[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

REBUILDING COAST GUARD INFRASTRUCTURE TO
SUSTAIN AND ENHANCE MISSION CAPABILITY

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

(117-34)

REMOTE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

NOVEMBER 16, 2021

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-240 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
RICK LARSEN, Washington Arkansas
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California BOB GIBBS, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
JOHN GARAMENDI, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
Georgia JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 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 BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
MARK DeSAULNIER, California MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire TROY E. NEHLS, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania NANCY MACE, South Carolina
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii MICHELLE STEEL, California
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
------ 7

Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Chair
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts, DON YOUNG, Alaska
Vice Chair RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation, opening statement..................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation, opening statement..................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 35
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 36

WITNESSES

Vice Admiral Paul F. Thomas, Deputy Commandant for Mission
Support, U.S. Coast Guard, oral statement...................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Heather MacLeod, Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, oral statement.......... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11

APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Vice Admiral Paul F.
Thomas, Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, U.S. Coast Guard 37

REBUILDING COAST GUARD INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUSTAIN AND ENHANCE MISSION
CAPABILITY

----------

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2021

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon.
Salud O. Carbajal (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present in person: Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Larsen, Mr.
Gibbs, Mr. Young, and Mr. Gallagher.
Members present remotely: Mr. Weber, Dr. Van Drew, and Mrs.
Steel.
Mr. Carbajal. The subcommittee will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so
ordered.
As a reminder, please keep your microphones muted unless
speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I
will request that the Member please mute their microphone.
And to insert a document into the record, please have your
staff email it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
With that, I will proceed with my opening statement.
Good morning and welcome to today's Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Subcommittee hearing on rebuilding
Coast Guard infrastructure to sustain and enhance mission
capability. We will hear from the Coast Guard Deputy Commandant
for Mission Support, Vice Admiral Paul Thomas, and GAO Acting
Director of Homeland Security and Justice, Ms. Heather MacLeod.
With infrastructure a national focus, today's hearing will
highlight the need to invest in Coast Guard infrastructure,
including $429 million in the recently enacted Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act and $650 million more for shoreside
infrastructure in the Build Back Better Act, which is currently
under consideration.
As a sea service that is often stationed in remote
locations and subject to extreme weather conditions, the Coast
Guard is and always will be on the front lines. And as an
agency whose roots date back to our Nation's founding,
including the U.S. Lighthouse and Lifesaving Services, its
shoreside facilities are steeped with maritime history that
define our early Nation. With this comes a key challenge: aging
infrastructure.
Under constant attack by wind, waves, rain, sea-level rise,
flooding, and storms, many of the Service's facilities are in
critical condition. In 2019, GAO found that 45 percent of the
Coast Guard's shore infrastructure assets were beyond their 65-
year service life. The Service is operating with a nearly $3
billion facility maintenance, repair, and recapitalization
backlog.
For reference, the Service estimates its shoreside facility
inventory at $21 billion. On average, 10 to 15 projects are
added to the backlog per year amounting to approximately $300
million to $450 million. It is imperative that Congress stop
the annual growth of the backlog to sustain operations.
Not only does this impact the quality of mission-supporting
facilities, but it threatens the health and safety of our
servicemembers should critical failures occur at their housing
and childcare facilities, or duty stations. Further, outdated
facilities could be a demoralizing force over time, leading to
lower workforce recruitment and retention.
The Service reversed its position on the GAO's 2019
recommendation to employ asset line models for predicting the
outcomes of investments, analyzing tradeoffs, and optimizing
decisions among competing investments. I am eager to understand
why and hear the Coast Guard's plan to address this information
gap, and that should say why the Coast Guard has decided to go
in a different path on that issue.
The Service's data and IT infrastructure are similarly
aging and in need of investment. While the Service has
prioritized what it calls a tech revolution, its tech and data
systems remain far behind the curve. The Service has been
operating on 1990s-era hardware and software, which, according
to Commandant Schultz, is at the ``brink of catastrophic
failure'' and could affect communications between cutters and
shoreside units.
The Coast Guard currently operates with a $300 million
annual IT shortfall. In March 2021, the Service released its
first data strategy, and in May 2021, its first cloud strategy.
I look forward to hearing updates on these strategies and any
progress on the tech revolution. I am eager to hear how the
Coast Guard prioritizes investments in its shoreside
facilities, IT networks, and data systems across the Service.
Congress just passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, which, again, includes $429 million for Coast Guard
infrastructure. I commend Chair DeFazio's work on this historic
bipartisan legislation, which provides vital investments in the
country's infrastructure.
Aging, failing, and condemned infrastructure presents an
operational and mission-critical challenge. But this is also a
great opportunity to invest in the Coast Guard to ensure it is
resilient against more frequent and severe climate change
hazards in the future. I look forward to a productive
conversation on shoring up the Coast Guard's aging
infrastructure.
[Mr. Carbajal's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation
Good morning, and welcome to today's Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation subcommittee hearing on ``Rebuilding Coast Guard
Infrastructure to Sustain and Enhance Mission Capability.'' We will
hear from the Coast Guard Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, Vice
Admiral Paul Thomas, and the GAO's Acting Director of Homeland Security
and Justice, Ms. Heather MacLeod. With infrastructure in national
focus, today's hearing will highlight the need to invest in Coast Guard
infrastructure, including $429 million in the recently enacted
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and $650 million for shoreside
infrastructure in the Build Back Better Act, which is currently under
consideration.
As a sea service often stationed in remote locations and subject to
extreme weather conditions, the Coast Guard is and always will be on
the front line. And as an agency whose roots date back to our nation's
founding, including the U.S. Lighthouse and Lifesaving Services, its
shoreside facilities are steeped with maritime history that define our
early nation. With this comes a key challenge: aging infrastructure.
Under constant attack by wind, waves, rain, sea-level rise, flooding,
and storms, many of the Service's facilities are in critical condition.
In 2019, GAO found that 45 percent of the Coast Guard's shore
infrastructure assets were beyond their 65-year service life. The
Service is operating with a nearly $3 billion facility maintenance,
repair, and recapitalization backlog. For reference, the Service
estimates its shore facility inventory at $21 billion.
On average, 10 to 15 projects are added to the backlog per year
amounting to approximately $300 to $450 million. It is imperative that
Congress stop the annual growth of the backlog to sustain operations.
Not only does this impact the quality of mission-supporting
facilities, but it threatens the health and safety of our
servicemembers should critical failures occur at their housing and
childcare facilities or duty stations. Further, outdated facilities
could be a demoralizing force over time, leading to lower workforce
recruitment and retention.
The Service reversed its position on the GAO's 2019 recommendation
to employ asset line models for predicting the outcome of investments,
analyzing trade-offs, and optimizing decisions among competing
investments. I am eager to understand why and hear the Coast Guard's
plan to address this information gap.
The Service's data and IT infrastructure are similarly aging and in
need of investment. While the Service has prioritized what it calls a
``Tech Revolution,'' its tech and data systems remain far behind the
curve. The Service has been operating on 1990s-era hardware and
software, which, according to Commandant Schultz, is at the ``brink of
catastrophic failure'' and could affect communications between cutters
and shoreside units. The Coast Guard currently operates with a $300
million annual IT shortfall. In March 2021, the Service released its
first Data Strategy, and in May 2021, its first Cloud Strategy. I look
forward to hearing updates on these strategies and any progress on the
``Tech Revolution.''
I'm eager to hear how the Coast Guard prioritizes investments in
its shoreside facilities, IT network, and data systems across the
Service. Congress just passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, which included $429 million for Coast Guard infrastructure. I
commend Chair DeFazio's work on this historic legislation, which
provides vital investment in the country's infrastructure. Aging,
failing, and condemned infrastructure presents an operational and
mission critical challenge, but this is also a great opportunity to
invest in the Coast Guard to ensure it is resilient against more
frequent and severe climate change hazards in the future.
I look forward to a productive conversation on shoring up the Coast
Guard's aging infrastructure.

Mr. Carbajal. With that, I would like to recognize Ranking
Member Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chair Carbajal.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today, and it
is great to see the Vice Admiral here in person.
In the 19 years since it signed the Integrated Deepwater
System contract, the Coast Guard has made great strides in
recapitalizing its oceangoing cutters and aircraft. However,
there is a long way left to go, particularly with the
acquisition of the Offshore Patrol Cutter, the OPC.
Unfortunately, the Coast Guard is not only facing the
acquisition bill for the OPC and new polar and Great Lakes
icebreakers, but also a mounting maintenance and
recapitalization bill to repair and replace aging shoreside
infrastructure and the cost of nearly completely replacing the
Coast Guard's faltering IT infrastructure.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today what
processes the Coast Guard should implement to quantify its
shoreside needs so that members of the Coast Guard and their
families have safe places to work and live, the Service is able
to carry out its increasingly complex missions, and shoreside
facilities have an acceptable level of resilience to survive
natural disasters.
I am particularly interested in learning the annual level
of investment that would be necessary to prevent the
maintenance and recapitalization backlog from growing every
year, and whether the Service has the data necessary to make
such a calculation.
I would also like to dig into the relationship between the
unfunded priority list, the UPL, and the overall unfunded
backlog. For instance, have items on the UPL undergone more
rigorous review to determine their importance to mission
capability and their readiness to move forward?
The Coast Guard's tech revolution, as it is characterized
by the Commandant, is in its infancy. I look forward to
learning how the Service intends to piggyback off existing
programs for which they have already paid development costs.
The composite hull vessel which the Coast Guard did not build,
the electronic health records, logistics information
management, and state-of-the-art ship-to-air-to-shore
communications systems, none of which the Coast Guard ever
implemented, prove that the Coast Guard does not have the
resources or the internal expertise to develop such systems on
its own.
Finally, I look forward to learning how the Service plans
to stay current once it implements its tech revolution. IT
systems change so rapidly, and the Service must, at the same
time, both plan for the future and catch up with the present.
[Mr. Gibbs' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation
Thank you, Chair Carbajal, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
In the 19 years since it signed the Integrated Deepwater System
contract, the Coast Guard has made great strides in recapitalizing its
ocean-going cutters and aircraft. However, there is a long way left to
go, particularly with the acquisition of the Offshore Patrol Cutter
(OPC).
Unfortunately, the Coast Guard is not only facing the acquisition
bill for the OPC and new polar and Great Lakes icebreakers, but also a
mounting maintenance and recapitalization bill to repair and replace
aging shoreside infrastructure and the cost of a nearly completely
replacing the Coast Guard's faltering IT infrastructure.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses what processes the
Coast Guard should implement to quantify its shoreside needs so that
members of the Coast Guard and their families have safe places to work
and live, the Service is able to carry out its increasingly complex
missions, and shoreside facilities have an acceptable level of
resilience to survive natural disasters.
I am particularly interested in learning the annual level of
investment that would be necessary to prevent the maintenance and
recapitalization backlog from growing every year, and whether the
Service has the data necessary to make such a calculation.
I would also like to dig into the relationship between the Unfunded
Priority List (UPL), and the overall unfunded backlog. For instance,
have items on the UPL undergone more rigorous review to determine their
importance to mission capability and their readiness to move forward?
The Coast Guard Tech Revolution, as it is characterized by the
Commandant, is in its infancy. I look forward to learning how the
Service intends to piggyback off existing programs for which others
have already paid development costs. The composite hull vessel which
the Coast Guard did not build, the electronic health records, logistics
information management and state-of-the-art ship to air to shore
communication systems--none of which the Coast Guard ever implemented--
prove that the Coast Guard does not have the resources or internal
expertise to develop such systems on its own.
Finally, I look forward to learning how the Service plans to stay
current once it implements its Tech Revolution. IT systems change so
rapidly the Service must at the same time both plan for the future and
catch up with the present.

Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chair Carbajal, and I yield back.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ranking Member Gibbs.
I would like now to welcome the witnesses, Vice Admiral
Paul Thomas, Deputy Commandant for Mission Support for the
United States Coast Guard, and Ms. Heather MacLeod, Acting
Director of Homeland Security and Justice for the United States
Government Accountability Office. Thank you both for being here
today, and I look forward to your testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record. Since your written testimony has been
made a part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you
limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
With that, Vice Admiral Thomas, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL PAUL F. THOMAS, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR
MISSION SUPPORT, U.S. COAST GUARD; AND HEATHER MacLEOD, ACTING
DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Admiral Thomas. Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs,
members of the subcommittee, good morning and thank you for
this opportunity to speak with you today about the Coast
Guard's efforts to sustain and recapitalize our shore and IT
infrastructure, infrastructure that you know is critical to our
Service readiness and enables our mission execution.
I have to start by thanking this Congress, and this
committee in particular, for your resolute support of the women
and men of the United States Coast Guard. As you mentioned, our
Service is in the midst of the most significant surface and air
asset recapitalization since World War II.
The ships and aircraft we are building today will guard our
Nation's shores for generations to come. But as our Commandant
says, every Coast Guard mission begins and ends at a shore
facility, and we must do better at building the infrastructure
necessary to support this fleet of the future.
You have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to
modernizing Coast Guard infrastructure as evidenced by this
hearing today and by recent investments in our Coast Guard.
While Coast Guard personnel take intense pride in their efforts
to support our operations, we continue to face challenges
related to maintenance and recapitalization of our
infrastructure.
Geographically dispersed across the Nation and around the
globe, Coast Guard units range from large, operational, and
industrial facilities in urban areas to small, tactical units
in remote locations. Each of these facilities poses a unique
maintenance challenge, and many are aging at a rate that
stresses our ability to maintain or recapitalize them.
From 2017 to 2020, the Government Accountability Office
undertook studies that examined how the Coast Guard manages its
$21 billion real property inventory. The recommendations
provided by the GAO shined a light on areas where we need to
improve, and it led to our ongoing modernization of our civil
engineering program and processes.
While our infrastructure challenges cannot be solved
overnight, I can assure you that we are taking steps right now,
largely based on the GAO recommendations, which will ensure the
Coast Guard maintains the readiness that the Nation needs and
deserves for its maritime first responders.
With your help, we are investing in modern resilient
facilities that reduce risk to our people, our assets, and our
missions. We are working to execute the nearly $1.2 billion in
supplemental appropriations that Congress provided in the wake
of the 2017 and 2018 hurricane seasons, and the nearly $2
billion major shore infrastructure appropriations that have
been made since 2018.
Because critical infrastructure to support our modern fleet
extends beyond traditional brick-and-mortar facilities, in
2020, the Service embarked upon a technology revolution.
Designed to bring the Coast Guard into the 21st century, this
effort is empowering our people with reliable, mobile, and
integrated technology. Bolstered by funding in the CARES Act,
we were able to maintain mission readiness during the global
pandemic through investments in hardware, software, and network
upgrades.
From mobility applications underway cutter connectivity,
the strategic investments we are making now and must continue
to make in the future across our IT systems ensure that we
remain ready, resilient, and responsive.
The Coast Guard is also making investments in our most
important resource, our people. Thanks to Congress, we can now
access the Coast Guard housing fund and reinvest proceeds from
divested properties into family housing needs. Over the past
several years, we have emphasized improvement in construction
projects for Coast Guard-owned housing, and we have resourced
those projects through the housing fund. From Jonesport, Maine,
to Kodiak, Alaska, we are constructing family housing units
that are modern and adequately sized and serve our members and
their families very well. The Coast Guard remains semper
paratus, always ready, to answer our Nation's call. And
reliable, resilient, modern infrastructure remains a
cornerstone to Service readiness.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify today and
for your steadfast support of our Coast Guard, and I look
forward to your questions.
[Admiral Thomas' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Paul F. Thomas, Deputy Commandant
for Mission Support, U.S. Coast Guard
Good afternoon Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
to testify today and thank you for your continued support of the United
States Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard is a global maritime Service that provides
capabilities to meet diverse and expansive national security needs.
Possessing unique authorities that allow us to execute our organic
missions, the Coast Guard operates daily with partner nations, local,
state, and other Federal agencies to carry out law enforcement,
regulatory, and emergency response missions. We maintain over 45,000
aids to navigation and oversee the Marine Transportation System, which
accounts for more than $5.4 trillion annually in American economic
activity and supports over 30 million jobs. Additionally, as a member
of the U.S. Armed Forces, the Coast Guard supports Department of
Defense operations by providing Joint Force capabilities for the
Homeland and around the globe.
The demand signal for the Coast Guard has never been higher. The
Coast Guard serves on the front lines for a Nation whose economic
prosperity and national security are inextricably linked to its
maritime interests. In this capacity, the Coast Guard protects and
defends more than 95,000 miles of U.S. coastline and inland waterways,
saves thousands of lives per year, and safeguards America's 3.4 million
square nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, the world's largest. Our
cutters and aircraft are operating around the globe to protect American
interests. But to effectively and efficiently meet the increase in
operational demands, the Coast Guard must rely upon a robust mission
support element that ensures our men and women are ready to answer the
call. Shore infrastructure is a vital component of that mission support
because every Coast Guard mission begins and ends at a shore facility.
Managing the Department of Homeland Security's largest shore asset
portfolio, the Coast Guard's sustainment of both new and aging
facilities in a fiscally constrained environment presents unique
challenges and requires strategic tradeoffs. We are making incredible
headway on recapitalizing our operational assets such as cutters and
aircraft, but that progress requires making hard decisions about our
shore infrastructure.
As the Coast Guard modernizes into the 21st century, we must ensure
that our infrastructure, like our assets and people, are literally
prepared to weather any storm. As we work to build infrastructure
resiliency, we must acknowledge this is not limited to only piers and
buildings, but also servers, towers, and sensors that constitute our IT
infrastructure system.
The Coast Guard is committed to ensuring the safety and resiliency
of our facilities to meet mission demands. Based on the nature of our
missions, Coast Guard facilities are located in areas prone to
hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. The
Nation's reliance upon the Coast Guard to serve as a first responder
after those disasters, underscores the importance of our facilities
remaining ready for operations. Since the last Congressional hearing on
the Service's shore infrastructure in 2019, the Coast Guard has
proactively addressed climate related risks by engineering our new
construction to be environmentally resilient. In alignment with the
Department of Homeland Security Risk Management and Resilience
Framework, the Coast Guard is working to identify critical missions and
infrastructure at risk, assess vulnerabilities and liabilities, and
determine solutions to execute resilience readiness. All new shore
infrastructure projects follow configuration standards for new building
design and construction, using updated International Building Codes to
include seismic, wind loading, and flood resistant design and
construction. For the Coast Guard, resilient infrastructure is not just
simply maintenance and construction, it is about building shore plants
that will enable the Coast Guard to fulfill its statutory
responsibilities while protecting National interests.
Environmental stewardship is a hallmark of Coast Guard operations
and a vital piece of addressing shore infrastructure needs. We are on
the leading edge of integrating resilient and energy efficient projects
and account for 92 percent of all facility energy reductions across the
Department since 2003. We also lead the Department in leveraging Energy
Performance Contracts, resulting in energy savings, onsite resilient
energy generation, replacement of leaking roofs with solar power roofs,
and the ability of sites to shelter-in-place while remaining
operationally ready. As an example, in 2020, the Coast Guard Academy
completed an infrastructure project funded through energy cost savings
to increase the resilience and efficiency of the campus' 87-year-old
infrastructure, resulting in a 43 percent reduction in energy
consumption, and a 15 percent reduction in water consumption. Despite
these achievements, the Coast Guard continues to operate in and from
aging and degraded shore facilities, over half of which are beyond
their service life. When funded for critical repairs and
recapitalization, the Service rebuilds to 21st century resiliency
standards that ensure the Coast Guard can respond in crisis.
In addition to traditional shore facilities, the Coast Guard is
also investing in modernized, reliable, and resilient IT
infrastructure. In 2020, the Commandant announced the Service would
embark on a ``Tech Revolution,'' designed to bring the Coast Guard into
the 21st century by empowering our people with reliable, mobile, and
integrated technology. With Congress' support, we implemented a
structured, ``Whole-of-Service'' approach to ``deliver today's
solutions today'' and ensure that we have a mission-ready workforce.
The 2020 Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
provided over $85 million, which the Coast Guard used to make
investments towards crucial modernization efforts, from hardware and
network upgrades that facilitated remote work and telehealth
capabilities, to modern data analytics tools. Additionally, our C5I
Service Center is building modern software development infrastructure,
to speed the deployment of mobile, secure applications. As we prepare
for the future, the Coast Guard must maintain the momentum of the Tech
Revolution's emphasis on IT infrastructure by modernizing enterprise
network architecture and improving service delivery to government and
industry stakeholders.
Currently, the Coast Guard is undergoing the largest
recapitalization of its surface fleet since World War II. Our legacy
cutters have served admirably but are well past their designed service
lives. As we send new assets to sea, we must ensure that the logistics
and support infrastructure is in place to sustain mission readiness. In
cities like Seattle, Washington; Kodiak, Alaska; and Charleston, South
Carolina; the Coast Guard is investing in strategic homeports that will
support our modernized assets while taking advantage of commonalities
across platforms. By clustering assets, the Coast Guard is able to
provide a wider-range of depot-level maintenance and common repair
activities necessary to field the assets of the future while reducing
costs. We cannot rely on the buildings of the past to achieve the
benefits of the future. From piers and runways, to unaccompanied
personnel and family housing units, the shore infrastructure
investments the Coast Guard is making today will ensure the Service's
men and women remain at the highest levels of readiness to answer the
Nation's call tomorrow.
As we modernize our fleet, we must also modernize our workforce. We
must ensure that our training centers are equitable and capable of
providing meaningful skills that translate to the fleet to meet the
demands of a more technologically advanced workforce. The COVID-19
pandemic exposed the infrastructure limitations of the Coast Guard's
sole enlisted accession point, Training Center Cape May, New Jersey. As
a result, the Coast Guard recognized the need to accelerate planning
for more resilient infrastructure that is capable of continuing recruit
throughput necessary for workforce replenishment. Currently, Phase I of
this project is undergoing survey and design efforts as current
barracks and classroom facilities are in desperate need of
recapitalization. As this project progresses, we will continue to add
modern facilities that will house and train our future workforce. We
are also recapitalizing barracks and industrial support facilities at
the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to ensure the Coast Guard's future leaders
can learn in a safe, accommodating environment. Additionally, at our
training centers in Petaluma, Mobile, and Yorktown, we are building
facilities capable of accommodating advanced training aids and
simulators for our newest cutters, boats, aircraft, and IT systems.
Like all Federal Agencies operating within the reality of a
constrained fiscal environment, the Coast Guard makes strategic
tradeoffs each year to prioritize the most critical near-term
operations and direct support activities while maintaining momentum on
recapitalization efforts for capital assets and infrastructure.
Operational facilities like bases, sectors, small boat stations, and
aviation facilities, as well as family housing and support facilities
are among the projects that we must balance based on mission demands.
As we identify infrastructure projects, those determined to be the
highest priority are incorporated into the Coast Guard's Annual Budget
Submission. Until a few years ago, that budget submission was our only
way to communicate infrastructure needs to Congress. However, in 2018,
Congress authorized the Coast Guard's annual Unfunded Priorities List
and provided the Service an additional medium to highlight vital
projects that need our attention. Our Fiscal Year 2022 Unfunded
Priorities List includes $120 million in critical facility improvements
to support new cutters, $131 million in housing, family support, and
training facility needs, $158 million for improvements and
recapitalization of operational facilities, and $19.5 million to
support operational assets and maritime commerce. As evident by recent
budget and Unfunded Priorities List submissions, the Coast Guard is
committed to addressing our shore infrastructure deficiencies.
The Coast Guard must also continue to seek strategic opportunities
to divest infrastructure that no longer supports current mission needs.
As our assets modernize, we are examining the future of the Service to
make informed decisions about force laydown.
In 2021, Congress took a big step and helped us address one of our
most pressing operational concerns; housing for our people, by allowing
the proceeds from divested property and infrastructure to be reinvested
back into Coast Guard unaccompanied personnel and family housing
projects. This provides us the flexibility to address deficiencies and
motivation to seek divestures where possible. To date, over $92 million
has been reinvested in critical housing infrastructure that will
benefit the work-life balance of our personnel. In doing so, the
Service is pursuing an optimal shore facility inventory balance while
simultaneously supporting our Service members and their families.
The Coast Guard's ability to address its shore infrastructure
backlog would not be possible without the support of Congress. In 2018
and 2019, the Coast Guard completed $152 million worth of shore
infrastructure recapitalization projects, improving the physical
condition and resilience of facilities in Massachusetts, New York, New
Jersey, North Carolina, California, Oregon, and Hawaii. We awarded $73
million in construction contracts for projects in Maine, Virginia,
South Carolina, Texas, California, Alaska, and Guam. In 2020 and 2021,
that amount more than doubled as the Coast Guard received $350 million
to begin the buildouts of operational hubs in Seattle and Charleston,
move the National Capital Region Air Defense Base from Reagan National
Airport to Joint Base Andrews, and recapitalize housing for Station
Eastport in Maine. Again, much like with our asset recapitalization,
the investments in shore infrastructure we are making today will pay
dividends for the Nation for decades to come.
Coast Guard shore infrastructure readiness is a critical component
of the Service's ability to execute our 11 statutory missions. As the
Commandant has stated, ``Every Coast Guard mission begins and ends at a
shore facility.'' Your stalwart support of our shore infrastructure
needs, and that of the Administration, ensures the Coast Guard will
continue to be Semper Paratus, Always Ready, to answer the Nation's
call.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and for
all that you do for the men and women of the United States Coast Guard.
I look forward to your questions.

Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Admiral Thomas.
We will now proceed. Ms. MacLeod, you may proceed.
Ms. MacLeod. Chair Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
be here today to discuss our recent and ongoing work on the
condition and management of the Coast Guard's infrastructure.
My testimony includes information from our work on these issues
and the Coast Guard's progress in implementing recommendations
we have made in these areas.
Coast Guard infrastructure assets are vast and include more
than 20,000 facilities at over 2,700 locations. It has often
been stated that Coast Guard missions begin and end at a Coast
Guard facility. Good management of these facilities is critical
to the success of Coast Guard operations.
However, our work has raised concerns, including challenges
the Coast Guard faces in addressing its aging and vulnerable
infrastructure. For example, our work identified that almost
half of the Coast Guard's shore infrastructure is beyond its
service life, resulting in costly recapitalization,
construction, and maintenance project backlogs.
And as of 2019, these backlogs totaled more than $2.6
billion. In fact, in 2018, the Coast Guard estimated that it
would take almost 400 years to address the $1.77 billion
backlog of major projects it reported for that year. Also, it
is likely that the estimated costs to address the backlog are
understated.
This is particularly concerning, not only because of the
amount of time needed to address the backlog, but because of
other potential impacts. For example, we have identified that
deferring maintenance can lead to higher costs in the long run
while also posing risks to safety, security, readiness,
staffing resources, and mission execution.
GAO has made recommendations to improve the Coast Guard's
shore infrastructure management efforts, including reporting
its needs more completely and accurately. Coast Guard concurred
with all of these recommendations and in some cases has taken
steps toward addressing them. Some of these steps include
prioritizing critical infrastructure and incorporating
resilience planning.
For example, the Coast Guard has a process to classify all
of its real property under a tier system and establish minimum
investment targets by a tier. Recent Coast Guard guidance
prioritizes expenditures on shore infrastructure, such as piers
or runways over administrative buildings.
And as Vice Admiral Thomas noted, the Coast Guard
incorporated resilience into shore infrastructure planning,
better positioning itself to prepare for, recover from, and
successfully adapt to adverse events. These are promising
steps.
And the Coast Guard could further improve management of its
infrastructure with additional action in the following four
areas, including employing models for predicting the outcome of
investments and analyzing tradeoffs to achieve cost savings.
Using such models would help the Coast Guard prioritize
investments across its shore infrastructure portfolio, more
efficiently managing resources by disposing of unneeded assets.
Given the Coast Guard's competing acquisition, operational, and
maintenance needs, and project backlog, this could help to
mitigate some of its resource challenges.
Reporting shore infrastructure information more completely
and accurately in congressionally required plans and budget
requests. This additional detail could help the Congress
prioritize funding to address the Coast Guard's shore
infrastructure backlog.
Lastly, ensuring investments in data infrastructure address
its mission and user needs. For example, we found past Coast
Guard efforts to upgrade a key data system, MISLE, did not
deliver some planned functionalities. Relatedly, we now have
preliminary work reviewing a range of Coast Guard IT
infrastructure and cybersecurity issues. This work indicates
there may be gaps in how the Coast Guard has applied policies
in meeting practices to management of its IT infrastructure and
the associated workforce.
In closing, Coast Guard has taken some positive steps, but
could do more to improve the management of its vast and aging
infrastructure. This includes ensuring they have sound
processes to prioritize projects and analyze tradeoffs among
projects. GAO will continue to follow up with the Coast Guard
on these issues.
This completes my prepared statement, and I would be happy
to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.
[Ms. MacLeod's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Heather MacLeod, Acting Director, Homeland
Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Better Manage Shore Infrastructure
what gao found
In 2019, GAO found that almost half of the Coast Guard's shore
infrastructure was past its service life and the extent of costs to
address its maintenance and recapitalization (major renovations)
project backlogs may be understated. GAO also found that Coast Guard
data showed at least $2.6 billion in costs to address its backlogs for
its $18 billion portfolio of shore infrastructure.
The Coast Guard has taken initial steps toward improving how it
manages its infrastructure. For example, in 2019 GAO found weaknesses
in how the Coast Guard prioritized shore infrastructure investments.
GAO recommended that it incorporate resilience--the ability to prepare
and plan for, absorb, and recover from, or successfully adapt to
adverse events--into its risk management. In 2021, the Coast Guard
revised how it prioritizes infrastructure investments, including
incorporating resilience into planning by, for example, identifying the
infrastructure most critical to mission operations.
The Coast Guard continues to face challenges in ensuring that its
infrastructure investments meet mission and user needs. For example, in
2019 GAO found that the Coast Guard has not provided accurate
information to Congress about its requirements-based budget targets for
shore infrastructure in its budget requests and its project backlogs.
Specifically, Coast Guard recapitalization targets for shore assets
were at least $290 million annually, but its budget requests for fiscal
years 2012 through 2021 ranged from about $5 million to about $99
million annually (see figure).\\ GAO previously recommended
that the Coast Guard include supporting details about competing project
alternatives and report trade-offs in congressional budget requests and
related reports. The Coast Guard agreed with GAO's recommendation. GAO
continues to follow up on the status of the Coast Guard's actions in
response to this and other prior GAO recommendations aimed at improving
the Coast Guard's management of its infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ Editor's note: See figure 3 on page 17.

__________
Chair Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent and ongoing
work on the condition of the U.S. Coast Guard's shore and information
technology (IT) infrastructure, and recommendations we have made to
help improve its infrastructure management. The Coast Guard, a
component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), maintains
physical assets at over 2,700 locations where it owns or leases more
than 20,000 facilities, including piers, boat stations, air stations,
runways, and housing units. In addition, the Coast Guard relies on its
IT assets, which include over 400 IT systems. In particular, the Coast
Guard uses the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement system
to track and report mission results for nine of its 11 missions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under 6 U.S.C. Sec. 468(a), the Coast Guard's 11 statutory
missions are (1) marine safety; (2) search and rescue; (3) aids to
navigation; (4) living marine resources; (5) marine environmental
protection; (6) ice operations; (7) ports, waterways, and coastal
security; (8) drug interdiction; (9) migrant interdiction; (10) defense
readiness; and (11) other law enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my testimony today, I will discuss (1) the condition of the
Coast Guard's shore infrastructure, (2) actions the Coast Guard has
taken to improve its management of shore infrastructure, and (3)
challenges the Coast Guard faces to ensure that shore and IT
infrastructure investments meet mission and user needs.
This statement is primarily based on four reports we issued from
October 2017 through July 2020, as well as selected updates to those
reports that we conducted through October 2021 regarding Coast Guard
efforts to address our previous recommendations.\2\ To perform our work
for these reports, we analyzed relevant Coast Guard documents and
management processes, as well as applicable budgets, laws, policies,
and data for managing Coast Guard shore infrastructure. We also
interviewed Coast Guard officials responsible for managing shore
infrastructure and a key data system. Further details on the scope and
methodology for these reports are available within each of the
published products. In addition, for our selected updates through
October 2021, we reviewed Coast Guard documentation and interviewed
officials about actions taken to address recommendations from our
previous reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Close Stations Identified
as Overlapping and Unnecessarily Duplicative, GAO-18-9 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 26, 2017); Coast Guard Shore Infrastructure: Applying
Leading Practices Could Help Better Manage Project Backlogs of at Least
$2.6 Billion, GAO-19-82, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 21, 2019); Coast Guard
Shore Infrastructure: Processes for Improving Resilience Should Fully
Align with DHS Risk Management Framework, GAO-19-675 (Washington, D.C.,
Sept. 25, 2019); and Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Ensure Investments
in Key Data System Meet Mission and User Needs, GAO-20-562 (Washington,
D.C.: July 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This statement also includes preliminary observations from ongoing
work related to Coast Guard IT infrastructure management efforts, which
we expect to publish in multiple reports in 2022. For these forthcoming
reports, we reviewed Coast Guard policies, procedures, and practices
related to IT infrastructure and acquisitions; cybersecurity risk
management; cloud computing; and cyberspace workforce. We compared
these policies, procedures, and practices with evidence of the Coast
Guard's actions to implement them. For each of the key areas of review,
we interviewed knowledgeable Coast Guard officials.
We conducted the work on which this statement is based in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Almost Half of the Coast Guard's Shore Infrastructure Is Beyond Its
Service Life
We found in February 2019 that the condition of the Coast Guard's
shore infrastructure was deteriorating and that almost half (45
percent) was past its service life--resulting in recapitalization and
new construction and deferred maintenance backlogs.\3\ As of 2019,
these backlogs totaled at least $2.6 billion. The Coast Guard owns or
leases 20,000 facilities, which consist of various types of buildings
and structures that are organized into five product lines and 13 asset
types, known as asset lines.\4\ For example, within its shore
operations asset line, the Coast Guard maintains over 200 stations
along U.S. coasts and inland waterways to carry out its search and
rescue operations, as well as other missions, such as maritime
security. In 2018, the Coast Guard graded \5\ its overall shore
infrastructure condition as a C minus,\6\ on the basis of criteria it
derived from standards developed by the American Society of Civil
Engineers. Table 1 shows information about the number of assets,
replacement value, service life of, and condition grades assigned by
the Coast Guard for each of its asset lines for fiscal year 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO-19-82. According to the Coast Guard, its overall shore
inventory has a 65-year service life, and its asset service life ranges
from 6 to 75 years, depending on the type of asset.
\4\ According to Coast Guard guidance, a building is generally
defined as a fully enclosed structure that is affixed to the ground, in
which personnel work or live or where equipment is stored. Buildings
include regional operations centers, aircraft hangars, and houses. A
structure is generally defined as any other construction affixed to the
ground that does not meet the definition of a building. Structures
include helicopter landing pads, docks, and aircraft runways.
\5\ The Coast Guard assigned each asset line a letter grade to
provide a snapshot of what the Coast Guard considered the condition of
its shore infrastructure to be for that year. Considering eight
attributes adapted from standards used by the American Society of Civil
Engineers, the Coast Guard looked at (1) Capacity, (2) Funding, (3)
Operations and Maintenance, (4) Resilience, (5) Condition, (6) Future
Need, (7) Public Safety, and (8) Innovation. As noted by the Coast
Guard's fiscal year 2018 shore infrastructure reports, these
infrastructure grades provide a broad basis for performance analysis
and consider how well the Coast Guard is able to achieve mission
objectives in relation to its dependencies on shore infrastructure.
\6\ According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, an ``A''
denotes generally excellent condition; a ``B'' denotes good to
excellent condition; a ``C'' denotes mediocre/fair to good condition
but showing signs of deterioration and increasingly vulnerable to risk;
a ``D'' denotes poor to fair condition and mostly below standard; and
an ``F'' denotes failing/critical, unfit for purpose, and in an
unacceptable condition, with widespread advanced signs of
deterioration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1: Asset Numbers and Replacement Values, Percent of Assets
Operating Past Service Life, and Condition Grades of Selected Assets,
for Fiscal Year 2018, as Determined by the U.S. Coast Guard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
of assets
Percent operating
Number of Replacement of assets more than 2018
Asset line assets value ($ in past 5 years condition
millions) service past grade \b\
life \a\ service
life \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation.......................................... 334 2,570 63 35 D
Base services..................................... 4,180 880 50 33 C-
Civil works....................................... 6,665 1,872 55 33 C
Community services................................ 1,135 1,394 68 37 D+
Housing........................................... 2,901 2,923 28 26 B-
Industrial........................................ 52 467 57 38 D-
Sector/district................................... 459 2,029 27 16 C
Shore operations.................................. 1,056 1,951 38 19 B
Technology........................................ 1,910 835 24 15 D+
Training facilities............................... 174 421 35 25 C+
Waterfront........................................ 1,577 2,494 55 26 C-
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 20,433 17,835 46 29 C-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Coast Guard documents. GAO-22-105513
Note: Table excludes two asset lines--fixed and floating aids to navigation and signal equipment--which are used
to mark federal waterways to safeguard maritime safety and commerce.
\a\ The Coast Guard does not have complete service life data on all of its assets. For example, the Coast Guard
does not have data on the remaining service life for 16 percent of its aviation assets.
\b\ According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, upon which the Coast Guard based its grades, an ``A''
denotes generally in excellent condition; a ``B'' denotes good to excellent condition; a ``C'' denotes
mediocre/fair to good condition but showing signs of deterioration and increasingly vulnerable to risk; a
``D'' denotes poor to fair condition and mostly below standard; and an ``F'' denotes failing/critical, unfit
for purpose, and in an unacceptable condition, with widespread advanced signs of deterioration. The formula
the Coast Guard uses to assign grades is based on a number of factors, including the results of its facility
inspections, and the percent of assets past service life is independent of the grade calculation. According to
Coast Guard officials, some of its 2018 data on shore infrastructure may not be complete if field inspectors
did not identify and record problems at facilities they inspected. As a result, condition grades could be
overly positive.

