, U.S. COAST GUARD; VICE ADMIRAL SANDRA L. STOSZ,
DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR MISSION SUPPORT, U.S. COAST GUARD; MARIE
A. MAK, DIRECTOR OF ACQUISITION AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND JOHN ACTON, CHAIRMAN,
COAST GUARD AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES
Admiral Ray. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member
Garamendi, distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is my
pleasure today to discuss Coast Guard operational capabilities.
And I am pleased to testify alongside Vice Admiral Stosz. It is
kind of unprecedented. The mission support that she represents
is, as you know, vital to the field. I certainly appreciate the
opinions of GAO and their recommendations, and we take those on
board. And then Admiral Acton and the Navy League for--since
Teddy Roosevelt they have been supporting the sea services, and
we appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman and all the members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate your recognition of our Coast Guard Fellows here
that have served you for the last few years. We need them back
out in the fleet to get them reblued in the Coast Guard. And so
we will take care of them, but thank you for taking care of
them while they were here.
On a daily basis, the men and women of the Coast Guard use
the resources provided by the Congress to save lives, protect
our borders, prevent terrorism, interdict drugs, and facilitate
commerce. And as our Secretary has said on numerous occasions,
the Coast Guard plays a vital role in border security starting
1,500 miles south of the Rio Grande in the offshore transit
zone, as we work to address the significant threats from
transnational criminal networks.
We address these threats by a force package that consists
of, really, advanced intelligence, maritime patrol aircraft,
advance cutters, airborne use-of-force-capable helicopters,
Over-the-Horizon boats, and highly trained and armed boarding
teams. And in 2016--I think most of you are aware, but it is
worth restating--the Coast Guard interdicted more cocaine at
sea in 2016 than all the other law enforcement agencies in our
Nation, Federal, State, and local, combined, by doing what we
do at sea.
National Security Cutters and Fast Response Cutters have
proven how effective a modernized, intelligence-driven Coast
Guard can be. And we certainly are excited at the opportunity
to welcome the Offshore Patrol Cutter, thanks to this
subcommittee, into the fleet starting in 2021. We appreciate
your continued support.
And in addition to what we are doing now, we have got a
well-documented surveillance gap along all of our mission set.
But we have--and we are looking forward to embracing the
advantages of land-based, unmanned systems moving forward. In
fact, next week I am going to Sierra Vista, Arizona, with CBP
[U.S. Customs and Border Protection] to look at how they are
operating and what they are doing with those systems right now.
As this subcommittee well knows, our Nation and our Service
must also pay attention to our borders to the north. You all
are well aware, from the open-source reporting, of the Russian
and Chinese activity in the Arctic. And I would be glad to
provide you with a classified briefing at a different time that
goes into great detail, what they are doing up there, or what
we assess they are doing.
And so, to begin to address these challenges, our Nation
needs a fleet of at least three heavy and three medium
icebreakers, and we really appreciate the leadership of this
subcommittee in getting that moving forward.
Closer to home, the Coast Guard plays a vital role in
maintaining our Nation's Maritime Transportation System: 26,000
miles of waterways, the rivers, ports--contributes to $4.5
trillion economic impact. Over one-quarter of a million U.S.
jobs are all hinging on this Maritime Transportation System.
We have got 35 Inland River Tenders that the ranking member
referred to for everywhere from Omaha, Nebraska, to Morgan
City, Louisiana. And those are--those ships average 52 years
old, and it is time to start replacing them. And so we
appreciate the downpayment we got in fiscal year 2017 of $1
million to start that process.
We also need more marine inspectors. And it is not just
inspectors, it is people that do pollution response, it is
people that do accident investigations. This river system is
vital to our economy, and we need more marine safety folks to
address the challenges and keep up with the pace of--because
the Coast Guard intends to facilitate commerce and not be a
roadblock.
And finally, we thank you for your support for our cyber
forces. For what you gave us in fiscal year 2017 we will put 70
Cyber Protection Team folks on the front lines, and they are
working this right now, problem sets both classified that we
could talk about, another set, and the things that you all see
in the open news. Working both .mil and .gov, so we work within
the Department of Defense network and within our DHS.
And then, finally, in closing, I want to thank you for your
support by telling you a little bit about the fruits of your
labor. A week and a half ago, I was in New York City with
Secretary Kelly, we went aboard the Coast Guard cutter
Hamilton. That crew had been gone for 7 of the last 10 months,
first two patrols of what will be a 40-year career for that
cutter, no doubt.
And so, these men and women, I gathered with them on the
flight deck. Most of them--you know, about 140 of them--most of
them younger than either of my sons. They were so fired up.
During the course of this 7 months, they sailed from New York
to South America. They were the first U.S. asset--the first
asset of any kind on Haiti when the earthquake came through
last fall. They interdicted migrants in the Straits of Florida.
They went through the Panama Canal, rescued a merchant mariner
600 miles west of Costa Rica, saved his life. In 11 different
instances they interdicted 19 tons of cocaine and arrested 77
people in the transit zone. All of that on their first trip out
of the barrel.
And so, rest assured we are going to talk about things we
need to do better in the Service today, and we look forward to
having that conversation. But the resources you provide our
Coast Guard are being put in good hands, and our men and women
are doing great things with them.
So I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and look
forward to your questions. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral Stosz?
Admiral Stosz. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, Ranking
Member Garamendi, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. And on behalf of the Commandant and our devoted
men and women, thank you very much for your oversight and for
your continued strong support of the Coast Guard and our
people.
I am honored to share this table this morning with the GAO
and with the Navy League, and I value our effective working
relationship with the GAO and the strong support of the Navy
League, and appreciate the opportunity to jointly testify with
Ms. Mak and Rear Admiral Acton. There is a strong linkage
between Coast Guard operations and Coast Guard mission support,
and I am thankful to testify alongside my colleague, Admiral
Ray.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the Coast
Guard's activities and support, our mission execution, both in
the near term and into the future. As Deputy Commandant for
Mission Support, I am proud to lead a talented team responsible
for the policies and programs that equip, train, and staff our
Coast Guard.
My organization is responsible for human resources and
personnel readiness, acquisitions and contracting, engineering
and logistics, shore infrastructure, security, and the
information systems and networks that enable Coast Guard
operations in support of the Commandant's strategic intent and
priorities.
And consistent with those priorities, the Coast Guard is
undergoing a critical transformation through the necessary
recapitalization and modernization of our fleet of cutters,
patrol boats, aircraft, information, and shore infrastructure.
We are committed to excellence in our acquisition programs,
and I am pleased to report that our last five Fast Response
Cutters to be delivered were delivered with zero production
deficiencies. And last year, when we awarded the offshore
patrol contract, that largest contract in history, that was
awarded without protest.
So mission support is a business. And, as such, we are
committed to the affordability and continuous improvement. We
utilize a mission support business model that employs the four
cornerstones of total asset visibility, configuration
management, product line management, and bi-level maintenance
to drive down costs and increase operational availability.
And, in fact, as I speak this morning, there are 50-year-
old Coast Guard cutters that have deployed from their home
ports on the east coast of our country, down through the
Caribbean, through the Panama Canal, and are serving in the
eastern Pacific Ocean, conducting missions like Admiral Ray
just described. And they are 50 years old. And that is the
power of the mission support business model.
And to that end, sir, I will be happy to take questions on
the Coast Guard maintenance philosophy, and how that allows us
to continue to drive these ships down to the 50-year age mark
and keep them running while we are acquiring new ships.
One of my top priorities is moving our new ships and
aircraft successfully from acquisition to sustainment. By
investing in planned, depot-level maintenance, we have more
than doubled the service life of most of our cutters and
aircraft, fully optimizing our scarce resources. And beyond
ships and aircraft, we must invest in our shore infrastructure
and our IT networks--that is something we haven't talked as
much about--to enable operations and support functions to
ensure security of our facilities, and to provide safe work
environments for our people.
And, speaking of our people, they are absolutely the most
valuable asset of all. And we don't speak about them enough.
But thanks for calling out the three people who are working for
you who will be moving on. We must invest in talent management,
the recruiting, the training, and retaining of a diverse
professional workforce with the knowledge, skills, and
abilities to give our Service the competitive advantage that we
need to perform our many missions and keep our Nation safe and
secure.
In closing, I am pleased that this subcommittee understands
that the 21st-century infrastructure and transportation network
for America includes a vibrant and efficient Maritime
Transportation System, and that a well-equipped and resourced
Coast Guard is essential to ensure our prosperity in national
security.
And thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Admiral.
Ms. Mak?
Ms. Mak. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member
Garamendi, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
inviting me here today to discuss GAO's body of work on the
Coast Guard's recapitalization efforts.
Since the Coast Guard took over the role as lead systems
integrator in 2007 to recapitalize the surface, air, and
information technology assets, we have recognized that it has
made great strides in its investments. For example, it has
established individual acquisition program baselines for each
of its new assets.
However, as the Coast Guard moves forward in managing this
multibillion-dollar acquisition portfolio to modernize its
aging assets, the Coast Guard is facing several key challenges.
The two areas that I would like to highlight today are, first,
the impact of increased depot maintenance and equipment issues
for some of the new assets on operational availability; and,
second, the overall affordability of its acquisition portfolio.
It is widely recognized that the National Security Cutter,
the NSCs, and the Fast Response Cutters, the FRCs, are more
capable than the assets that they are replacing. And they are
contributing toward mission success. For example, the FRC and
the NSC have greater fuel capacity and better handling, which
improve endurance and effectiveness, and have led to an
increase in drug interdictions.
However, we found in March of this year that these assets
have not been meeting their minimum availability rates,
resulting in lost operational days. This is due to an increase
in depot maintenance needed to correct equipment and design
problems. The engines for both of these cutters have been
problematic, despite ongoing efforts by the Coast Guard.
For example, the NSC's engines overheat in waters above 74
degrees, which makes up a significant portion of the NSC's
operating area, given that they are intended to be deployed
worldwide.
The FRC has also experienced engine problems, requiring 20
engines to be replaced throughout the fleet. Fortunately, the
cost of these replacements was covered by the FRC's contract
warranty. Until these issues are resolved, operations will
likely continue to be negatively impacted.
Second, we have consistently reported concerns about the
affordability of the Coast Guard's acquisition portfolio. While
the Coast Guard is in the process of developing a long-term
acquisition strategy, it continues to use its annual budget
requests as its primary strategic planning tool to manage its
major acquisitions.
Since 2014, we have found that there are funding gaps
between what the Coast Guard estimates it needs and what it
traditionally requests and receives. The affordability of the
Coast Guard's portfolio will only worsen once it starts funding
the Offshore Patrol Cutter [OPC]. The OPC will absorb anywhere
from half to about two-thirds of the Coast Guard's acquisition
funding annually, beginning in 2018 through 2032, while it is
being built.
One of the most critical challenges the Coast Guard faces
is the gap between the expected service life of its Medium
Endurance Cutter fleet and the OPCs, the first of which is
expected to be delivered in 2021. To address this gap, the
Coast Guard must use limited acquisition dollars to extend the
service life of the 270-foot Medium Endurance Cutter fleet at
the same time it is building and procuring the OPCs.