The aging and deteriorating condition of the Coast Guard's shore
infrastructure has led to deferred construction projects and
maintenance backlogs. With almost half of its infrastructure past its
service life, and given recent Coast Guard funding requests for its
shore infrastructure, it will take many years for the agency to address
these backlogs. For example, in 2018 the Coast Guard estimated that it
would take almost 400 years to address the $1.774 billion
recapitalization and new construction backlog it reported for that
year--assuming an overall 65-year service life and that funding would
continue at the fiscal year 2017 appropriations level.\7\ This time
frame estimate excluded the Coast Guard's $900 million deferred depot-
level maintenance backlog, which had increased to $958 million, as of
August 2021.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The number of years it would take to address the backlog is
dependent on appropriated amounts, which have varied considerably.
\8\ Deferred depot-level maintenance consists of major maintenance
tasks that are beyond the capability of an individual unit, such as
replacing exterior doors and windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the size and estimated costs of the Coast Guard's backlogs
may be understated. In February 2019, we found that 205 projects on the
Coast Guard's recapitalization and new construction backlog lacked cost
estimates compared with 125 projects with cost estimates.\9\ Officials
explained that they had not prepared cost estimates for these projects
because the estimates were in the preliminary stages of
development.\10\ As we reported in 2019, these information shortcomings
are consistent with previous findings and recommendations that the DHS
Office of Inspector General has made.\11\ We describe the status of our
2019 recommendation below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO-19-82. In 2017, the Coast Guard removed 132 projects from
its backlog that it determined were no longer necessary based on
mission change, alternative solutions, or the need being met through
another project. We did not assess the process the Coast Guard applied
to remove projects from its list. The Coast Guard was not able to
identify the estimated total cost for projects it removed.
\10\ In 2018, list of unfunded priorities, the Coast Guard's
projected costs for individual shore projects with cost estimates
ranged from $2 million to approximately $95 million per project. We did
not evaluate the Coast Guard's cost estimating practices.
\11\ In 2008, DHS's Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that
Coast Guard funding for shore infrastructure was well below the
industry standard--at 0.03 percent rather than the 2 percent standard
for 2003-2006--and that, as a result, the Coast Guard had to use
maintenance funds to execute Procurement, Construction, and Improvement
projects, which the OIG reported could cause a critical situation with
the structural integrity of Coast Guard shore facilities, and which, if
uncorrected, could compromise the Coast Guard's overall operational
capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard Has Taken Initial Steps to Improve Its Management of
Shore Infrastructure
Our previous reports have identified various steps the Coast Guard
has taken to begin to improve how it manages its shore infrastructure.
Some of these steps align with leading practices for managing public
sector backlogs and key practices for managing risks to critical
infrastructure. These include identifying risks posed by the lack of
timely investment, identifying mission-critical facilities, and
beginning an assessment of shore infrastructure vulnerabilities.
Specifically, the Coast Guard has done the following:
Identified risks posed by the lack of timely investment.
In February 2019, we found that the Coast Guard had a process to
identify, document, and report risks to its shore infrastructure in its
annual shore infrastructure reports for fiscal years 2015 through
2017.\12\ These reports identified the types of risks the Coast Guard
faces in not investing in its facilities, including financial risk,
capability risk, and operational readiness risk. For example, as shown
in figure 1, the Coast Guard has maintenance facilities that require
refurbishment because they cannot accommodate newer, taller boats. The
Coast Guard met this leading practice to identify risk in general
terms--for example, in terms of increased life cycle costs, or risk to
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ According to leading practices, agencies should identify the
types of risks posed by not investing in deteriorating facilities,
systems, and components because this is important for providing more
transparency in the decision making process and for communicating with
staff at all organizational levels. See GAO, Federal Real Property:
Improved Transparency Could Help Efforts to Manage Agencies'
Maintenance and Repair Backlogs, GAO-14-188 (Washington, D.C., Jan. 23,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1: Coast Guard Maintenance Facilities Requiring Refurbishment
because They Cannot Accommodate Newer, Taller Boats
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Source: GAO. GAO-22-105513.

Identified mission-critical and mission-supportive shore
infrastructure. In February 2019,\13\ we found that since at least
2012, the Coast Guard had documented its process to classify all of its
real property under a tier system and had established minimum
investment targets by tier as part of its central depot-level
maintenance expenditure decisions.\14\ These tiers--which range from
mission-critical to mission-supportive assets--were incorporated into
guidance that Coast Guard decision makers are to follow when
deliberating project funding and to help them determine how to target
funding more effectively. For example, Coast Guard guidance for fiscal
years 2019 through 2023 prioritized expenditures on shore
infrastructure supporting front-line operations, such as piers or
runways, over shore infrastructure indirectly supporting front-line
operations, such as administrative buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ GAO-19-82.
\14\ GAO, Federal Real Property: Improved Transparency Could help
Efforts to Manage Agencies' Maintenance and Repair Backlogs, GAO-14-188
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2014). Leading practices state that
agencies should identify buildings as mission-critical and mission-
supportive to help establish where maintenance and repair investments
should be targeted, to ensure that funds are being used effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporated resilience into shore infrastructure
planning. In July 2021, the Coast Guard revised how it prioritizes
shore infrastructure investments by aligning its processes for
incorporating shore infrastructure resilience--the ability to prepare
and plan for, absorb and recover from, or successfully adapt to,
adverse events--into its shore infrastructure planning. Previously, in
September 2019, we identified weaknesses in the Coast Guard's processes
for incorporating resilience into its infrastructure risk management,
including considering the extent to which infrastructure projects are
the most critical to assuring that the Coast Guard could carry out its
missions. For example, we found that the Coast Guard had not considered
whether certain aircraft runways and other structures were vulnerable
to flooding following a severe storm, or which were at greatest risk
for flooding.
We recommended that the Coast Guard revise its processes for
improving shore infrastructure resilience, and the Coast Guard agreed
with our recommendation. In July 2021, the Coast Guard informed us that
its 2021 through 2025 civil engineering work plan prioritizes actions
to identify the most operationally critical infrastructure. These are
important initial steps toward incorporating resilience into shore
infrastructure planning, which we will continue to monitor. As we have
previously reported, by aligning its processes for improving shore
infrastructure resilience with DHS's recommended risk management
framework for critical infrastructure, the Coast Guard will be better
positioned to reduce its future fiscal exposure to the effects of
catastrophic natural disasters.\15\ See figure 2 for an example of
incorporating resilience into a Coast Guard facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-19-675.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 2. Coast Guard Station in Sabine Pass, Texas, Damaged by
Hurricane Ike in 2008 and Rebuilt in 2013 to Be More Resilient
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

LEFT: Station Sabine Pass, Hurricane Ike, category II damage to
station.

RIGHT: Station Sabine Pass rebuilt to withstand 100 year flood,
category III hurricane wind speeds.

Source: U.S. Coast Guard. GAO-22-105513.