During the same period, the Coast Guard must also
recapitalize other assets, such as the polar icebreaker and its
fleet of river buoy tenders, as these assets continue to age
beyond their expected service lives, and in some cases have
been removed from service without a replacement.
For instance, the Coast Guard is currently operating one
heavy polar icebreaker since the Polar Sea has been removed
from service. Plans are underway to develop a new fleet of
heavy icebreakers, but there is no formal cost estimate for
that acquisition program at this time.
The Coast Guard faces some difficult and complex decisions
with potentially significant cost and mission implications. As
we have previously recommended, the Coast Guard needs a plan to
identify affordable priorities with realistic tradeoffs, and
communicate where gaps exist, so that funding decisions align
with the priorities to enable long-term mission success.
Efforts are underway to address this issue through the
development of a 20-year Capital Investment Plan intended to
identify all acquisitions necessary for maintaining at least
its current level of service and the fiscal resources necessary
to build these assets. But to date, efforts by DHS and the
Coast Guard have not led to the difficult tradeoff decisions
needed to begin addressing the long-term affordability of its
portfolio.
Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, members of the
subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. Thank
you.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Ms. Mak, and perfect timing.
Mr. Acton, you are recognized.
Mr. Acton. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. I request that my full written
testimony be entered into the record.
This committee has long been one of the greatest champions
of the Coast Guard, and the Navy League is very appreciative of
your leadership. The Navy League is the foremost citizens'
organization to support all the sea services, including the
Coast Guard.
It is a privilege to be here today to talk about the Coast
Guard's capabilities and how they contribute to the
administration's pledge to invest in American infrastructure.
We are a maritime Nation that benefits from global trade, and
investments in the associated infrastructure have been crucial
to our prosperity.
The Coast Guard safeguards this free and safe movement of
goods so key to our national welfare. With only 40,000 Active
Duty servicemembers and a budget that averages around $10
billion, the Coast Guard does far more to safeguard our
national security than its size would suggest.
The Coast Guard's unique role in safeguarding our national
infrastructure includes a wide spectrum of responsibilities,
including port security, safety of navigation, and coastal
homeland security. Yet, from the Navy League's perspective, the
Coast Guard itself is a key part of our integrated
infrastructure, part of what makes our national prosperity
possible, and one crucial to our homeland security and our way
of life.
The Coast Guard protects our maritime sovereignty and
borders from illegal activity. It fights terrorism off our
coast. It inspects ports, both here and abroad, and ensures
mariners on our waterways are safe, and that the waterways are
navigable. It ensures the integrity of our exclusive economic
zone, and protects the cyber vulnerabilities in our Maritime
Transportation System. The Coast Guard is always there,
providing an environment in which America can thrive.
Yet to truly invest in American infrastructure, we must
invest in the Coast Guard and its people. Two of the
administration's biggest pledges directly affect the Coast
Guard: strengthening our military and investing in our
infrastructure. Investment in Coast Guard assets, including the
recapitalization of its fleet, has already led to some notable
successes, like the National Security Cutter and the Fast
Response Cutter. Yet the Coast Guard needs greater investment
to build a 21st-century infrastructure for America.
The Navy League recommends, first, procuring six Fast
Response Cutters per year; second, a steady acquisition,
construction, and improvements, or AC&I, budget of $2 billion
per year; third, to fulfill its challenging mission in the
Arctic frontier, the Coast Guard needs three heavy and three
medium icebreakers; and finally, and perhaps most critically,
an additional $750 million in fiscal year 2018 funding to meet
the 2020 icebreaker production goal.
The Coast Guard faces a $1.6 billion shore infrastructure
backlog that is being paid off too slowly, increasing
operational costs and risks. The Coast Guard does much with
little, but a real investment in this part of American
infrastructure would be beneficial to all.
The proposed Presidential budget breaks its promise to this
military service at a time when the Coast Guard is under
strain, overextended, and underfunded. This budget proposal
would hamper a Service already operating on a shoestring. The
Coast Guard suffers from the same readiness crisis facing our
other military services, including recruiting challenges,
needed maintenance funding, and dollars for such basic needs as
fuel.
Unfortunately, the operational funds needed to keep pace
with recapitalization have remained flat. Without investing in
operational funds for things like fuel, spares, training, and
manning, these recapitalization investments will be
underutilized. To fully fund costs under a flat-lined
operations budget, the Coast Guard has had to make reductions
elsewhere, ones that affect its people.
The Coast Guard will always put its mission operations
before all else, without complaint. It is just part of their
organizational DNA. But we are seeing the impacts of reduced
operational funding.
Navy League councils in the field have relayed stories of
unit galleys closing and the opening of needed child
development centers postponed. We know about reductions in
training centers and tuition assistance, the cancellation of
educational services officer program, reduction in medical
benefits, and fewer TRICARE medical advisors and health
promotion coordinators.
Individually, these may not cause anyone to rethink their
service, but they add up. At a time when the Service needs to
grow by 5,000 people, and the Coast Guard needs to invest in
its people through programs like these, it instead is forced to
make difficult tradeoffs to ensure mission execution.
The Navy League would like to thank this committee for its
bipartisan leadership, and thank Congress for ensuring that
this underfunded and vitally important military service has the
needed resources.
These are critical strategic investments, investments not
just in the Coast Guard, but in our national security and
safety, in our environment and economy, and in our maritime
infrastructure.
These are investments in our national sovereignty. Thank
you.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Acton. Because we actually have
some people here today, which is kind of fun, I am going to
recognize Mr. Mast first.
Mr. Mast. Appreciate it, Chairman.
Hey, I got a couple of quick questions for you. I am going
to start with you, Admiral Stosz. I appreciate the testimony
from all of you. One kind of general, and then one a little bit
more pinpointed to south Florida.
I know you all are mission-first. I love it, Semper
Paratus. I love everything about it. I got to connect with my
Coasties down in Fort Pierce. They took me out on the water.
And, you know, anybody that spends time on the water, we know
how maintenance-intensive it is, anything that operates on
saltwater on a daily basis.
So what I want to get to is the force that you have that is
conducting day-to-day maintenance out there. How much of the
actual force of the Coast Guard is dedicated to maintenance, to
keeping everything running? And are they having the resources
that they need? I am talking about in the minutiae of it, to
keep the engines going, to keep--you know, to keep the things
moving, keep it afloat. Can you give me a little bit more
specific picture of what that looks like?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. So we have--part of the mission
support business model is our operational and our depot-level
maintenance.
So what you are seeing out there at the station is your
operational-level maintenance, where those are funded locally,
those are operational personnel that belong to the area
commander, the district commanders. And I do the depot-level
maintenance, my people up at--when those boats come in for
overhauls. Even the small boats come in for what we call
sometimes cutter boat pooling. We will bring those together,
bring them back into a depot where we can strip them down and
give them back to the operators.
And we are deferring maintenance on both sides of--the
operational and the depot level. But what we try to do is make
sure we are funding the depot level, so that we are not
repairing problems that happen on the spot. We don't want that
cutter, that boat, to be out there and stopped in the water
with an engine problem.
So we are making sure that we get the depot maintenance to
keep its engines going. And then the people at the optional
end, they normally have--much of the resources they need, it is
more at the depot level that we need to make sure we have the
resources. And we are looking at the backlogs.
Mr. Mast. What does that deferment look like, in terms of
your operational capability and drug interdiction, in terms of
life-saving capability? What does that, literally, look like
when you talk about that deferment?
Admiral Stosz. So the deferment at the depot level, what
that does is it just slides those availabilities--sometimes the
service life extensions that you see on the--this is more for
the cutters--they will have to be slid to the right. And we
should do those earlier, in order to save ourselves on the
maintenance, because it just costs more money to maintain if
you don't do the depot level, and you have got to put them into
the operational--put more money into them, operationally,
instead of doing the depot work that will get them ready for--
back to sea again.
Mr. Mast. Well, thank you. Thanks for helping me understand
that a little bit. I know it is important, because they are
never going to take the--make the mission lighter for you. It
is always going to continue. But you have to have the
appropriate resources to go out there and do it.
I want to just focus a little bit also on Port Everglades.
I just want to make sure, because it's down there in my area,
and I wanted to ask you all. Are you having the appropriate
amount of communication, with all of the infrastructure that is
going on, surrounding the expansion of Port Everglades? I know
we have to move around one of your stations down there. Is
there anything that we need to know about impact on operations,
anything that you want to address on that front, now that you
have us here?
Admiral Stosz. Sir, I will just say, from my side, the
civil engineers who work for me are working closely with the
Army Corps of Engineers, and we don't have any concerns. We are
monitoring that with them, and we are--I would defer to my
colleague on anything operational, but we are set with the
actual move.
Admiral Ray. Sir, you are aware, since you have been there,
about how operationally important--that is a Seventh District
unit, and that is the busiest district, you know, last year I
think 5,000 lives saved in that district alone, and hundreds of
law enforcement cases.
So we are tracking, we understand the importance of the
moves, and we have got plans in place to maintain operational
capability. So thanks for keeping up with it.
Mr. Mast. Outstanding. I appreciate your testimony, again,
and I yield back the balance of my time, Chairman.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Garamendi is
recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, I am going to take up an issue
that is extremely important to the minority, both in the
overall Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as
in other committees. And if you will indulge me to do this--and
this is for Admiral Ray and the background.
One of the essential functions of this committee is to
exercise oversight of the executive branch agencies over which
we have legislative jurisdiction. Thorough oversight is
required for Congress and this committee to develop effective
legislation that benefits the American taxpayers and meets our
security requirements.
It has come to our attention that the Trump administration,
in an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, has determined
that only--only--the chairman of the committee or subcommittee
of jurisdiction may exercise the oversight functions of that
committee.
Further, the opinion instructs that an agency should not
consider an oversight request from any other Member of
Congress, including the ranking member of the committee or
subcommittee with jurisdiction as an inquiry requiring a
response. It states that the agency may exercise its own
discretion in determining whether to respond to these inquiries
from the minority.
Therefore, Admiral Ray, is it the policy of the Coast Guard
to respond substantively to oversight inquiries made by the
ranking member of this committee or subcommittee?
Admiral Ray. Sir, I am not familiar with the policy that
you refer to, but I am familiar with our practice in the
Service of responding to subcommittees and committees. And we
pride ourselves on being responsive. And we have a team of
folks here that you recognize, three of them today. They make
sure we get the questions, and then they make sure that we get
the answers back. And we have processes for that.
I am not aware of any way that we separate the questions,
depending on the words. And if they come from the Congress, we
are making every attempt to answer.
Mr. Garamendi. I need not expand further how important I
believe this issue is. Apparently, the Office of Legal Counsel
leaves it to the discretion of the agency. And I am pleased to
hear that, as of now, your exercise of that discretion would
allow the minority questions to be answered. Is that correct?