Coast Guard Could Further Improve Management of Shore and
IT Infrastructure
Although the Coast Guard has taken actions to begin to improve its
shore infrastructure management, it continues to face challenges in
ensuring that its investments meet mission and user needs for shore and
IT infrastructure management. In particular, we found that the Coast
Guard could improve its shore and IT infrastructure management in the
following four areas:
Employ models for predicting the outcome of investments
and analyzing trade-offs. In February 2019, we found that a 2017 Coast
Guard Aviation Pavement Study employed a model that determined the
Coast Guard could more efficiently prioritize its investment in
aviation pavement.\16\ A subsequent Coast Guard aviation pavement plan
recommended actions to use the study results and potentially save $13.8
million. However, the Coast Guard has not employed such modeling to
prioritize investments to all of its shore infrastructure lines,
potentially missing opportunities to identify and achieve additional
cost savings. As a result, we recommended that the Coast Guard employ
models for its asset lines that would predict investment outcomes,
analyze trade-offs, and optimize decisions among competing investments.
The Coast Guard agreed with our recommendation. As of April 2021,
officials told us they are assessing modeling tools used by the
Department of Defense and others, and plan to begin using models by the
end of September 2023. We will continue to monitor actions the Coast
Guard is taking to address our recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ To ensure that investment decisions are aligned with agency
missions and goals, agencies should employ models to predict the future
condition and performance of its facilities as a portfolio, according
to leading practices. Leading practices state that agencies should
align real property with mission needs. GAO-19-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispose of unneeded assets. In October 2017, we found
that disposing of unneeded assets, such as closing unnecessarily
duplicative boat stations \17\ that were identified by the Coast Guard
using a sound analytical process, could potentially generate $290
million in cost savings over 20 years.\18\ Specifically, the Coast
Guard analyzed its nearly 200 stations and identified 18 unnecessarily
duplicative boat stations with overlapping coverage that could be
permanently closed without negatively affecting the Coast Guard's
ability to meet its mission requirements, including its 2-hour search
and rescue response standard.\19\ The Coast Guard has made multiple
attempts in previous years to close such stations but was unable to do
so due to congressional intervention and subsequent legislation
prohibiting closures.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In 2010, federal law required that within departments and
throughout the government, we identify programs, agencies, offices, and
initiatives with duplicative goals and activities and report annually.
Pub. L. No. 111-139, Sec. 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. Sec. 712
Note. See GAO's Duplication and Cost Savings web page for links to the
2011 to 2017 annual reports: http://www.gao.gov/duplication/overview.
\18\ GAO-18-9. In February 2019, we reported that leading practices
state that agencies should efficiently employ available resources,
limit construction of new facilities, and that facilities that are not
needed to support an agency's mission should be disposed of whenever it
is cost effective to do so. GAO-19-82.
\19\ Coast Guard guidance calls for its stations to plan to arrive
to the scene of the search and rescue distress cases within their area
of responsibility within 2 hours. U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard
Addendum to the United States National Search and Rescue Supplement to
the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual,
COMDTINST M16130.2F (Washington, D.C.: January 2013).
\20\ Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1989, Pub. L. No. 100-457, 102 Stat. 2125, 2126
(1988). Id. at Sec. 350, 102 Stat. 2125, 2156. See also, 14 U.S.C.
Sec. 910. See Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-281, Sec. 225(b), 128 Stat. 3022, 3039
(2014). See also, 14 U.S.C. Sec. 912. In 1990, we reported that the
Department of Transportation's Inspector General recommended that the
Coast Guard close 21 stations, and the Coast Guard recommended
additional closures. See GAO, Coast Guard: Better Process Needed to
Justify Closing Search and Rescue Stations, GAO/RCED-90-98 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 6, 1990). We have reported on the Coast Guard's efforts to
close stations over many years. In 1994, we reported that the Coast
Guard had created a new process for determining the need for boat
station changes. We also found that the new process included detailed
criteria to evaluate the appropriate need for stations, such as boating
and economic trends and the availability of alternative search and
rescue resources. The Coast Guard then unsuccessfully attempted to
close stations in 1995 using this process, and again in 2008. GAO,
Coast Guard: Improved Process Exists to Evaluate Changes to Small Boat
Stations, GAO/RCED-94-147 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 1994); See also,
GAO-18-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2019, we recommended disposing of unneeded assets
to more efficiently manage resources and better position the Coast
Guard and Congress to address shore infrastructure challenges. The
Coast Guard agreed with our recommendation. In April 2021, Coast Guard
officials told us that they planned to consolidate four stations with
larger adjacent stations as part of the fiscal year 2021 appropriations
omnibus, in a step toward disposing of the 18 unnecessarily duplicative
stations it identified in 2013. However, as of October 2021, officials
have told us that the Coast Guard reconsidered the planned disposition
of some unnecessarily duplicative stations and no longer plans to
consolidate them. Given the Coast Guard's competing acquisition,
operational, and maintenance needs, and its existing backlog of
recapitalization and new construction projects, closing unnecessarily
duplicative stations could help to mitigate some of its resource
challenges.
Report shore infrastructure information more completely
and accurately. In February 2019, we found that the Coast Guard could
increase budget transparency for shore infrastructure by accurately
reporting project backlogs and costs in congressionally-required
plans.\21\ For example, we found that the Coast Guard had not provided
complete information to Congress in its Unfunded Priorities Lists of
shore infrastructure projects, including information about trade-offs
among competing project alternatives, as well as the impacts on
missions conducted from shore facilities in disrepair.\22\ This
information could help to inform decision makers of the risks posed by
untimely investments in maintenance and repair backlogs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ GAO-19-82. According to leading practices, agencies should
structure maintenance and repair budgets to differentiate between
funding allotted for routine maintenance and repairs, and funding
allotted to addressing maintenance and repair backlogs.
\22\ The term ``unfunded priority'' means a program or mission
requirement that (1) has not been selected for funding in the
applicable proposed budget; (2) is necessary to fulfill a requirement
associated with an operational need; and (3) the Commandant of the
Coast Guard would have recommended for inclusion in the applicable
proposed budget, had additional resources been available or had the
requirement emerged before the budget was submitted. See 14 U.S.C.
Sec. 5108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also found that the Coast Guard had not provided accurate
information about its requirements-based budget targets for shore
infrastructure in its budget requests. According to the Coast Guard, a
requirements-based budget is an estimate of the cost to operate and
sustain its shore infrastructure portfolio of assets over the life
cycle of the asset, from initial construction or capital investment
through divestiture or demolition.\23\ We found that Coast Guard
targets for recapitalization of shore assets exceeded $290 million
annually. However, its budget requests for fiscal years 2012 through
2021 ranged from about $5 million to about $99 million annually, and
allotments ranged from about $5 million to about $266 million annually.
(see fig. 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ According to Coast Guard officials, its requirements-based
budget planning is based on industry standards and that it aligns with
the National Academy of Sciences benchmarks for sustainable facility
and infrastructure management. National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences, Stewardship of Federal Facilities: A
Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nation's Public Assets (Washington,
D.C.: National Academies Press, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 3: Coast Guard Allotments for Shore Procurement, Construction,
and Improvements from its Appropriations and Shore Infrastructure
Requirements-based Budget, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2021
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Coast Guard documents. GAO-22-105513.

Notes: Current-year dollars.
Beginning in fiscal year 2019, the President's budget requests refer to
Procurement, Construction and Improvements, which previously referred
to Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvements in the annual fiscal
year appropriations.
\a\ Beginning in 2016, the Coast Guard started using a requirements-
based budget to determine shore infrastructure budget needs and applied
it for the first time with its fiscal year 2017 submission. According
to this budgeting approach and Coast Guard officials, the Coast Guard's
targets for recapitalization of shore infrastructure exceeded $290
million annually as determined by the U.S. Coast Guard.
\b\ ``Amount requested'' represents the amount requested in the
President's budget, as identified in the Coast Guard's fiscal year
congressional justifications.
\c\ Values for 2013 reflect sequestration.

As a result, we recommended that the Coast Guard include
supporting details about competing project alternatives and report
trade-offs in congressional budget requests and related reports.
Without such information about Coast Guard budgetary requirements,
Congress will lack critical information that could help to prioritize
funding to address the Coast Guard's shore infrastructure backlogs. The
Coast Guard agreed with our recommendation, but in July 2021, the Coast
Guard informed us that while it concurs with the intent of our
recommendation, addressing it is not feasible. We are in discussions
with the Coast Guard about this recommendation.
Ensure that investments in data infrastructure address
mission and user needs. Our recent and ongoing work on the Coast
Guard's IT infrastructure indicates that the Coast Guard could better
apply certain decision processes as it manages investments in these
systems. Specifically, in July 2020, we found that the Coast Guard
could better invest in IT infrastructure to address challenges that
limited its planning and other mission needs.\24\ For example, we found
that in the Coast Guard's most recent efforts to upgrade a key data
system--Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement--it did not
follow key systems development processes nor deliver some planned
functionalities, such as the ability to remediate duplicate vessel
records. While these efforts began in 2008, the Coast Guard has since
initiated further efforts to obtain or develop undelivered
functionality since the release of the upgraded system in 2015.
However, in its fiscal year 2019 operational analysis of this system,
the Coast Guard identified additional major system deficiencies and
user dissatisfaction that it reported require consideration as it
pursues system enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ GAO-20-562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, we recommended that the Coast Guard take multiple
actions; key among them was to follow its key systems development
processes to identify needed enhancements, identify and analyze
alternatives, and objectively select the preferred solution for its
Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement system to meet
approved mission needs. The Coast Guard agreed with all of our
recommendations and described planned actions to address them. In May
2020, the Coast Guard notified us that it had decided to replace this
system. It is too early for us to assess whether DHS and the Coast
Guard are following the appropriate development steps to ensure that
the replacement data system they eventually deploy will meets mission
needs.
In addition to following up on the status of actions the Coast
Guard is taking to address the aforementioned issues, we have
preliminary work reviewing Coast Guard policies, procedures, and
practices for IT infrastructure, cybersecurity risk management, cloud
computing, IT acquisitions, and cyberspace workforce. Our preliminary
work indicates there may be gaps in how the Coast Guard has applied
policies, procedures, and leading practices to management of its IT
infrastructure and the associated workforce. For example, our
preliminary observations suggest that the Coast Guard lacks complete
and accurate hardware, software, and other equipment. They also suggest
that the Coast Guard lacks network capacity planning capabilities that
would assist it in forecasting network traffic demands and categorizing
and prioritizing different types of data. We will complete our reviews
of the areas above and publish our results in 2022.

Chair Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you may have at this time.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. MacLeod.
We will now move on to Member questions. Each Member will
be recognized for 5 minutes, and I will start by recognizing
myself.
Vice Admiral Thomas, I recently had a chance to visit Air
Station Borinquen in Puerto Rico where many facilities were
unusable due to hurricane damage. As a result, medical and
childcare facilities were moved to station housing units.
Captain Pena and the rest of her crew are doing their best to
work with what they have, and I am under the impression that
renovations are being planned for housing, the hangar, and
other facilities at this location.
I know that the Coast Guard operates with limited
resources, but investments made on infrastructure should be
done responsibly and in a resilient fashion.
Admiral Thomas, given the facilities maintenance backlog,
and the poor condition of the Coast Guard's infrastructure, has
the Service assessed the risks to its infrastructure posed by
natural hazards, including those driven by climate change? What
effect does the decrepit infrastructure have on mission
capability?
Admiral Thomas. Chairman, thank you for the question, and
thank you for visiting our team out there at Borinquen, and
Captain Pena is a capable leader. I am sure you got that
impression, and I know the crew enjoyed seeing you there.
Borinquen is an example of one of those places that was
impacted by the 2018 hurricane season, and funded by the
supplemental money, so we are executing that money and
rebuilding that facility.
But you asked me about our process to assess our
facilities' vulnerabilities to climate change. We are in phase
2 of that assessment now. The first phase involved looking at
all of our key facilities and determining which are vulnerable
to which types of climate change-related incidents, whether it
be flooding or fire or sea-level rise. Phase 2 is to go back
and look real specifically at how resilient those structures
are to those types of incidents. And then phase 3 would be to
actually do the engineering to improve the resiliency.
So, we are working our way through that. That will take
some time. As you know, when we do recapitalize our
infrastructure, we do it to the latest standards for both sea-
level rise and flooding, et cetera. So, when we have a chance
to build new, we are building resilient. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Carbajal. Admiral Thomas, what about the impact that
decrepit, deficient infrastructure has on mission capability
and morale?
Admiral Thomas. There is no question, our infrastructure is
critical to our missions, and you can look at places around the
Coast Guard where we have to do our mission differently and
less efficiently because we have infrastructure problems. I
will just give you a couple examples.
This week, earlier this week at our Coast Guard yard where
our utilities are over 100 years old and need to be recapped to
electrical distribution and the steam systems, we lost power
for a couple of days. We need to recap the distribution system
there, and that will make some of our ships come out of the
yard late, which will impact our ability to operate them.
If you go to Kodiak, Alaska, or you go to Charleston, South
Carolina, the piers there need to be recapitalized, and they
require us to operate differently. In Kodiak, if the winds
exceed about 40 knots, we have to move the ships. In Pensacola,
where we have two piers that have collapsed, our ships
sometimes need to get underway when they are not scheduled to
be underway to free up the piers that we are borrowing from the
Navy because they need it for one of their ships.
So, there are absolutely real impacts, but the good news
is, in Pensacola, in the bill there is $28 million for us to
recap there; Kodiak, $130 million for a recap there. So, we are
getting after it, sir, but you are absolutely right, a lot of
operational impacts.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Ms. MacLeod, as part of your testimony, you stated that the
Coast Guard has given its infrastructure a grade of C-minus on
average, which the Coast Guard defines as ``mediocre, in fair
to good condition but showing signs of deterioration and
increasingly vulnerable to risk.''
Do you agree with that assessment? And what specific
actions should the Coast Guard implement to incorporate natural
hazard and climate change resilience into its infrastructure
recapitalization, repair, and maintenance projects?
Ms. MacLeod. Thank you for that question. Yes, the Coast
Guard has made its own grade in this area and applying the
industry standards. It is hard to know what the Coast Guard's
greatest needs and priorities are without more information on
how it is assessing individual projects.
As noted, the Coast Guard is making progress in the area of
resilience in terms of new construction and major renovation,
and we think those are steps in the right direction, and we
will continue to monitor them.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I am running out of time, so I
will now proceed with Representative Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.
And thank you, Admiral, for the testimony.
I have been a big supporter of the Coast Guard for years,
and I am proud to say that I have watched the Coast Guard with
two bases when I first started here 48 years ago. Now we have
got probably more bases than anyplace in the United States, and
because we got more water, that helps out.
But I want to thank you for your comments on Kodiak, and
that leads me to my question. There is $429 million for
projects in the infrastructure bill, where I learned--I was a
traitor and a few other things. But how do you plan on spending
that money or--you mentioned Kodiak. Are there any other areas
in Alaska that you would be interested in expanding the role of
the Coast Guard?
Admiral Thomas. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
We are excited about expanding our operations in Alaska. Our
people love to serve up in that State, and they love to serve
the people of that State, and we're excited about sending six
of our FRCs up there. We are working on home ports for those in
Ketchikan and Kodiak and Sitka and Seward.
The bill that you mentioned has some money specifically
marked for an increase in additional housing in Kodiak, which
is going to be vital as we move OPCs up there. We are going to
build out that home port. And then future investment in Alaska
is getting Kodiak ready for the OPCs and the FRCs.
We have just recently cut the contract that we will make
Ketchikan a temporary home port for the FRC that will
eventually end up in Sitka. We expect that home port to be
built out by fiscal year 2024. That hull gets delivered this
fiscal year. So, we are moving into Alaska, and we really
appreciate your support.
Mr. Young. I appreciate the answer, too. There is a little
of what you call regional conflict because we are looking at
icebreakers and other Coast Guard vessels, and some people in
the lower 48 want them stationed there, which is a long ways
away and costs a lot of money.
We have facilities in Alaska, and I am proud to hear that
you are talking about the housing. That is one of our biggest
challenges to the Coast Guard corps is making sure we have the
proper housing for the people that are wizened and children,
where the crewmen can go out and do the rescue work and the
identification.
What about the Saint Paul Island, have you made any
decisions yet, or are you going to make one on utilizing it as
operational capacity?
Admiral Thomas. Yes, we absolutely like to operate out of
Saint Paul as one of the three or four operating locations that
we utilize particularly when we know where the fishing fleet is
going to be and we need to have an enhanced search-and-rescue
posture.
As you know, we had a fire at the facility there about 2
years ago, so we need to rebuild it. That work is contracted.
It should be completed by this coming spring. And then we have
a couple issues with the hangar there, which is not Coast
Guard-owned, but we are negotiating with the landlord to get
some improvements there. So, we hope to be back into that
forward-operating location early next year.
Mr. Young. Now, one of the things that concerns me is that
for the first time, we have the military, Air Force and Navy--
and actually, the Navy used to be up there--starting to
consider the Arctic. Are you all working together as the Arctic
decisionmaking group, or are you separated programs and one----
Admiral Thomas. We have----
Mr. Young. Yes, go ahead.
Admiral Thomas. Well, yes, we have joint service talks on
all the areas of operation. In the Arctic, we work most closely
with Army Corps of Engineers, of course. But our commander, who
is in the 17th Coast Guard District, is coordinating with his
peers across the services on a daily basis.
Mr. Young. Yes, Admiral, the reason for my interest in
this, for the members of the committee, a lot of activity in
the Arctic now. But mainly, that is where the minerals are that
we need to utilize for the new society: graphite, lithium, the
whole bit is up there. And China is very actively involved in
the Arctic, and they have nothing to do with it, but they are
there. And Russia, of course, is way ahead of us in the
icebreaking capability.
We hear a lot about icebreakers. I have supported, and I
want to have an icebreaker, and there is money to build one.
But the biggest thing we need is the support facilities: Port
Clarence, even as far north as Barrow; Kodiak you talked about
already; Saint Paul. I can go down--Nome--because this is the
big issue and the future of America is the Arctic. And you are
going to play a major role, like I say, you always have.
We have given you a lot of responsibilities over the years
and sometimes haven't funded you, quite a few times. And this
is our role in this committee to make sure you get the proper
funding, and your mission is really dedicated to what your
mission is charged with, rescue, search, and protection. So, I
do appreciate your work in the Coast Guard. And for those in
the audience, thank you. And for the Admiral, thank you for
your testimony.
And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Admiral Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Young.
We will now move to Representative Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Admiral, can you address the basic question--the President
just signed the infrastructure bill, included $429 million to
the Coast Guard. What is the Coast Guard's plans to invest
those dollars, and specifically into the subject matter we have
today, the shoreside infrastructure?
Admiral Thomas. Thanks for the question, and again, thanks
for the tremendous support of the Coast Guard. $429 million
will certainly help us get after this infrastructure backlog. I
think there is about $130 million or so that is going to go to
housing improvements and some improvements at our training
centers. There is about $158 million or so that we are looking
at major shore infrastructure that supports our cutters, $120
million that is directed toward improvements or construction of
new child development centers. So that money will definitely be
put to good use. I don't know precisely where all those
projects are yet, sir, but we can certainly, as we develop
those plans, keep you well-informed.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, thanks. And there is a lot in my district,
you should know that.
Admiral Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. Or probably not, but we will figure that out as
we move forward.
So, this week in the Northwest, we have had some pretty
severe storms, extreme weather. And so, as we talked earlier,
can you walk through the process that your local commanders go
through to do damage assessments on shoreside infrastructure
when you have storms like this and what the timeline is for
making the investment into the repairs?
Admiral Thomas. Sir, we have been watching from afar the
developments on the Pacific Northwest and the weather and
certainly send our sympathies to those who were adversely
impacted by that weather. We have unfortunately a lot of
experience in doing damage assessment after weather events on
coastal facilities.
The process, the local commanders will do the first
assessment when they can get back into a unit if they had to
leave. And then, if there is significant damage or they just
think they need higher lever assistance, we have damage
assessment teams that we flow into there, which are experts,
civil engineers, et cetera. And those assessment teams will
then call in repair teams to make the first-level repairs in
order to really stop the damage. But that is the process, sir.
We have a lot of experience. I have not heard of any damage
reports yet from the 13th District.
Mr. Larsen. OK. Thanks.
And then I want to shift to GAO, if I could, to Acting
Director MacLeod. In your assessment of critical infrastructure
up at the Coast Guard, do you calculate or how do you calculate
climate resiliency into your cost estimates? Is this something
that is additional? Is it folded in? Is it not counted at all?
Admiral Thomas. Sorry, sir, the question is for me?
Mr. Larsen. No, it was for Acting Director MacLeod.
Ms. MacLeod. Yes, thank you for that question. And when we
reviewed the Coast Guard's practice in this area, we did find
some gaps in the analysis here. And as I noted, they are making
steps in this area, especially for new construction and major
renovations.
This is an area that we have seen some progress and will
continue to monitor for the Coast Guard, but this should really
be considered for all projects in the analysis of the cost
estimates, and will really help in the tradeoffs among
projects, considering the tradeoffs.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. What standards do you use in order
to fold in a climate resiliency premium?
Ms. MacLeod. Well, that is really up to the Coast Guard
what standards, but they--yes, I could take that question for
the record in terms of other practices that GAO has done in
this area, but the Coast Guard is evaluating different models
for this.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Well, I guess I will go back to
Admiral Thomas then for the answer to that question.
Admiral Thomas. Well, sir, when we are recapitalizing,
building a new facility with significant renovations then we
use the industry standards for resiliency that are pretty well
laid out. We use environmental standards in the lead standard.
What I think you are asking me is as we look at our
maintenance backlog or our recapitalization backlog how we roll
in that and we are just in the infancy of doing that, sir. That
is the vulnerability assessment that I spoke to, and I don't
know where those numbers will go, sir, once we roll that in.
Mr. Larsen. OK. That is great to know. I appreciate that.
With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. We will now move on to
Representative Gibbs, Ranking Member Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman Carbajal.
The Coast Guard has had a lot of challenges and not really
a lot of success in developing their IT system over the years,
especially the failed electronic healthcare and logistics
management systems being the most spectacular. In both the
cases, Coast Guard is seeking to use Department of Defense
systems, which will save development costs and shorten the
implementation timeframes.
After years of patching what we call the Marine Information
for Safety and Law Enforcement, MISLE, a basic tool used by the
Coast Guard--and we all know it is really a database system to
store data for pollution incidents, marine accidents, search-
and-rescue cases, law enforcement activities, tracking Coast
Guard's regulatory enforcement, et cetera--in May of 2020, the
Coast Guard decided to replace this system.
Admiral, does the Coast Guard plan to look for an already-
developed platform at other Federal agencies or other Armed
Forces to save time and development costs?
Admiral Thomas. Ranking Member Gibbs, thank you for the
question. And there is no doubt you are correct that we have
struggled with IT acquisitions, and the reason for that is that
we have not looked at them as operational platforms. That
changed several years ago. We have now modernized how we
acquire, how we set requirements, acquire, and sustain our IT
systems because they are operational assets just like a cutter
or a ship.
So, I am happy to report that we have now gone live with
our electronic medical records across the country. We are the
first service to achieve that. You asked about how we use other
services. We are doing some mobile applications for our
recruiters, for example. We are borrowing an Army program for
that. We are doing some work for our marine inspectors that
brings MISLE to mobile. So, we definitely look to our peers for
solutions that have worked for them and see how we can
incorporate them, and we will do that as we recapitalize MISLE.
Mr. Gibbs. Because I think there has been a reluctance in
the past to change the operational systems, right, or to
integrate them?
Admiral Thomas. I am sorry, sir?
Mr. Gibbs. I think there has been some reluctance in the
past to--not wanting to change the operational systems?
Admiral Thomas. Change is always hard. I think we are past
that, sir, and particularly because we modernized the process
that we use to develop requirements and then find the solutions
to those requirements. We are doing it a lot more like we do
for buying a ship or an airplane, and that is a big
improvement.
Mr. Gibbs. And then, of course, I know Ms. MacLeod, in her
oral testimony, kind of alluded to the challenges of this. And
the GAO has recommended that the Coast Guard follow its key
system development processes to identify enhancements and