Admiral Ray. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Then let me move on.
Ms. Mak, thank you for your testimony. In its fullness, you
seem to be stating that the current budget and appropriations
for the Coast Guard significantly understates the requirements
that the Coast Guard has to meet its obligations. Is that
correct?
Ms. Mak. Absolutely, sir. The budget does not reflect
reality. For example, if you look at the President's 2018
budget request, the OPCs cost almost half a billion dollars,
almost half of the acquisition budget. The FRCs, almost a
quarter of the acquisition budget. So that leaves you a quarter
left. That does not address the 10th NSC, the FRC plus-ups, the
icebreakers, the service life extension for the Medium
Endurance Cutters, or the shore infrastructure, which we have
already said is $1.6 billion, in terms of backlog.
Mr. Garamendi. Have you developed the amount of money that
would be necessary to meet those requirements?
Ms. Mak. No, that is where we believe that the Coast Guard
needs to develop their 20-year plan with the strategies, with
the assets that they need to meet their missions, and the cost
that is required, before tradeoffs can begin to be discussed.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you for that setup.
Now, Admiral Ray?
[Laughter]
Admiral Ray. Sir, as our Commandant has stated, recently
before this subcommittee we have established the program of
record for the assets that we need, whether it is National
Security Cutters, Offshore Patrol Cutters, icebreakers, and
various other assets. And to kind of summarize it, he stated
repeatedly--and we believe it puts us in good shape--to have--
we need to get our--the growth of our operations and
maintenance budget, our daily O&M budget that we do to do
operations, to be at least 5 percent per year.
That is something we haven't obtained. We have had a net
10-percent reduction in purchase power, or buying power of our
O&M budgets, since 2010. We need a $2 billion predictable
recurring AC&I budget to do acquisition.
Mr. Garamendi. The setup question by Ms. Mak wasn't
completely answered. So let me put it to you directly. I think
it is the responsibility of this committee--and I am almost
certain that the chairman would agree--that we need to have a
long-term vision, and we need to prepare the Coast Guard for
its current and future tasks.
In order for that to be done, the Congress must exercise
its authority and responsibilities to set the pace and to
provide the money. We have not done so. In order for us to do
so, we need to have from the Coast Guard your full requirements
for funding to meet the program that is of record.
Therefore--and I will work this out with the chairman, so
that we could both ask the question for you to develop for us
the money necessary, year by year going forward, to fully
address the requirements of the Coast Guard--we are talking
acquisition budget here--so that 20 years looking out there,
which Ms. Mak just discussed.
Also, Mr. Acton, in your testimony, you made a very
forceful statement about the needs--it seems to me that it is
time for us to fully fund the requirements of the Coast Guard
in every way. And all of the acquisition programs, the program
of record in its fullness, so that we know what it is the
requirements are. We may or may not be able to meet that, but
our task is one of making choices.
I said earlier in my view the Coast Guard is the wall. I
believe we have some $2 billion that is going to be added to
the ongoing physical wall on the terrestrial side. So we need
to make a choice. Could we move $2 billion from the terrestrial
wall to the water? What would that do for the Coast Guard?
So, anyway, help us with this. And I would like to work
with the chairman to put forth a request for the full funding
over the next 20 years, year by year, to meet the full
requirements, as Ms. Mak has stated it. So, with that, I yield
back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extra time.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the ranking member. And once again, we
are just happy to have people here. So I am going to recognize
the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Ray, I would love to talk to you a little bit about
acquisition strategy. And I think that, under Congressman
Mast's questions earlier, you guys covered this a bit.
But there is this perception out there in Congress and in
the public that spending Federal money is, effectively, a waste
of money and causes deficits and things along those lines.
Could you talk a little bit about your experiences, through the
investment of the FRC and the NSC, and how that program is
actually performing, in terms of the financial return on
investment, compared to your legacy equipment?
Admiral Ray. Yes, sir. I can, and the--I have had quite a
bit of interaction in a security cutter fleet from my time in
the Pacific area, where I served before this. And the
effectiveness of those assets on patrol, whether in the Bering
Sea, whether the approaches between South America and Central
America, their ability to stay on station, seakeeping, the
capability they have for intelligence, which--we should really
have a separate classified briefing on that--it is
foundationally different than how we have done business in the
past.
There are cutters that are getting underway right now--and
the--specifically, National Security Cutters. While we are
certainly proud of our 50-year-old, 210-foot cutters that are
doing great service, the return on investment for a National
Security Cutter patrol, the amount of seizures they get, the
amount of intelligence they process, and their contribution to
attack in these transnational criminal organizations is without
question. There is no question of the effectiveness.
With regards to the Fast Response Cutters, we are pushing
them further downrange. We are pushing Fast Response Cutters
with a crew of 25 people all the way down to the shores of
South America, along the Leeward Islands. And the
effectiveness--and these are crews that we would--that is a
long ways for a patrol boat to go.
And the effectiveness they have, whether they are
communications--we just had a seizure off the coast of
Martinique, and the patrol boat skipper wrote back specifically
talking about the C4IT system that is on board that Fast
Response Cutter, and how he couldn't have done--couldn't have
found the bad guy, couldn't have caught him, and couldn't have
processed him without the systems that are on there.
I could go on and on, sir, but that is the answer.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. So you are seeing better
performance, you are seeing better return, in terms of your
ability to perform your mission. And what about O&M costs, are
you seeing an O&M cost comparison that you could comment on?
Admiral Ray. Yes, sir. The O&M costs are higher than they
were with our previous assets, and that is one of the reasons
our Commandant has gone on record saying we need at least 5
percent growth in the just planning factor for O&M costs per
annum.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Well, actually, let me follow up
on something you said. You made mention of your Pacific forces
in Southwest Asia, the work you are doing with DoD over there.
Have you received any indication, any signal from DoD about
your continued presence, the need for the Coast Guard's
continued presence in that area?
Admiral Ray. You referring to the South China Sea, sir,
East China Sea, that area?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Yes, yes.
Admiral Ray. We have been in conversations with the
Department of Defense. Unfortunately, several of those are
classified, in terms of our contribution. We have a
longstanding recurring relationship with the Department of
Defense, so we are interoperable. Primarily, National Security
Cutters, once again.
So yes, sir, we have been in communications on that. We
don't have any units deployed there, as of right now.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Do you think that, under the
contract you have right now for FRC, that you have sufficient
flexibility to provide adequate hulls for presence that you are
providing right now in the Pacific theater?
Admiral Ray. We have got a capacity challenge right now,
sir, so we can't get those assets out there fast enough. And,
thanks to this subcommittee, we are turning the corner on the
FRCs with this year's budget. So it is--the capability is not
in question, it is a capacity challenge.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK. Switching gears a little bit
into navigation. While I think there is a lot more attention to
OPC, FRC, NSC, which I understand, a little bit sexier vessels,
some of your inland waterways and some of your buoy tenders--if
we are talking about 21st-century infrastructure, can you talk
a little bit about your existing assets that, in many cases,
are 50, 70 years old that are carrying out those inland
waterway missions, and how you think those assets are able to
perform in a 21st-century environment, as we work to help to
improve the infrastructure in an inland waterway system?
And talk a little bit about your strategy for replacing
those.
Admiral Ray. Yes, sir. With the assistance of this
subcommittee, for the first time ever in fiscal year 2017, you
know, we have got $1 million to do the analysis on the--kind of
start the program, moving it forward, because they need to be
replaced.
There are some changes in technology that will probably
work on the margins for this 35-ship fleet that are, literally,
all over the heartland, from Omaha, as I said, Oak Island,
North Carolina, down to Morgan City, and everywhere in between.
And so, we will work on the margins, some modern technology.
But at the end of the day, the river changes--as you know,
when the river changes and goes up and down there is really not
much substitute for a boat--own station planting those buoys so
when you have got a barge coming down that is four wide and
seven long moving grain and petroleum products out of the
heartland--and that is our competitive advantage, as a Nation,
is that river system--and you got to have buoys on the water to
do that. And there is no way to do it except the way we have
been doing it. And so, those vessels need to be replaced.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Well, just as a--I think important
to this subcommittee, if the Coast Guard could help convey a
comprehensive strategy, acquisition strategy for us, I think it
would be very helpful in us being able to help you, in terms of
upgrading some of those assets that I think are needed if we
are truly looking at 21st-century capabilities.
Let me just clarify. Certainly South and East China,
important, but I think you have an ongoing mission--I am going
to have this roll off the tongue--PATFORSWA [Patrol Forces
Southwest Asia]--did I do that right? All right. Where you have
a presence in Bahrain and other areas. And I think that also
applies to having a presence of NSC and FRC in those areas. So
I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Larsen is
recognized.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Admirals--you can choose to answer this--about shoreside
infrastructure, where this year's budget reflects about a 93-
percent cut in shoreside infrastructure facilities, aids to
navigation, and housing.
So, if we enact the budget as-is, it will be impossible for
the Coast Guard to address the current $460 million backlog in
shoreside infrastructure that you have prioritized. So I am
just wondering how shoreside infrastructure fits into your
priorities if we are sending folks off on state-of-the-art
platforms and coming home to infrastructure that is, literally,
falling apart in some places.
How can we always be--how can you always be ready, if that
is the case? Can you try to address that for me?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. I am happy to do that. So
investing in shore infrastructure is one of my top priorities.
Rebuilding, I am--the Coast Guard's crumbling buildings,
training centers, our classrooms and our barracks, our housing,
our shoreside facilities like our piers and our boat lift
facilities and our covered moorings, those aren't just good for
the Coast Guard. That is good for America, because that creates
construction jobs in communities across the Nation. So I am
passionate about reinvesting in our infrastructure.
As you know, we have had to make the tough tradeoff
decisions over the years of decremental budget environments.
And often, shore was where we made that tradeoff, as we wanted
to keep production lines running with the capital assets we
have been talking about thus far.
Now, you have heard the Commandant say we need to rebuild
and repair and modernize the Coast Guard, invest in our
modernization, invest in our infrastructure. We do have a $1.6
billion backlog in our shore construction account, and a $700
million backlog in our maintenance account. And what we need to
do to get at that is we need to have a $2 billion CIP, Capital
Investment Plan.
Mr. Larsen. Right.
Admiral Stosz. We need to have the 5-percent O&M funding
per year that is going to get at that $700 million backlog and
continue the maintenance we need to do, the preventative
maintenance that has to keep these assets available, because
they are what support our operations and our people. Not just
the operations----
Mr. Larsen. So----
Admiral Stosz [continuing]. But the people that run them.
Mr. Larsen. So it sounds like you have not only run the
numbers that we see today, but you have run the numbers out 5
to 10 years to play catchup, as well.
So, if that is the case, then how are these tough tradeoffs
being made, knowing full well that the end result is that we
have shoreside facilities that are really not in a position to
support all these great new platforms? And they are great, and
they will be new, these great new platforms that they are
supposed to support. What discussion is taking place inside the
Coast Guard, inside DHS, and inside OMB on this?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. And I
want to thank the Congress for supporting our major acquisition
shore infrastructure funding. That gets tied to our new ships
and aircraft, and that has been funded. So you will see, when
we have a home port, where we are clustering our cutters, we
are getting the money--and that is usually tens of millions of
dollars per port--to build out that infrastructure. So we are
doing that.