analyze alternatives and all that, and the Coast Guard has
agreed to those recommendations.
Now that the Coast Guard has decided to replace MISLE, will
it continue to follow the GAO's recommendations in selecting
and acquiring the new system?
Admiral Thomas. Yes, so we are thankful to the GAO for the
work that they have done for us and the continued engagement as
we work to implement those recommendations. We have been able
to close out two of them, and we are working on closing a
third, which would leave about seven. So, we are not turning
back. We really have used the GAO report to stimulate a
modernization effort, particularly in our civil engineering, so
we will continue to follow those recommendations.
Mr. Gibbs. It has also come to my attention that the
committee has been told that the best way to find pre-MISLE
information is for us to file a Freedom of Information Act
request. Will information currently in MISLE be available in
the new version of the system?
Admiral Thomas. That is absolutely the goal, sir, and
really, that is part of our data for decision efforts. We are
trying to build an integrated data environment where all that
MISLE information would be, and right now, our data is
accessible vertically only. We need to make it accessible
horizontally, and that will allow us to answer those types of
data calls.
Mr. Gibbs. That is good. I am glad to hear that.
Also, Vice Admiral, in your testimony, you state, ``As we
modernize our fleet, we must also modernize our workforce.''
Obviously, I think everybody here agrees with that. In 2010, as
part of what was called modernization, the Coast Guard
implemented structural changes both in the field and in senior
leadership, and it actually created your position.
After more than a decade, the Coast Guard has a long way to
go to complete this modernization of its workforce. On what
percentage of the Coast Guard workforce have manpower
requirements analyses been performed and on how many of the
158-unit types?
Admiral Thomas. That is an ongoing effort for us, as well
as the manpower requirements assessments. We worked to really
refine the tools that we used to get that done. In some areas
those tools are working very well, in our sector staffing
model, for example. In others, we are still maturing it, for
example, on how we man our bases. I don't have an exact
percentage for you, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Let me ask this final question because I am
about out of time. When does the Coast Guard plan to complete
the implementation of the 2018 manpower requirements plan?
Admiral Thomas. I am sorry, sir? I didn't----
Mr. Gibbs. OK, you have got the 2018 manpower requirements
plan completed, when do you plan to have that implemented?
Admiral Thomas. I will have to take that for the record. As
I said, that is an ongoing effort. It is a big effort, and we
have been focusing on getting the right tools in place so the
assessment itself is valuable.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Gibbs.
Next, we will move on to Representative Weber.
[Pause.]
Mr. Carbajal. Representative Weber?
[Pause.]
Mr. Carbajal. I saw Representative Weber online, so we will
move on.
Representative Steel?
[Pause.]
Mr. Carbajal. Representative Van Drew?
Dr. Van Drew. I am here.
Mr. Carbajal. There he is, good. Representative Van Drew,
you may proceed.
Dr. Van Drew. Minor technical difficulty there.
Mr. Carbajal. You may proceed, Representative Van Drew.
Dr. Van Drew. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Good morning, Vice Admiral Thomas, and thank you for
appearing before the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation to discuss the United States need to
ensure that our Coast Guard is prepared for the 21st century.
The U.S. Coast Guard is expanding operations across the
country, of course, as you know, and across the world. Whether
executing icebreaking missions in the Arctic Circle or
conducting search-and-rescue operations off the U.S. shoreline,
the Coast Guard has a lot to do and plans on doing even more in
the coming decades.
We can build all the cutters in the world, but we need
personnel training to operate those vessels. Most of those
personnel come through the training center in Cape May, in my
district, as you know. Training Center Cape May is the Coast
Guard's sole accession point for its enlisted workforce. Eighty
percent of the Coast Guard's total workforce is absorbed
through the Training Center Cape May.
The facility's existing barracks were constructed in the
1960s, and they are in serious need of modernization. I was
really pleased to work with Commandant Schultz to get phase 1
of the Training Center Cape May recapitalization project listed
as the Coast Guard's number one housing shore infrastructure
budget priority for 2021.
This year, Congress will be appropriating $65 million to
enable phase 1 of this four-phase project. The barracks
recapitalization will increase the training center's capacity
by 1,000 additional servicemembers in a year. This investment
ensures that the Coast Guard will have the workforce it needs
to accomplish its mission at home and abroad, and to create far
greater opportunities also for women in the Coast Guard.
When the training center was last upgraded, the
appropriations cycle fell short, and now its facility is short
an entire barracks. We cannot allow this to happen again. It is
imperative that this current project not fall short. The
Congress is funding phase 1 in fiscal year 2022, and I believe
that we should move to fund phase 2, 3, and 4 over the next 3
fiscal years, so that the entire project cycle is provided for
when phase 1 is initiated in 2024. Recent meetings with the
Coast Guard budget and engineering team confirm that the year-
over-year approach is feasible and strategic. This project is
too important for us to take half measures.
So my question would be, Vice Admiral Thomas, please speak
on why the Training Center Cape May recapitalization is a top
priority for the Coast Guard, and how this project will produce
some more modern and capable Coast Guard workforce and just how
important it is. It will come out better out of your mouth than
it actually does mine because you live it, so thank you.
Admiral Thomas. Congressman Van Drew, thank you for the
question and thank you for all your support for our facility at
Cape May. And I know you have visited there several times, and
that is always appreciated as well. You are absolutely right,
Cape May is the heartbeat of our Service in terms of where we
assess new Coast Guard men and women.
And unlike the other services, or more so than most the
other services, our men and women seem to stay around in
service longer. So, we need modern facilities there. One of the
reasons we need modern facilities there is so that we can
compete with the other services.
If you walk on to the training center the Navy keeps up in
the Great Lakes, you see a state of their facility that is
really attractive to young people who are looking to find a
career. That might not be the case at Cape May. But with your
help, we are going to rebuild those barracks in four phases,
add some modern facilities that will allow us to do our
physical training indoors, because right now it doesn't matter
what that Cape May weather is, our recruits are outdoors. So,
it is absolutely a Service imperative for us, and we appreciate
your support, sir.
Dr. Van Drew. Well, I appreciate you, Vice Admiral, and the
job that you do. And let me just say, as far as the weather in
Cape May, it is always sunny and beautiful, so no worries about
that. And I yield back.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
Representative Weber?
[Pause.]
Mr. Carbajal. Representative Steel?
[Pause.]
Mr. Carbajal. Seeing no more Members going in the first
round, I will now recognize each Member for an additional 5
minutes of questions, and I will start by recognizing myself.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, limited access to
housing forces Coasties to live far away from their duty
stations oftentimes. Limited childcare infrastructure forces
Coasties to split parenting duties with their partners, and
reduces quality family time, and continued facility issues
degrades the workplace experience.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is an important
first step to improving the quality of life for Coasties by
providing funds to address deteriorating facilities. I also
hope that the Build Back Better bill, which provides another
$600 million for Coast Guard infrastructure, is enacted soon.
This will bring the total investment in the Coast Guard to $1
trillion [sic].
Admiral Thomas, how will these investments help the Coast
Guard recruit and retain its talented servicemembers?
Admiral Thomas. Well, Chairman, first of all, thank you
because you are rightly focused on our workforce and their
families. They are the only way we get our mission done and are
essential to Service readiness.
The access to childcare and access to housing challenge for
the Coast Guard is very different than it is for the other
services, because we are not a garrisoned force, we don't
operate out of large bases, so it is harder for us to
centralize those types of services. We operate in small, remote
locations.
So, our ability to support our members and their families,
whether it be through childcare or housing or access to
healthcare, is absolutely vital to our ability to recruit and
to retain. The two are linked. And what we like to do is use
our entire brand. Our missions are compelling to people to join
our Service, but our missions combined with world-class support
to members and their families, that is very compelling. And
that is why it is so critical to our ability to recruit and
retain, and we thank you for your continued focus and support.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Coast Guard's technology
revolution roadmap describes initiatives to improve IT
infrastructure and cutter connectivity, among other things. The
Service states it has completed many of the actions to address
those initiatives, such as improving remote access, doubling
cutter bandwidth, and increasing cutter connectivity coverage
areas.
Admiral Thomas, from your perspective, do you believe that
those initiatives received adequate funding and have
accomplished what they were intended to do?
Admiral Thomas. Again, thanks for the question. The tech
revolution is an important effort. Someone earlier made the
point that it really can never end. You never finish because
tech continues to revitalize or to, you know, need to be
recapitalized, and so, we know that we are not done and we need
to push.
We invested about $100 million in fiscal year 2021, about
$90 million or so is coming. That is not adequate. We are
trying to catch up and then we have to keep up, so we need
recurring--regular, reliable, predictable--recurring IT
investments that are keeping up with inflation.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Ms. MacLeod, I am curious to hear the GAO's perspective on
whether the Coast Guard receives adequate funding and its
progress towards tech revolution targets. What are the biggest
challenges with the Coast Guard's current IT infrastructure,
and what efforts are underway to mitigate those challenges?
Ms. MacLeod. So, our work has shown in this area that the
Coast Guard could be more transparent in its budget requests
and information. This type of information and additional detail
could better support budget requests and better document
tradeoffs and analysis.
Our work on the Coast Guard IT systems and some of these
initiatives that we are discussing right now is really in the
early stages. But we do have a number of studies underway at
the Coast Guard, as we do in other Federal agencies across the
Government, looking at how the systems are procured and come in
online, as well as the sufficiency of the workforce that
supports this IT revolution. So, we will continue to look at
these areas. As I said, we have a number of studies underway
that we will be completing in 2022.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Admiral Thomas, if Congress were to provide increased
funding for Coast Guard IT infrastructure, what would it allow
the Service to do for its servicemembers operationally?
Admiral Thomas. Well, regular, reliable funding allows us
to plan for both improvements in recapitalization of critical
systems that will put in the hands of our people technology
that is mobile, that is reliable, and that is integrated, and
that will unlock their potential to complete our missions in
ways that we probably can't even think of today.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
Now I will go to Ranking Member Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Ms. MacLeod, the GAO estimated in 2019 that 45 percent of
the Coast Guard's shoreside infrastructure was beyond its
anticipated service life of 65 years, and I can go on and give
you more statistics. We all know that, the challenges.
But, I guess, my first question will go to Vice Admiral
Thomas, and then Acting Director MacLeod. How does the Coast
Guard compare and prioritize cutter and aviation assets,
shoreside maintenance, recapitalization needs, and IT
recapitalization when determining how to carry out your mission
to the greatest extent practicable?
Admiral Thomas. Ranking Member Gibbs, thanks for the
question. Obviously, that is a multidimensional math problem.
We are talking about trading off--I mean, we are a seagoing
service. We operate on and above the sea. We prioritize
recapitalization of our ships and our airplanes so that we can
conduct our missions.
When it comes to how do we prioritize our shore
infrastructure, you consider the complexity of that inventory,
it ranges from buildings and runways and piers to towers and
antennas, and then you combine that with our need to maintain
and recap existing infrastructure as we build new
infrastructure for the new ships.
What we have done with regard to our PC&I funding is we
have really focused the investments in the new facilities
around kind of what we call centers of gravity in places like
Charleston and Pensacola and L.A. and Seattle. When it comes to
our O&S money, we have a process that we have the operators
meet the engineers, they understand the risk, both in terms of
engineering and operations, and we prioritize that way, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Ms. MacLeod, do you believe the Coast Guard has
sufficiently strong analysis in place to make these
comparisons?
Ms. MacLeod. In our 2019 report, as you mentioned, we did
find a lack of transparency on how the Coast Guard is
prioritizing among projects, even to include the various asset
lines that you just mentioned. So, we did recommend that the
Coast Guard provide more information on the numbers behind the
analysis, and how they are prioritizing projects.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. So, I guess I will go back to you, Vice
Admiral. GAO is requesting more information so they can make a
better analysis. Do you agree that you are working towards that
goal?
Admiral Thomas. Well, we have done a number of things since
2019 to implement those recommendations, including implementing
the modeling tools that were mentioned. We expect that to be
fully implemented by 2024, but that will allow us to understand
much better what a dollar spent today will avoid in 10 years,
for example.
So, we are definitely working toward implementation of
those. We have improved our prioritization guidance to the
decisionmakers. We centralize some prioritization that used to
be decentralized. It is now a centralized headquarter. So, we
are marching down that road, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Good. I do have a question on process, I
guess. Is there a standard process by which projects are
reported from the field and reviewed at the district, area, and
headquarters to determine which projects are included in the
administration's annual budget request, which projects are put
on the unfunded priority list, and which languish from year to
year?
If so, how does this process weigh age, importance to
mission resilience, and health and safety against one another?
So, you have got to figure out what is the priority, how does
it work up through the system, off in the field to
headquarters?
Admiral Thomas. Yes, well, first, I just want to say thank
you for that tool that we call the unfunded priority list,
because it is very helpful for us to communicate with Congress
what we need, but we can't get to in our base budget. And you
heard GAO talk about how we tier our assets, and those that are
most impactful to operations get priority typically.
The unfunded priority list is a place for us to put other
important projects that either might not be as impactful to
operations or are so large that--like, for example, $130
million for a pier in Kodiak--so large that it would squeeze a
lot of other projects out of a $280 million budget request. So
that is how we prioritize, and that is how we use the UPL.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you. I yield back my time to you.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ranking Member Gibbs.
Before we move on to our next Member, I just want to
correct the record. In my questioning, I said that the total
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Build Back Better
was $1 trillion. I know your eyes opened up.
Admiral Thomas. I was holding you to it.
Mr. Carbajal. It is $1 billion, not $1 trillion----
Admiral Thomas. I wrote it down.
Mr. Carbajal [continuing]. Just for the record.
With that, I will move on to Representative Weber.
[Pause.]
Mr. Carbajal. Representative Weber?
[Pause.]
Mr. Carbajal. Representative Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Admiral, last month I asked Vice Admiral Buschman for an