What is--and we are rebuilding from hurricanes. Thank you
for the $15 million downpayment on our $90 million damage
assessment for Hurricane Matthew.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Admiral Stosz. But it is the other routine recurring--our
training centers, the other facilities that fall into the
backlog that--there isn't any room left at the table, once you
have funded all that, and then you have looked at those--like I
said, the production lines always trump the infrastructure
that--we say we can get at that tomorrow. And we are waiting
for that day, and that is why we need the $2 billion CIP.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Again, I don't know which one of you
will--can answer this, but on the OPC timelines--and this is
sort of the opposite of the discussion we just had, sort of
this discussion about where you put your money. Even with
service life extension providing up to 15 additional years to
the existing Medium Endurance Cutter fleet, you are looking at
anywhere from a 2- to 5-year gap for your OPC replacement for
your nearly--your nearly 1-to-1 replacement.
So, does that mean we--are we anticipating seeing service
life extensions going 17 years to 20 years, or are we going to
accept a gap on those replacement timelines?
Admiral Stosz. Congressman, what we are going to do on
there is--you see that chart that GAO submitted?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Admiral Stosz. It is a great chart. There is only about a
2- to 5-year gap, as you said.
Mr. Larsen. Right, depending on the----
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen [continuing]. Open sea, right, yes.
Admiral Stosz. When they come off their service life. And,
well, we do love those 50-year-old cutters. So if we stretch
those to 50 years, we will be able to close that gap, sir. So
we do plan on making sure those cutters, those 270-foot
cutters, last until the Offshore Patrol Cutters come online.
Mr. Larsen. So, I am sorry, are you saying that your plan,
then, is not to allow those gaps?
Admiral Stosz. No, sir, we are not going to allow those
gaps.
Mr. Larsen. Is that right? OK. All right, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the gentleman. I would now like to
recognize Mr. Lewis from Minnesota, the vice chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank everyone for
coming today, and your presence here. I want to talk a little
bit about the administration's proposal and prioritization and
everything we are supposed to do here.
Ms. Mak, you had mentioned that the administration's
proposal for the Offshore Patrol Cutter as well as the Fast
Response Cutters amount to about 75 percent of the budget.
There are, right now, two icebreakers that get a lot of
attention, the Arctic icebreakers.
But there is quite a bit of commerce in the Great Lakes
region, my part of the country, and we need to make certain
that those shipping lanes remain open during the very, very
harsh winters there in the Great Lakes. Third largest economy
in the world, with a GDP over $5.7 trillion. Much of this--this
is our economy--much of it travels on the Great Lakes, 160
million tons of waterborne cargo transported on the Great
Lakes.
I know that at one point--I believe it was in the
Appropriations Act of last year--we had--or maybe it was 2
years ago, 2016--we had about $2 million for the survey and
design work associated with icebreaking capacity in the Great
Lakes. Now we have got one heavy and one medium, Arctic-wise.
Where are we for the Coast Guard's plan on funding those
icebreakers in the Great Lakes right now?
Ms. Mak, we will start with you.
Ms. Mak. Thank you, sir. Right now I believe we have a team
that is actually doing work for this subcommittee on the heavy
icebreakers, and is about to report out in the next week or
two. But the concerns we have with the heavy icebreakers
generally, if there is pressure--if funding is made available
earlier, there may be pressure to make decisions earlier. And
that would mean sometimes making decisions without all complete
knowledge.
And we have done plenty of work in GAO to show when
decisions are made, procurement decisions are made without all
the available knowledge, there is definitely an increase in
costs, changes during the contract performance and schedule
delays at that point.
So broadly, I would also say that there is some concerns
with the heavy icebreaker, in terms of who is going to be
managing that acquisition process. Is it DHS or is it the Navy?
Who has oversight of that program? Who has oversight of the
contracting? And who has final say of the requirements,
depending on who has oversight of the contracting? Those are
some of our broad concerns when it comes to heavy icebreakers.
Mr. Lewis. Is it a matter of additional resources or
organizational control that you allude? I mean what is our
fleet capability right now for icebreaking missions in the
Great Lakes?
Ms. Mak. I would defer that question to the Coast Guard for
what their actual capabilities are.
Mr. Lewis. Go ahead, Vice Admiral Ray.
Admiral Ray. Sir, as you know, we have got Coast Guard
cutter Mackinaw, important, in the Great Lakes, and we have got
a fleet of 140-foot icebreakers which are going through a
service life extension right now.
We performed an analysis that was delivered to the Congress
in 2016 about the requirements for additional icebreaking
capability, and we haven't moved forward since then, in terms
of additional capability, because our assessment is that the
priority is for this other Arctic and Antarctic icebreaking
capability, and--when you compare things in the balance.
So, our plan right now is to address the Great Lakes
icebreaking requirements with the Mackinaw and the 140s. And
Admiral Stosz could talk about the service life extension on
those 140s--and she was the commanding officer of one of them,
and so the--kind of the effectiveness of those.
Mr. Lewis. Admiral Stosz, please.
Admiral Stosz. Sir, absolutely. We have the survey and
design money to look at the new--a new icebreaker for the Great
Lakes, the GLIB [Great Lakes icebreaker] style, as opposed to
the 140 style. So we have that money. We are using that to look
into the initial design and surveying, what we would need to do
to replace that. So that is still in progress, sir. We don't
have any report on that yet.
Mr. Lewis. But to Ms. Mak's point--or suggestion, anyway--
are there enough resources, once the survey and design is done,
to move forward in a relatively timely manner?
Admiral Stosz. Sir, we are not even sure we need to move
forward with that construction at this point, because we are
extending the service life of those 140-footers. And we--and
the GLIB is still fairly new, as Coast Guard standards go.
Mr. Lewis. So you think you are mission-capable?
Admiral Stosz. I would defer the mission-capable to Admiral
Ray.
Admiral Ray. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I mean we had some--
obviously, 2014 and 2015 were tough ice years on the lakes. To
mitigate that in the current state of affairs we have got
memorandums of agreement with the Canadians to share assets,
and that is how we would get after it in the near term.
Mr. Lewis. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Garamendi, I yield to him, and----
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, you and I have had a little
discussion here. I would like you to pick up the next point,
and then I will take my turn after you.
Mr. Hunter. So thank you very much. And thanks to all the
Members who came to the subcommittee hearing, again.
I guess the first question I have is where is your--where
is the 20-year CIP? Where is the 5-year Capital Investment
Plan?
Admiral Stosz. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. So
the 5-year Capital Investment Plan is under development, and
the 20-year plan needs to----
Mr. Hunter. When is the 5-year Capital Investment Plan due?
Admiral Stosz. That is--sir, we submit that----
Mr. Hunter. When you make your budget request, right?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. You have already made your budget requests,
though, right?
Admiral Stosz. And because the budget year, sir, is a bit
different this year with the change of administration, we are
submitting the CIP--we are developing and submitting that up
through the review process, sir. And that 5-year CIP, when we
get that, we can then build on the 20-year CIP.
We owe the 20-year CIP. We are--we want to--we know we need
to submit that 20-year CIP. So that is all in progress right
now, sir.
Mr. Hunter. Because we are looking at all this stuff, but
this stuff doesn't make any sense if you don't have a 20-year
plan. If you don't have a long-term plan, this is just pie in
the sky, right?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. And we know the Auth Act in 2015
directed us to submit that 20-year CIP, and we are working on
that, sir.
Mr. Hunter. Could you tell me explicitly what is the holdup
on the 5-year plan, due to change in administration? How would
that affect what the Coast Guard needs to operate?
Admiral Stosz. It----
Mr. Hunter. No matter who the President is.
Admiral Stosz. It needs to go through a review. So we need
to go through the process and the steps and submission of that
CIP.
Mr. Hunter. Submission, it is going to be reviewed by OMB?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. It goes up the chain.
Mr. Hunter. OK. OMB, who proposed to cut you by $1.3
billion, and your CIP has to go through them before we get to
see it? So we get the scrubbed version, not necessarily what
the Coast Guard really needs 5 or 20 years out?
Admiral Stosz. That is the process we follow, sir.
Mr. Hunter. OK.
Mr. Garamendi. Look at the law.
Mr. Hunter. Is that in law that you have to--that OMB gets
to scrub your request to Congress?
Admiral Stosz. I don't know the answer to that question,
sir. I would have to get back to you.
Mr. Hunter. Or is that just the way it has always been
done?
Admiral Stosz. I don't know.
Mr. Hunter. OK. Second question is we started a year or two
ago in the Armed Services Committee a National Sea-Based
Deterrence Fund because of the submarines we have to build, and
how expensive they are, and how much of the Navy budget they
are going to take up, right? It looks like you are going to
have the same issues, where you don't have the money for--I
mean we are--Mr. Graves talked about it, Ms. Mak talked about
it, the 75 percent of your budget going towards two types of
cutters, and that leaves almost nothing for icebreakers, for
anything else, for land-based UAS. It is a really small amount.
Have you put any thought towards doing something like that,
doing--are you familiar with the account that I am talking
about?
Admiral Stosz. I am not familiar with that, sir.
Mr. Hunter. It is basically a pot of money that they have
created where they can put money into it every year to prepare
for a big chunk of their budget being taken to make submarines.
That is what they have done.
Admiral Stosz. I have not----
Mr. Hunter. Looking forward.
Admiral Stosz. I have not looked into that, sir. I would
like to. We always like to benchmark for best practices with
our sister services. I would like to look into that, but do not
know that program.
Mr. Hunter. OK. After speaking with Mr. Garamendi, what we
might do on the House floor is create this fund for you. We
probably wouldn't put any money into it--depends on what the
appropriators say--but that is something I would look at, if I
were you, is a way to hedge against unforeseen needs that--
things that you might need later, 5 or 10 years out, and also
simply to add money to it, going forward, so that you have more
money when you get to--when you have to recapitalize, and to
build new stuff.
Number two, let's go up to this chart, too. Mr. Rayfield
was telling me that, since 2010, you have had the money to go
from the dark blue to the turquoise.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. We have had the money in our
survey and design to look at the plans, the specifications,
determining the work that needs to be done to extend the
service lives of those 270s. So there is a number of different
pieces of maintenance and work items you have to come up with.
So that is what we are in the process of doing right now.
Mr. Hunter. But it has been 7 years.
Admiral Stosz. Well, and we are also looking at trying to--
--
Mr. Hunter. Or sorry, since 2013.
Admiral Stosz. We are trying to layer this in with the
Offshore Patrol Cutter acquisition, sir.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, but what I don't understand is if you wait
long, if you keep waiting, you are not going to need to do any
service life extensions, because it is going to overlap the
OPCs.
Admiral Stosz. And, sir, we will adjust the work list that
we need to do in that service life, so it might cost less for
us to do that, because we might do a smaller one to get those
assets to the--to close that gap. We will have to do the
analysis to make sure we do the right work that is needed to be
done to close the gap.
Mr. Hunter. How much money do you have in that account?
Admiral Stosz. I don't know how much we have now, sir. We
have been given several million dollars to work on the design
of the work specification.
Mr. Hunter. So what--so, just really simply, tell me what
takes 4 years? Have you not wanted to do it, or are there
technical difficulties, or----
Admiral Stosz. Sir, we are making those tough tradeoff
decisions. So we are trying to layer this in after the Offshore
Patrol Cutter reward, and make sure that we have--doing the
tough tradeoff decisions on what you can fund.
Mr. Hunter. OK. I am not understanding. This chart is fake.
This is a fake chart, because all you have is the dark blue.
You were supposed to get out to the turquoise. At least start
doing that, right? So the turquoise doesn't exist. Correct?
There is--the turquoise on this doesn't exist, and the little
dash lines don't exist, either. All you have is--the dark blue
is what you have right now.
So, right now, the very first ship, the Dependable, should
have been decommissioned in 2011. It did not get a service life
extension. It didn't get--it hasn't been upgraded in any way.
So it is 2017, so you are 6 years past its decommissioning
date, and you haven't done any upgrades to it. But you have the
money. And you have had the money for 4 years. I am just not
understanding.
Admiral Stosz. Sir, we haven't had the money to do the
work. We have had the money to----
Mr. Hunter. To design?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. OK. I am still not understanding.
Admiral Stosz. We are still----
Mr. Hunter. But that means you haven't done the design
work, if you still have the money in the account.
Admiral Stosz. Oh, sir, I am not sure how much money we
have in the account. I apologize, I don't know the answer to
that question. I will have to look and see how much of that we
have. But I know that we are--I just talked about this project
with my program yesterday, and we are working on providing that
specification so that we can determine what the right level of
work is so that we can close that gap.
We are committed to closing the gap. I am sorry about the
details. I would offer you a brief to go over it in detail,
sir.
Mr. Hunter. But if you keep analyzing things, you are never
going to do anything.
Admiral Stosz. And I am not sure it is analyzing as much as
it is developing that list and looking at where we need to put
the effort. I will get you a brief, sir.
Mr. Hunter. OK. All right, Admiral. We will take you on
that.
The six FRCs that we authorized that were requested by
CENTCOM to operate in Southwest Asia, Middle East, how do you
plan on paying for those? Is that going to be in your unfunded
requirements list? Because now we have authorized it, it
wouldn't necessarily be an unfunded requirements list. But is
that going to be included in your June submittal?
Admiral Stosz. Mr. Chairman, we are going to look at that
unfunded priorities list, and the--when you come to the assets,
the 6 percent of our budget that is funded for defense with
offshore contingency operations, for instance, that is one part
of funding we might be able to use. And if that was the case,
we might not need it on the unfunded priorities list for
appropriated funds. So we haven't come to the determination yet
on what the funding would be. And nor are we really the
decision authority on that. So we are still looking at the
options for recapping.
I did--my people did a maintenance assessment of those 110-
foot patrol boats that are over there. I have got a little less
than 5 years left on them. We have some time, and we are
starting to work towards what that replacement capability looks
like, sir.
Mr. Hunter. OK. I am going to yield to Mr. Garamendi now.
But I have got more questions when it comes back around.
Oh, I am sorry. What is--Mr. Lowenthal is recognized.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It seems to
me that rising sea levels will be a challenge for the Coast
Guard.
What kinds of assessments have you made regarding rising
sea levels? And how vulnerable are your facilities? And what
are you--what plans do you have in place to address these
vulnerabilities?
Admiral Stosz. Thank you for the question, sir. We have a
shore infrastructure vulnerability assessment ongoing right now
with my civil engineering staff. We are looking at natural
disasters, we are looking at rising tide. I have got buildings
that aren't able to withstand the seismic activity in some
parts of the country. I have got shore facilities that aren't
going to be, in the longer haul, able to withstand the rising
tide.
So that study is in progress, and my people will have some
answers to us in the near future. And then we will use those
in--to inform our investment decisions.
Dr. Lowenthal. I assume that when you are talking about
rising tides, you are talking about sea level rise.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. Or it could be for flood,
hurricane----
Dr. Lowenthal. Oh, I understand that, but I am just
concerned about sea level rise right now.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. Both. There is different parts of
the coast that are--can rise faster than the other, based on
whether the plates are sinking and the sea level is coming up,
or just the sea level.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And, Vice Admiral Ray, my
question is I know you are aware of how important the Port of
Long Beach is to our national economy. A cyber event in the
port could have far-reaching impacts and cause considerable
damage to the regional and also to the national economy.
What is the Coast Guard doing to safeguard our ships and
ports from cyberattack?
Admiral Ray. Thank you for the question, sir. We have
been--I am proud of the proactive approach our folks have taken
in this cyber arena. We have got authority to work this issue,
and we have really been working--for the past 3 years, we
worked awareness with industry. And that ranges, depending on
the sophistication of the business entity involved. And we have
got these coordinating units at each of our major ports, and
Long Beach no exception.
And we have got Area Maritime Security Committees, and we--
each one of those now has a cyber element to it. So primarily,
up until now, we have been working the awareness phase, along
with awareness of industry standards for security.
And then the next phase is to include this when we do our
visits to port facilities and to ships, to work through--and
this is not an onerous, over-the-top-type viewpoint, it is
working with the facilities to say this is what we think you
should be concerned about, given your lay-down. And kind of
work with them on that. So I think we have been moving out
smartly on this.
The good thing, too, is there is--industry has a lot of--at
all facilities they have a lot of motivation to get this right.
And they are aware of the threat, for obvious reasons.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the gentleman. I am going to yield to
Mr. Garamendi, because we got out of order.
Mr. Garamendi. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
the series of questions, and also the question about sea level
rise. Extremely important.
We have got a major problem here. Ms. Mak, thank you so
very much for, you know, really identifying and clearly
positioning this issue before us.
I understand the Coast Guard. Admirals, I know the problem
that you have. I think you fully understand the situation, but
you are being reined in by the OMB, and not allowed at this
point to fully express to us the full needs of the Coast Guard.
I think that we do have the obligation to demand from you
the unvarnished, unscrubbed, and uncensored information
necessary for us to adequately address the Coast Guard's
acquisition needs, as well as its operational needs. And so I
will work with the chairman to develop a series of questions
for you to deliver to us the specific requirements that you
have, unscrubbed by OMB, to fully address your acquisitions, as
well as your ongoing operations and maintenance requirements.
At the present time we do not have that information.
It may be that the--Ms. Mak, you may have more information.
You deferred when I asked you the question about what the
requirements would be. You deferred to the Coast Guard, as I
thought you might. But perhaps you have some sense of what
those numbers are, at least in general terms, and I would
appreciate it if you could deliver to us your assessment of
what those requirements are, so that both the operations,
maintenance requirements of the Coast Guard, and the
acquisition requirements can be at least known to us.
The Navy League, Mr. Acton, you spoke to this. If you have
any sense of this, I would appreciate those numbers also from
your sense of it.
Also, the chairman a moment ago suggested that we might--we
were having a little offline discussion up here about putting
in to the Coast Guard authorization legislation, which will
soon be on the floor, a floor amendment that would set up a
separate account, similar to what the Navy has, so that there
would be the normal operational accounts and ongoing
maintenance accounts and budgets for that, and then a special
account in which the acquisition money could be separated off.
Right now these two are in competition, the result of which
is something--it isn't going to work. Your ships are going to
simply be laid up for lack of maintenance or even fuel, and we
will go build a bunch of new ships that won't be able to
operate for lack of fuel and maintenance, and so forth. So we
got a problem here that we are going to have to find a way of
addressing in the larger sense of it. And the chairman and I
will work on that, as he said a moment ago.
I do have a series of other questions. Some of them are--
would seem to be minor, in comparison with what I just talked
about.
Buoy tenders, what is the cost of a buoy tender, a new one?
Any idea? Just a rough estimate.
Admiral Stosz. Are you talking the River Tenders, sir?
Mr. Garamendi. Yes.
Admiral Stosz. Inland River Tenders? It is about $25
million. Those are off-the-shelf, available from the Army Corps
of Engineers.
Mr. Garamendi. $25 million a pop? One hundred million
dollars, four or five a year, a couple hundred million dollars
a year, we get eight? OK. This just takes us back to the
question I just raised a moment ago, the issue.
The Offshore Patrol Cutter. You have got a new program
underway. Just a quick status report. I know it is real new,
but it is--basically, less than 4 months, I believe. Just a
quick status report.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. The Offshore Patrol Cutter is
contract-awarded. The shipbuilder is going through detail
design. We have established an on-site office, what we call a
project resident office, down there. We have the funds in 2017
and 2018 are going to purchase the construction for number 1,
and the long lead-time materials for number 2.
Mr. Garamendi. And the delivery?
Admiral Stosz. Delivery is 2021 for the first ship.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. I had the opportunity to visit the
shipyard and meet your team that is down there. So we will
periodically ask for an update.
I believe the contract is similar to the Fast Response
Cutter contract in which there is a warranty. Is that correct?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Excellent. I like the idea of warranties,
because I was--also visited the Bollinger facility, and there
was a repair team there from the engine manufacturer that was
rebuilding the manifold, if I recall correctly. Is that--so
keep the warranties in place.
A couple of other questions. This is to you, Admiral Stosz.
It has come to my attention that the Coast Guard is facing a
major gap in funding to cover the healthcare expenses for
retired Coast Guard personnel. Is that correct?
Admiral Stosz. I don't know. I am not aware that----
Mr. Garamendi. Well, it is correct. And this takes us to
something that the chairman and I will have to work on on the
Defense Authorization Act, in which the Coast Guard personnel
requirements, both active and retirement, should line up with
the general military requirements. And I think we are going to
need to put a clause in the NDAA to address that.
If you can, come back with some specific information for
us, so that we can--I think the NDAA is taken up this month. So
we want to watch that carefully.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
The Coast Guard does not face a funding gap with respect to
covering healthcare expenses for retirees.
The Coast Guard does face a funding gap with regards to the
newest retirement system--the Blended Retirement System (BRS).
We have the unique challenge of funding all new BRS components
but being the only armed service outside of the Department of
Defense's (DoD) Military Retirement Trust Fund.
Essentially, when the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) modernized the military's retirement system, it left the
Coast Guard behind. If the NDAA is implemented, as currently
enacted, the Coast Guard may be forced to reduce operations to
fund servicemember retirement benefits.
The DoD's method of accrual accounting (e.g., the Military
Retirement Trust Fund) creates immense discretionary savings
over the first 5 years that they will use to fund BRS
increments (e.g., Continuation Pay and Thrift Savings Plan
matching contributions). There are no savings available to the
Coast Guard since we use a pay-as-you-go method to fund retired
pay. Absent legislative action, the Coast Guard could face an
annual bill in excess of $35 million in the years following BRS
implementation, thus forcing us to make operational tradeoffs
such as: an 18-percent reduction in operational fuel funding, a
76-percent reduction in military accession and training
programs, a 1-percent reduction of the military force, or the
loss of 12 major cutter dry-dock maintenance periods.
We do not believe that it was the intent of the 2016 NDAA to
create this unique challenge for the smallest of the five armed
services; however, without legislative assistance the Coast
Guard faces difficult decisions in the near future.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Acton, the eLoran. We can go into it--
question. Based upon your experience with the Department of
Homeland Security and with the Coast Guard, do you think the
eLoran system could help eliminate the problems with the GPS?
Mr. Acton. Yes, sir. As you know, the GPS system has been
around for a while. It is fairly easy to disrupt. There is a
growing reliance on that system in virtually every technology
area, and yet our adversaries are gaining a growing capacity to
be able to disrupt that.
So, from our perspective, GPS is a single point of failure
from much of our infrastructure. And this issue has been known
for quite a number of years. Although the Coast Guard should
not have the lead, and does not have the lead on that, I
believe it is the Secretary of Transportation overseeing the
National Executive Committee for Space-Based PNT [Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing], the executive committee, the Coast
Guard does have a key supporting role in that.
So, as a single point of failure that has been recognized
for some time, the Navy League would support advancing a backup
program like eLoran.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. In our Coast Guard reauthorization, we
actually give to the--instruct the Department of Homeland
Security to take up this issue--excuse me, Department of
Transportation to take up this issue, and to work with the
Coast Guard on implementing it.
Do you think--well, let's just--one more thing, and this
brings us back to this overarching budget problem here.
Ultimately, the Coast Guard did do this. They did do the
loran system. And the question is, are they capable of doing
the eLoran system? The answer is, of course, if they have the
money. Correct, Admirals?
Admiral Ray. Yes, sir. Given the required resources, we
could--we have taken on a lot of missions over the years.
Mr. Garamendi. Give us the money and you can get it done,
right?
[Laughter]
Mr. Garamendi. OK. I have been beating this drum so many
times, but yes, it is in the authorization--it is in the
reauthorization, and we are going to try to make sure the money
is there, also.
You mention IT networks in the testimony. Could you expand
on that?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. So our information technology
network is the foundation on which our mission systems operate,
our shore-based mission systems, our programs and software, and
on which the cyber capability rides. So Admiral Ray can't
implement his cybersecurity operations unless I have got the
enterprise mission platform up to date.
And right now we have aging IT infrastructure systems. Like
our electronic health record system, as you probably are well
aware, has had to go back to paper. We are in the process of
that acquisition. It has become a major acquisition for us. And
these IT acquisitions had not been major acquisitions in the
past. Or they are formal acquisitions, rather.
Also, our core accounting system, we are working with a lot
of these aging systems that run much of our Coast Guard and
also our mission systems, our applications that we rely upon to
do our Coast Guard business. So there is a lot to that
infrastructure for our IT, and we are starting to fund that,
and we are on it. We have requirements we have to meet through
DoD on the .mil side to do much of that work.
Mr. Garamendi. Both the chairman and I are on the Strategic
Forces Subcommittee, which deals with a lot of this IT stuff.
And for the Department of Defense, this is a huge issue. This
is the first I have heard about this issue in this context with
the Coast Guard. I would appreciate a more complete briefing
about this overarching issue. It is not only your ability to
communicate and to keep track of what is going on, but also the
question of the security of the system.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. We are in the same exact place the
DoD is with this. We are on the .mil side, we are aligned with
them, we are going through all the same processes and
procedures that you will see on your other committee.
Yes, sir, I will get you a brief on that.
Mr. Garamendi. All right. I am going to just quickly, if I
might, Mr. Chairman--I am way over time, I am sorry, here.
Mr. Hunter. It is just us. Go ahead. It is just us.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. Icebreakers. We have had a couple of
questions back and forth about the icebreaker. Again, just a
very quick update. I missed part of the testimony--I think you
may have answered it--for the Great Lakes issue. Let's go back
to the heavy icebreaker, and bring us up to date on that.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. The heavy icebreaker, where we are
with that is, first of all, I am happy to hear the President,
at the Coast Guard Academy graduation a couple weeks ago, call
for building many heavy icebreakers. And I am glad to hear the
support that Secretary Kelly gave us yesterday during his
testimony for supporting icebreakers.
We have stood up an integrated program office with the
Navy. This is the best thing, ever. We are leveraging the
expertise of both parties to reduce costs and increase the
speed we can deliver this icebreaker. And that timeline is now
2023 for delivery.
That integrated program office is doing some great things.
One of them is that they are looking at the requirements and
doing tradeoff analysis to drive that cost down well under $1
billion. They are--we issued out five industry studies, as you
might be aware. I am very excited about those. They are charged
with looking at reducing risks, but looking at identifying
technical elements, and they are looking at, specifically,
block buying, what the possibility is for that.
And we have also been doing tank test trials with the
Canadian partners, and that acquisition is, like I said,
looking to deliver in 2023. The funding in 2017 and 2018 is
going to get us the RFP, request for proposals. That will be
out in 2018. And then we will be ready to issue detailed design
and construction in 2018 or 2019.
Mr. Garamendi. So we are moving along on schedule. You
quickly mentioned Canada. Could you expand on that?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. Canadians have a lot of experience
with icebreaking, too, and so we are partnering with them to do
tank test trials of the hull form to look at validating
viability of different hull forms. It is part of the----
Mr. Garamendi. Are they interested in the heavy icebreaker,
also?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. They have heavy icebreakers, also.
That has been a part of their history.
Mr. Garamendi. So is there a possibility that Canada and
the United States will build a similar icebreaker and, instead
of three, there may be four or more, depending on what Canada
wants?
Admiral Stosz. Sir, I don't know where the Canadians are
with their icebreaking right now. I have got people who do. We
can get back to you on that, sir. But we are partnering with
everybody we can on this to make sure we get it faster and
better.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. Also in the Authorization Act which will
soon be on the floor there is the issue of a study of a rental
or lease of an icebreaker.
Admiral Stosz. I defer to my colleague on that one, sir,
Admiral Ray.
Admiral Ray. We have been in contact with the folks that
are interested in leasing an icebreaker, sir, and just--in
fact, just last week--they have developed ice trial, a proposed
way to do ice trials, because this one that is available for
lease has never actually broken ice, as you know.
So we have been in communication with them as recently as
last week and told them we would be interested in sending Coast
Guard observers for this ice trial, if and when they do that.
Mr. Garamendi. And if that works out, that would be for an
interim period of time, and that would be the operations
budget? And that takes us back to the issue of acquisition
budget in competition with operations budgets. We go back and
forth here.
Please keep us up to date on it. I know it is a priority
among some of the members of the committee, and so we want to
stay on top of that trial. And if you will, let us know about
that.
Mr. Chairman, I could probably go on for an hour, but I
have gone on 10 minutes past my time, so I will ask for
forgiveness and yield back.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the ranking member. Let's stay on the
Aiviq for a minute, right? That is the only U.S.-made
icebreaker that exists, besides the two that you have sometimes
when they work.
So you said last week they developed a sea trial plan?
Admiral Ray. No, sir. They developed this a few weeks ago.
But we--they sent it to us to review several weeks ago, and our
folks took the time and due diligence in reviewing the sea
trial, ice trial plan for the Aiviq, and we responded to them a
week before last and told them, you know, kind of a--that it
looked like a reasonable plan. And this is not a quote, but you
know, a reasonable plan, and that we would be interested in
sending Coast Guard folks to observe it, if and when they do
execute those plans.
Mr. Hunter. OK. So when they execute the ice trials,
according to what the Coast Guard wants them to do, you are
going to have Coast Guard observers?
Admiral Ray. We offered that. We haven't closed the--we
haven't gotten a response back from the offer that we gave them
as of yesterday, when I asked.
Mr. Hunter. OK. Thank you. Admiral Stosz, really quick, the
VA just came out and said they are going to use the DoD's
electronic health record system, finally. I mean this has been
going on for a decade now, where they each have their own
thing, and they don't talk to each other. Why don't you guys
piggyback on DoD?
Admiral Stosz. I would love to, sir.
Mr. Hunter. So now you are not going to--but you have
developed your own system.
Admiral Stosz. We aren't developing our own system. We are
going out right now, doing the market research because we are
required to by the acquisition process.
Mr. Hunter. Why would you go out and do market research on
something the Department of Defense already has? You are part
of the Department of Defense.
Admiral Stosz. We are. Well, no. We are a military service,
not part of the Department of Defense. We are trying to get in
on the DoD's acquisition program. Now that the VA has come on
board with that program, we see an opportunity to leverage in
to that. It was--there were some challenges on the contracting
side, with leveraging into the DoD program, given where they
were with the contract, with the VA just looking to get on.
We are excited. Just yesterday I was talking to my staff
about get me a brief on this, and how fast we can move on this,
given that we are at paper records right now, and there is
nothing good about that. I am very excited about this right
now. We need to look and see what the requirements are.
As you probably well know, we have an audit undergoing
right now. Because of the IHIS [Integrated Health Information
System], the old--the problems we had with the program in the
past, we want to make sure we do everything right. So we are--
that is what we are doing, is making sure we do it right. But
if we have a chance to get in here and get onto this program
that is--this acquisition that DoD and VA are getting on to, we
would love to do that. And we owe it to our people to be
compatible, to have--from first handshake to retirement, to
have a compatible healthcare system.
Mr. Hunter. And the committee would highly recommend that
you don't do your own thing, and that you piggyback on DoD's
plan.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. All right? You talked about cyber--I am just
curious, really quick--and Mr. Garamendi asked for a hearing on
that.
If we could do a classified hearing, that would be great,
because I would like to hear about the bad guy spoofing when we
try to track them, and--because that would nullify your game
theory which you use to not check 99 percent of the cargo
containers coming into the U.S. The 1 percent that gets checked
is basically done by--you are saying this is coming from a bad
place or going through a bad place, and we are going to check
this. That could probably be affected through cyberattacks or
spoofing, and that kind of thing. So if we could do a
classified hearing on what Mr. Garamendi talked about, that
would be great.
Is a heavy icebreaker going to be on your unfunded
requirements list?
Admiral Stosz. Mr. Chairman, we would prefer that that
icebreaker was appropriated funds, either this ship conversion
Navy that the--was used last time for the Coast Guard cutter
Healy, or in our appropriated funds. But if not, then that will
be something that is at the top of the list that we submit.
Mr. Hunter. It wouldn't hurt to pile on.
[Laughter]
Mr. Hunter. Right? To ask for more than once.
And there is something here that I don't understand. You
said you are requesting $10 million in this year's budget
request--and tell me if I am wrong--$10 million for shoreside
infrastructure. Is that correct?
Admiral Stosz. I believe that $10 million is the number,
sir. I need to pull out my sheet.
Mr. Hunter. So what number?
Admiral Stosz. I believe that is the number.
Mr. Hunter. OK. So let's just say it is $10 million, and
maybe $8 million, or it may be $15 million. Let's even say it
was $20 million or something. I don't understand. There is a
$1.6 billion construction backlog, right?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. And the $700 million maintenance backlog,
right?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. And the Coast Guard is requesting $10 million,
$1.8 billion plus $700 million, or $1.6 billion plus $700
million, that is more than $10 million.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir, that----
Mr. Hunter. I don't understand.
Admiral Stosz. That goes to the tough tradeoff decisions
that we have to make.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, but I guess my question is, though, again,
this is about the Coast Guard not requesting what you need. So
why wouldn't you request what you need?
Admiral Stosz. It won't fit within the budget that we have
to build.
Mr. Hunter. But my--we go around this all the time, back
and forth, back and forth. You are there to request the budget
for what you need to accomplish your missions, right?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. And you have mission needs statements, which
lay out your statutory missions. There are 11, right?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. OK. So you have that. But then you don't
request the funding that would allow you to meet those mission
sets. I just don't understand. I mean $10 million is paltry.
That is nothing. So why even have this? Why even say you have--
I mean so you say you have this massive backlog, all these
things you have to do.
I guess, Admiral Ray, operations-wise, is not getting that
infrastructure fixed up going to have an effect on the new
assets that you are purchasing?
Admiral Ray. Yes, sir. It does, ultimately. I mean, as the
Congress--as the ranking member said, we got to have a place
for folks to come back home to.
And so, what our Commandant has stated moving forward is we
got to reconcile this, just as we did with this--we made a
statement about the $2.0 billion AC&I recurring. We would like
to--our target on that is $300 million recurring for shoreside
infrastructure. We are not there yet. We have had to make tough
decisions like other folks, and our--as an operational agency,
we have tended to favor operational assets. And that is where
we have been, up until recent years.
So, moving forward, we are going to have to adjust. But to
answer your question, these resources, the shoreside
infrastructure is important to operations, as well.
Mr. Hunter. And what there is right now--and, Ms. Mak, I am
going to kind of ask you to fill in the blanks here--you have a
total disconnect between the budget you are receiving, or the
budget request the Coast Guard has given Congress, and the
President's budget request is totally out of connection with
what the President has said. Totally.
In fact, you guys remember back about a month or two ago
OMB was planning on cutting your operational budget by, like,
$1.3 billion out of your $10 billion budget, right? That is a
total disconnect from what the President says. So either the
President's office has no input whatsoever with your budget
request, or the requirements that the President has for you and
the U.S. Coast Guard, or they just don't care what the
President says in OMB.
What do you--Ms. Mak, what do you think the issue is here?
Because there is a total disconnect.
In fact, we found out about the OMB budget cuts the day
after the President gave his State of the Union, where he
talked about transnational terrorism and crime and drugs, which
is what the Coast Guard does, and then they are going to
propose to cut you by 10 percent. I don't get it.
So what is the disconnect?
Ms. Mak. I agree with you, sir. You are absolutely right.
There has been a disconnect. We have been reporting that for
years, as you are well aware of.
For the deferred acquisitions, the Coast Guard's answer is
that because of budget limitations they have been deferring
their acquisitions. As a result, that has created this bow
wave, and it has come to the point where now it is
unsustainable.
And I think the first step, a positive step, is this 20-
year plan that we have been talking about, to be able to lay
out all their assets, all their missions, and then all the
funding that is required, because then they can begin tradeoff
discussions. What may impact what missions, what missions they
may not be able to do as effectively.
But that can't be done until that is all laid out in a plan
to see, OK, we have this much and this is how much we need.
What assets are we not going to get? What assets are we going
to get, and how they impact mission. So that is what we believe
is a first step.
Mr. Hunter. Well, why do you think the disconnect exists
between what the President has said he wants to do and wants to
use the Coast Guard for, and the lack of funding?
Ms. Mak. That could just be priorities further up in DHS or
OMB. I can't make that call about where those priorities and
decision are being made.
Mr. Hunter. OK. Do any of you know how much money out of
OCO was earmarked for homeland security out of the National
Defense Authorization Act?
[No response.]
Mr. Hunter. Because I believe Secretary Kelly got some
money, or at least requested some money in what is going to be
OCO coming up. But you guys don't recall how much that is? And
obviously, then, you wouldn't know if any of that is earmarked
towards the Coast Guard.
Mr. Garamendi [to the chairman]. You mentioned CENTCOM.
Mr. Hunter. Yes. This is----
Admiral Stosz. I don't recall the amount, but we received
in 2017 the OCO funding we need.
Mr. Hunter. What was the OCO funding spent on?
Admiral Stosz. That is spent on our fast response--excuse
me, our 110-foot patrol boats over in the CENTCOM AOR.
Mr. Hunter. And that is what the six FRCs we requested are
supposed to take the place of, or to help bolster that?
Admiral Stosz. Mr. Chairman, when those six 110-foot patrol
boats over there are no longer capable of serving--and my
assessment is that they have about 5 years left--the
operational analysis is being done to look at what the
replacement capability is. It might not necessarily be one for
one. We have to look at that. But that----
Mr. Hunter. Well, I mean, CENTCOM asked us to request six
FRCs for you.
Admiral Stosz. I am just saying, sir, that is the number we
have now. It--we just do a whole analysis to make sure we are
doing things cheaper and the right way. So making sure we get
the right cost and drive down the cost of the acquisition.
But certainly the OCO money is a viable place to look to
fund new assets to go over there, we just haven't looked into
that, and that is not our call.
Mr. Hunter. Do you have a plan on--if those six FRCs--so
let's say that the six are cut down to three or something in
the Senate or with Appropriations. Do you have a plan on how to
put those in to the build cycle for FRCs? Do you add one a year
for 3 years or something? Or what do you do?
Admiral Stosz. Are you talking, sir, about if we do use the
Fast Response Cutters to replace those 110s over in the CENTCOM
AOR?
Mr. Hunter. Yes. So we authorized six FRCs in our
authorization bill we just passed. Six more because of a
request by CENTCOM to us, which--I am sure that was in
consultation with the Coast Guard at some level. What have you
done to work that into your plans, assuming that a few of those
get approved and there is funding for them?
Admiral Stosz. I will defer to my colleague on that. We
haven't gotten that final auth bill yet, and we haven't--I
haven't worked that issue yet.
Admiral Ray. Sir, we are working with the Navy staff and
with the folks over at the Department of Defense to kind of
fine-tune. We got the clear demand signal from CENTCOM, clear
demand signal from the NAVCENT [U.S. Naval Forces Central
Command] over there that the patrol boats that are currently
there, they need that capability, moving forward, regardless
of--now then, the question that we haven't answered yet is how
to be funded, whether it is OCO, whether it is appropriated, we
haven't answered that question yet.
We are working on requirements right now, which are fairly
straightforward. We are working directly with the Navy staff.
And the one thing that we have made--where we have discussed
this is we do not--if it is an FRC that replaces them, we do
not want that to take the place of the fielding plan we have
right now for our FRCs, the schedule that we are on.
So the 58 that we are planning to deploy around the
country, if this will be over and above--in other words, we
wouldn't take those and divert them. That is the planning
document or the planning strategy we have right now for that.
Mr. Hunter. I thank you. Mr. Garamendi is recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, you are on to a series of
questions here that are, I think, really, really important.
There are two pieces of this, a request for six FRCs. Are these
the new FRCs, are these part of the 58 that we are supposed to
have? Or are these additional to that? Are we going to send the
FRCs that are presently available over there, rather than
somewhere around the continental United States? What is going
on here?
Admiral Ray. Sir, our intent is to take the 58 that are
currently scheduled, the program of record, and keep them going
where they are supposed to go in the United States or in our
territories, you know, Puerto Rico, et cetera.
Mr. Garamendi. So if the Defense Department wants 6, these
are in addition to the 58? And so these would be available at
some day in the future?
Admiral Ray. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. Well, we are going to need some detail
here. Somebody is going to have to find the money for those
six, right?
Admiral Ray. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. What do they cost, apiece? What is the cost
of a--couple hundred million?
Admiral Stosz. I don't have that right at my----
Mr. Garamendi. Well, OK. There is a certain number here. If
there are 6--so you are saying those 6 do not come out of the
58 that are--so these are additional? And the CENTCOM wants
them. Who is going to pay for the, DoD budget or Homeland
Security budget? Meaning your budget. OK, we need some detail
here, folks.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Soon.
Admiral Stosz. I do have fiscal year 2017 enacted for six
of those. It is $325 million.
Mr. Garamendi. Now--thank you. We presently have how many
Coast Guard ships in the Persian Gulf?
Admiral Ray. Six 110-foot patrol boats.
Mr. Garamendi. Six?
Admiral Ray. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Who is paying for the--is the cost of those
operations out of the OCO fund?
Admiral Ray. Yes, sir. That is correct. That is completely
OCO funded.
Mr. Garamendi. OK, very good. Thank you. Obviously, we need
some more information here about that. We are looking at some
additional ships being built, or else we are going to go short
on the operational plans to protect our coasts.
Airplanes, quickly on airplanes. Your C-27Js, the current
budget that has been proposed by the President basically guts
the upgrading of these so that you could use them. Is that
correct?
Admiral Stosz. Congressman, the C-27s, they do come with us
needing to be missionized----
Mr. Garamendi. Right.
Admiral Stosz [continuing]. And needing to have all the
sparing. So that is what the money is for right now, is we have
regenerated those, we have regenerated six of those out to Air
Station Sacramento. We are regenerating the rest of them, and
the money is for missionization and the sparing.
Mr. Garamendi. But your budget proposal doesn't provide the
money to do that. Is that correct?
Admiral Stosz. I know we have money in the budget for the
sparing and the missionization. It might not be as much as you
are thinking.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, I am--this goes to the overarching
question that the chairman was raising a few moments ago, and
that is that the budget of the Coast Guard has been seriously
censored by OMB. And the money necessary for acquisition of new
ships is now in competition with operations and for upgrades,
including the C-27Js.
It is essential that we have good data and good
information, because we are--it is our responsibility to make
choices about where to spend the taxpayers' money. And the
current information that we have available from the Coast Guard
is inadequate. It does not provide us with the necessary data
that we need to make a choice about spending money for
acquisitions, for operations, for maintenance, and amongst the
various other requirements of the Government, specifically the
Department of Defense, which is plussed up by some, I think,
$30 billion.
And it appears to me that some of that plus-up comes
directly out of the Coast Guard procurement and operations, in
which case we have got a problem that we need data and
information.
I would like to work with the chairman to put a specific
question--a series of questions to the Coast Guard about the
money that you need for operations, maintenance, as--and also
money you need for the ongoing procurement programs, which
stretch across--which include both ships, planes, unmanned
aerial vehicles, and the rest, so that we can have the data
necessary to make some tough decisions.
That means I need information that is not scrubbed,
censored, and otherwise altered by OMB. The chairman was trying
to get at this, and I will--I am going to support him in every
way to get the data and information that we need directly from
the Coast Guard.
So I suspect we will pursue that, Mr. Chairman. I thank
you. I am going to yield back.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the ranking member. I think, you know,
one of the big things is, too, we are on the Armed Services
Committee. So we see the service chiefs come in all the time
and say, ``Here is what we need, here is what we want. DoD is
not asking for this.'' They go out there and fight for what
they need, right? You don't do that.
In fact, you are highly censored by your overseers at OMB,
so you are not even able to come in and say, ``Here are all the
things that the Coast Guard really needs, OMB can go to hell.
The President says here is the mission that he wants us to
accomplish, and here is what we need to accomplish the
mission.''
That is what all the other service chiefs do. They do
roundtables with us, they do classified roundtables, where they
go, ``Here is, no joke, what we need to survive and do what we
need to do.'' You don't do that. And we are trying to get you
to do that. All right?
We have given you the acquisition capabilities that the
other military services have, finally. I don't know how you
went for decades without having the same acquisition authority
for lead time materials and block buys and all that stuff. I
mean no wonder everything was so jacked up for so long. So we
are trying to get you there, but we need you to fight for
yourselves.
So, Mr. Acton, let me close with this last question. If the
Coast Guard--and, Ms. Mak, you might be able to pile on here--
if the Coast Guard was--is--the Coast Guard is an armed
service. We are trying to make you more armed. We want to
really weaponize all your stuff more than it is. But if the
Coast Guard is an armed service, and it is within the
Department--but it is not within the Department of Defense--if
it was in the Department of Defense, right, at least for those
missions that were not regulatory in nature, do you think we
would be having this same conversation about them not having
the money that they would need to accomplish their mission?
Mr. Acton. Sir, I think, living in a different culture than
DoD is, I am sure the Coast Guard would react differently to
some of the issues that they are facing.
But the larger issue is that the Coast Guard assets are
multi-mission. They are both law enforcement and DoD, and it is
unique in that regard. And that really is what enhances the
Coast Guard's value to the country, is being able to be both
title 10 military and title 14 law enforcement. So, really, it
is a capability multiplier for the Nation.
And so the different areas that we have been talking about
today regarding investments in Coast Guard assets and people
and training, those are really strategic investments and
national issues and national platforms. It is more than just
aircraft, ships, and people. This is important to the Nation.
Mr. Hunter. OK. Let me ask you. Just because you are in DoD
doesn't mean you can't do law enforcement. Like right now they
are in the Department of Homeland Security and they can do DoD
missions. Where you put them doesn't matter in terms of what
they can do in their capabilities. It has to do with what their
funding is and where it comes from.
Mr. Acton. Yes, sir. That is correct. Unlike the Reserve or
National Guard, the Coast Guard does not switch hats from title
32 to title 10. The Coast Guard is at all times,
simultaneously, a title 10 military organization and a title 14
law enforcement. So they keep those two hats on all the time
and don't have to switch. And that gives the Coast Guard some
real operational advantages that the country should be
leveraging.
Mr. Hunter. So my question is, then, is on funding. If the
Coast Guard were in DoD, and not in the Department of Homeland
Security, do you think that their funding levels would be
different?
Mr. Acton. Yes, sir. I think they would be higher.
Mr. Hunter. Ms. Mak?
Ms. Mak. GAO does not have a position on where the Coast
Guard should fit, whether it should be under DoD or DHS.
But I will address your bigger concern of cost. We
currently have ongoing work looking at the recapitalization
base for your subcommittee. We also have ongoing work that is
looking at O&M costs, as well as shore infrastructure, which
just kicked off. So hopefully in the next year we should be
able to provide you some realistic costs that the Coast Guard
needs to do some of these things to meet their missions.
Mr. Garamendi. Can we get back at this in a couple of
months?
Mr. Hunter. Yes, we can. And we will--Mr. Garamendi just
asked if we could take this up in a few months again. What we
would really like to see is your 20-year plan, because, even
when you get all--so say that everything works beautifully, and
more money gets dumped in, and all these new assets, they are
all done, and they are on time, and they are on budget.
You don't know what your operations and maintenance is
going to be. And you said it is more expensive, and I can see
that, it is like taking in a new 2017 truck compared to a 1969
truck that you can just open up the hood and change out the
carburetor or something, but now you got to plug it in. It is
much, much more complex. You don't know what those are going to
be.
And if you have a flat budget, and you are not preparing
for that higher O&M, then you are going to be in the same
situation you are now in 15 years, which I don't think you want
to be in. So you need to get the 20-year plan to us so we can
look at that, and you can look at it. Because, obviously, if
you don't have it, not even you can see it if you--if it
doesn't exist, so you can see what your O&M costs are going to
be.
I think that is kind of what we need, we need to see the
plans. And the 5-year plan you will have to us----
Mr. Garamendi. Unscrubbed.
Mr. Hunter. You will have to us when?
Admiral Stosz. Mr. Chairman, the 5-year plan is under
development, and it is going through the process.
Mr. Hunter. I got you. So you are going to have your
unfunded requirement list at the end of the month. Why wouldn't
you have your 5-year plan along with that? Because then how do
you know what you need, if you don't have a 5-year plan? How
can you give us an unfunded----
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir. The 5-year plan is the first, then
the 20-year plan, and the unfunded priorities lists build on
that. So these are all----
Mr. Hunter. Right, that is what I am saying. You are going
to have--the Commandant said he is going to have the unfunded
requirement list to us by the end of this month, right?
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. So if the unfunded requirement list builds off
the 5- and the 20-year plans, but you don't have the 5- and 20-
year plans, then how would you have an unfunded requirement
list based on them that don't exist?
Admiral Stosz. They are building in sequence, sir, and then
we will have them----
Mr. Hunter. OK, but you are not understanding what I am
saying.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. The unfunded requirement list you are going to
have to us at the end of this month.
Admiral Stosz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. But you said it is sequential, and they--and
that that list will build off the 5-year plan and the 20-year
plan.
Admiral Stosz. So----
Mr. Hunter. So if you are going to have the third thing to
me in 20 days, then why wouldn't you have the 5- and 20-year
plans, which it builds off, at the same time or beforehand?
Admiral Stosz. To my knowledge, sir, that is how they come.
They will all come by the 30th of June.
Mr. Hunter. OK. So we will have them all this month, the 5-
year plan, the 20-year plan, and the unfunded requirement list
in the next 23 days?
Admiral Stosz. And, sir, I can't control the timing of the
process, but that is certainly the goal.
Mr. Hunter. OK.
Mr. Garamendi. If I might?
Mr. Hunter. Sure. I yield to the ranking----
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, you are on to an extremely
important issue here, and it is one that I have taken up a
couple of times.
There is the plan developed by the Coast Guard, internal to
the Coast Guard. It appears as though that plan cannot be
delivered to us until OMB approves it. In other words, censors
it, reduces it, and brings it into compliance with their notion
of the overall Federal budget, which puts the Coast Guard in a
very difficult situation, and puts us as though we are
mushrooms kept in the dark.
We really need to know what the Coast Guard needs,
unscrubbed, uncensored, and direct from the Coast Guard without
OMB.
I think we understand OMB very clearly. Mr. Mulvaney at OMB
has his own vision of Government. I do not--it is certainly not
my vision, nor do I believe it is a vision of Government that
meets the needs of the Coast Guard in protecting all of the
title 10 and title 14 responsibilities that the Coast Guard
has.
So what I would like to work with the chairman on is to get
directly from the Coast Guard uncensored information about what
the operational and maintenance requirements are for the Coast
Guard over the next 5 years, and beyond, as well as the
acquisition requirements of the Coast Guard to meet their
program of record funding requirements.
Without that information, we cannot do our job. That is the
job of making choices, choices about what the Coast Guard
needs, versus all the other requirements of Government. And so
that is what I think we need. I will work with the chairman to
try to get that directly from the Coast Guard uncensored,
unscrubbed. Let's see if we can do it.
And Mr. Acton, you are quite correct. The Coast Guard has
been very, very good soldiers. They salute and carry out the
responsibilities that have been given to them as modified and
directed by the President and the Office of Management and
Budget. However, we have our responsibilities, too. And they
are somewhat different.
I yield back.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the ranking member. So here is what we
are going to do. We are going to have a hearing in July on the
5-year plan and the 20-year plan and on your unfunded
requirements list. Because what--the easy way to take care of
this is when you submit your request to OMB, and they scrub it,
you take all the things that they took out, and you have put
all of those, prioritized, in an unfunded requirement list.
Then, in essence, you have done what the ranking member just
said. That means we get to see the unvarnished, everything that
you have asked for, presented to Congress. That is what I would
like you to do.
So you have the budget that you have--go ahead.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, my experience at the
Department of the Interior is that there is a step in here, and
that is the Office of Management and Budget sends to the
agencies the parameters in which they must then develop their
budget, which is again a control mechanism by the Office of
Management and Budget. But that doesn't necessarily provide us
with the information we need about the acquisition and the
maintenance and operations.
So, I want to be careful here about what we are actually
getting.
Mr. Hunter. And please try to get us as much as you can,
whether it has been approved or not. Like I said, we will have
a hearing at the end of July on this stuff, and hopefully have
the answers by then.
And, with that, the last thing I would like to do right
now, since there are no further questions, is recognize Reyna.
I would like to take a few minutes to recognize Lieutenant
Commander Reyna Hernandez McGrail--you are Irish, Hispanic,
everything? That is good. That is good.
Reyna is a native of Roswell, New Mexico. She is a Coast
Guard Academy graduate with a master's degree in international
and public policy from Johns Hopkins University. She is who
John Rayfield described as a no-joke boat operator, which I
think every Coastie likes to hear, even though you have been
stuck here.
During her career in the Coast Guard, she has served on the
Coast Guard cutters Decisive--and I think the Decisive on that
chart was supposed to be decommissioned, like, 5, 6 years ago.
So good luck to you.
[Laughter]
Mr. Hunter. The Decisive, Haddock, the Key Biscayne, and
Monomoy, which brought her to the Middle East during Operation
Enduring Freedom.
During her tenure in Washington, DC, she served in Coast
Guard headquarters, and as the senior duty officer in the White
House Situation Room during parts of the Bush and Obama
administrations. She then found her service taking her here, to
the Capitol.
She has been with the subcommittee since 2014, and her
knowledge of and experience with the Coast Guard have made her
an indispensable asset to have on staff. Her interpersonal
skills and professionalism every day show she is an exemplary
Coast Guard officer, and she was a great representative of the
Service during her time with the subcommittee.
Reyna's time with the subcommittee is coming to an end
today on June 7th. She will be heading down to Pascagoula,
Mississippi, to join her crew on the Coast Guard cutter
Decisive. On behalf of the committee and the subcommittee, I
would like to thank her for her service, for her time with us,
and wish her well in her future endeavors.
Reyna, thank you very much.
[Applause]
Mr. Hunter. And, with that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]