update on expansion of the USCG Base Seattle. He stated that
Seattle will be a hub for the Coast Guard, but the right assets
need to be in place for that facility to successfully carry out
its mission. From a strictly infrastructure point of view,
where in the process is the Coast Guard with expansion at USCG
Base Seattle?
Admiral Thomas. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
Yes, we are excited about making Seattle a hub. We have
definitely planned to put the three Polar Security Cutters up
there. We would like to put more cutters. We will have to
expand the footprint there, and we are working to do that.
We currently are in the first phase of preparing that
facility for the PSCs. We are about to start the dredging
process. We have additional moneys earmarked to rehab the
piers. But right now, our focus is on finding some swing space
for those cutters that are currently homeported there so that
we can come in and dredge the basin, but we definitely plan to
make Seattle a hub.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Can you clarify, you said the three PSCs
and then you said additional cutters. Do you mean additional--
--
Admiral Thomas. Well, we did environmental studies, sir,
where we said we are going to have three PSCs homeported there
and up to two other major cutters. We haven't made any
decisions. Part of that is to see how viable it is. We need to,
as I said, expand our footprint there if we were to do that.
Mr. Larsen. So, it could be additional PSCs, it could be
OPCs, it could be just some cutters generally?
Admiral Thomas. It is a deepwater port where on the west
coast, we are going to need to maximize what we put there.
Mr. Larsen. All right. Yes. So, is expansion at Seattle
ahead or behind other hubs or other facilities with similar
uses?
Admiral Thomas. I think Seattle is on track, sir. There are
some places where we are probably not going to make our time
targets, but we will still get those ships in there.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, that is great. I appreciate that.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Larsen.
Next we will move to Representative Weber.
[Pause.]
Mr. Carbajal. Representative Steel.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including me in
your subcommittee.
And I am very grateful because we had the oil spill in my
district. So, I want to ask Vice Admiral Thomas. According to
the testimony today, the Coast Guard continues to face
challenges in ensuring that its infrastructure investment meets
mission and user needs. Those challenges have been felt hard by
those who live in my congressional district.
On Saturday, October 2, 2021, there were reports of an oil
leak off the coast and the Coast Guard waited 15 hours before
confirming the oil spill. The Coast Guard claims darkness and
lack of a proper technology caused them to delay their
surveillance, leading to the 15 hours of lost time between the
first official reports and a full confirmation to the public.
This is completely unacceptable. What essential technology
is needed to ensure there is never a future delay in
surveillance?
Admiral Thomas. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman
Steel.
I am not personally involved in that response, though
having kind of an insider's view from afar, and having worked
those types of responses before, outside of the 15-hour delay
that you mentioned, that response seemed to have gone as well
as possible. The team jelled quickly and incorporated
volunteers. They used the right equipment. And it is never good
to be picking up oil off the beach, but they seemed to have
done that efficiently and effectively.
With regard to technology, we are constantly--in fact, just
yesterday I met with the Department of Homeland Security
Science and Technology Director. We are constantly looking at
technology that will help us sense and understand the
environment that we operate in--and for which we are
responsible--better.
Are there some technologies that may have allowed us to
confirm that oil spill quicker? Yes, they absolutely are,
remote vehicles with the right sensors. And we are moving to
employ those where it makes sense.
But I appreciate your concern. We will absolutely learn
lessons from this particular response and incorporate new
technology where it makes sense that we do the job more
effectively.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you.
According to Lieutenant Kay Kneen, investigations have
shown off the coast of Orange County during a storm in January
2021, a cargo ship's anchor was dragged an unknown distance
before striking the 16-inch steel pipe. That same pipe leaked
oil on October 2. Ships entering the port can be sent to 1 of
60 locations as they wait for an opening. These areas are
identified by the Coast Guard, and Marine Exchange approved
these ships to safely drop their anchors. We are talking about
30 tons of weight.
If existing pipelines are mapped improperly or moved, how
can the Coast Guard safely monitor where these anchors are
dropping? Because we have not just oil pipelines, but shore
pipelines and cable lines there. Are proper investments being
made to meet this mission capability?
Admiral Thomas. Well, the Coast Guard monitors the
anchorages. We are not really responsible to keep track of the
pipelines, although we work with our sister agencies to make
sure we have the updated, most recent locations. The issue of
port congestion out in the west coast, for example, is a
maritime transportation system governance issue like many that
we have dealt with before. And my experience says that the best
solutions for those types of issues are at their foundation
industry-led and market-driven with regulation layered in where
it makes sense in order to provide a level playing field and
kind of moderate the behavior of outliers.
That is what I see happening right now in southern
California, as they are taking action to hold ships well
offshore, so that the anchorages don't fill up. And that is
really the best solution to this type of a congestion problem.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much, Representative Steel.
We will now move on to Representative Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
Vice Admiral Thomas, thank you for being here.
Recently, the news has been filled with stories about
supply-chain problems, supply-chain vulnerabilities, supply-
chain disruptions. But an industrial commodity supply-chain
concern has received much less attention, and I am talking
about supplying iron ore to U.S. Great Lakes steel
manufacturers. As you know, that steel is needed to build Navy
ships, Army vehicles, U.S.-manufactured cars, trucks, farm
equipment, appliances, and other equipment.
Unfortunately, due to a gap between the departure of the
Coast Guard cutter Alder from Duluth and its replacement's
arrival, my understanding is that Lake Superior is going to be
without a Coast Guard icebreaking capacity that would ensure
the safe movement of iron ore cargo vessels this winter. Also,
the Coast Guard's current Great Lakes icebreaking performance
standards do not measure any ice impacts on commercial
navigation in Lake Superior. So, I guess that leads to two
questions:
One, what will the Coast Guard do this winter to ensure
vital cargoes like iron ore can move through the Great Lakes?
And two, how will the Coast Guard better track their
performance of this mission?
Admiral Thomas. Well, thank you for the question.
It is not lost on the Coast Guard the economic impact of
the Great Lakes Waterway system, and so, I appreciate your
continued focus on ensuring that commerce can flow up there. I
am not aware of the icebreaker lay down for this winter. That
is something our district commander would certainly manage. I
do know that the Ninth District commander has agreements with
the Canadians, for example, where they figure out together
where the priorities are for ice break. And the Canadians will
assist us, and we will assist them.
But I will have to take it for the record to give you some
specifics on the Alder and what the Ninth District commander's
plans are to make up for that operational gap.
Mr. Gallagher. I will gladly follow up with you on that,
and I appreciate a commitment to helping me understand the
issue better.
I guess, I mean, doesn't it make sense for the Coast
Guard's icebreaking priorities and performance standards to
prioritize a region's maritime cargo and their specific impacts
on its population if it is not delivered due to ice? Perhaps it
is already being factored in. But, whether it is transporting
fuel in the Northeast or industrial supplies in the Great
Lakes, the goal is to ensure interruptions do not occur. Is it
your understanding that that is factored into the analysis
right now?
Admiral Thomas. Sir, it absolutely is. We tier all of our
waterways. And we take into account the economic activity that
is on those waterways. And the highest tiers have the highest
priorities.
Mr. Gallagher. I appreciate that.
I think a consistent theme that you have heard on this
committee, certainly from the ranking member, is that we need
more icebreakers. We need more icebreaking capability. And I
appreciate the chairman's comment that we will have $1 billion
for something, but we need money for icebreakers as well. It
seems like we have got money for everything except for the
things we actually need that are vital.
So, it is my hope that we will continue to work in a
bipartisan fashion to fund urgent priorities such as
icebreakers. And I have been, quite frankly, disappointed on
the lack of urgency with which we have tackled that issue. So
less of a question to you and more of a statement to myself and
my colleagues on the committee.
With that, I yield back.
Admiral Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Gallagher.
Admiral Thomas, could you elaborate on just the icebreakers
right now, the status of them briefly, an overview? Because I
think there is a lot that is waiting in the pipeline. And I am
just wondering if you could briefly touch on that to elaborate
on what Representative Gallagher just asked.
Admiral Thomas. Well, I think Representative Gallagher is
speaking mostly to our domestic icebreaking capability as
opposed to the capability that would go to the poles. And there
is no question that our domestic icebreaking fleet is aging
infrastructure, and it is a system that needs to be recapped as
a system. So, we have a larger icebreaker on the Mackinaw, on
the Great Lakes which kind of does the highways, if you will,
and the 140s that do the side roads that lead to the
facilities. And on places like the Hudson River, our 65-footers
are really old. But they are essential to break ice that
prevents flooding and allows the delivery of fuel.
So, no question icebreaking continues to be an important
service that the Coast Guard offers the Nation, and that
domestic icebreaking fleet needs to be recapitalized.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
And I guess for the record I would just say to my good
friend and colleague, I doubt, Mr. Gallagher, that there is
funding in the Build Back Better Act that we'll be voting for
to supply additional resources for this issue.
So, with that, we will move on to Representative Weber.
[Pause.]
Mr. Carbajal. Having no more Representatives that want to
ask further questions, that will conclude our hearing today.
I would like to thank the witnesses for your testimony
today.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing.
I would also ask unanimous consent the record remain open
for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted
by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Submissions for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Carbajal for scheduling this morning's hearing to
assess the Coast Guard's infrastructure needs, both hard and soft. If
we expect the Coast Guard to stand ready through an uncertain future
with unprecedented threats, it is vital that we invest in
infrastructure to withstand the impacts of climate change and an
increasingly challenging cyber domain.
In 2019, this subcommittee held a hearing where we heard from the
Coast Guard and the Government Accountability Office on the Coast
Guard's deferred maintenance and repair backlog of $2.6 billion for its
shoreside infrastructure, housing, and support facilities. The Coast
Guard now estimates the backlog at $3 billion, with an annual growth of
10 to 15 projects, amounting to approximately $300 to $450 million. And
yet, the Coast Guard continues to execute its missions for the American
people.
In fact, I think the Coast Guard's willingness to make do with
whatever resources they are given has put them at a disadvantage
compared to other services. They don't complain and yet they continue
to do an excellent job despite all the challenges they are facing. At a
minimum, Congress must fund shoreside infrastructure at an amount
sufficient to eliminate annual growth of the backlog to help support
the Service.
The fact that at least 45 percent of the Coast Guard's
infrastructure properties are beyond their 65-year service life should
be a concern to all of us here today. We have finally passed a
comprehensive infrastructure bill--the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act--signed into law just yesterday. For the first time in over 10
years, many of our roads, bridges, and waterways will receive the
attention they desperately need, and this bill includes $429 million
for Coast Guard facilities, an important first step. And as we continue
to push for the Build Back Better Act, which includes $650 million for
climate-resilient Coast Guard shoreside infrastructure, it is clear
this hearing has come at a critical moment.
Beyond the fact that Coast Guard missions rely on fully operational
facilities, Coasties and their families live and work across thousands
of housing and childcare facilities and workstations that require
infrastructure upgrades. These facilities are falling apart around our
service members and that is unacceptable.
Currently, many Coast Guard assets and facilities are vulnerable to
human-caused climate change--sea-level rise, more intense storms and
sunny day flooding, and more frequent and longer wildfire seasons.
We're seeing extreme and shifting climate patterns along our country's
coasts, and the need to incorporate resilience into these proposed
infrastructure upgrades is critical. I look forward to hearing more
about the Coast Guard's strategic plans to address climate change
impacts.
As our maritime interests are intrinsically connected to our
economy and national security, it is imperative to prioritize better
preparation for the Coast Guard to ensure mission readiness and
capability. Every Coast Guard mission begins and ends at a shoreside
facility.
I recognize that there are restraints which hinder the Coast Guard
from requesting what funding is fully needed, and that has affected the
Service's bottom line. However, we can no longer leave the Coast Guard
by the wayside. I will remain a vocal advocate for addressing this
shoreside backlog and assisting the Coast Guard in fulfilling its
missions with the requisite resources.
I also expect the Coast Guard to step up. Every single branch of
the Armed Forces has developed a comprehensive plan for addressing
climate risks within their shoreside capital planning strategy, and we
are anxiously awaiting the Coast Guard's plan, which is still under
development. This is a vital tool to prepare the Service for the
uncertain future impacts of climate change.
We know that there several viable recapitalization and maintenance
projects targeting shoreside infrastructure proposed by the GAO. I look
forward to hearing about these recommendations from Acting Director
MacLeod.
Additionally, I hope to hear about the status of the Coast Guard's
``tech revolution.'' The Coast Guard itself attests that it is
operating with a $200 million deficit, as its data systems continue to
fall behind. I want to hear solutions about what Congress can do to
fill this gap. It is essential that this agency's workforce has access
to adequate technological capabilities for mission readiness.
Through these past few years, we've seen the Coast Guard
successfully phase in several new classes of cutters with more to come.
However, it is crucial to provide robust shoreside facilities and
software upgrades to accommodate these assets. It is pointless to fund
these new cutters if they'll continue to face the same operational
challenges. I will continue to work to ensure that the Coast Guard is
appropriately funded and that the workforce who keep the service
operating is not neglected.
I thank Vice Admiral Thomas and Acting Director MacLeod for
appearing today.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Carbajal, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
Next year, it will be 20 years since the Coast Guard entered into
what was projected to be a 20-year recapitalization of its ocean-going
assets.
The focus on recapitalizing the cutters and aircraft that allow the
Service to carry out its at-sea mission is understandable. However, it
has drawn resources away from needed ongoing maintenance and
recapitalization of shoreside facilities and left no resources
available for keeping IT systems current.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today what resources
and timelines are necessary to make Coast Guard shoreside facilities:
safe to work and live in,
sufficient to meet the Service's mission needs, and
sufficiently resilient to withstand natural disasters.

I also look forward to hearing how the Coast Guard intends to
upgrade, or, in some areas like with an electronic health records
system, establish usable 21st century IT systems. Without such systems,
the Service will be unable to adequately perform its day-to-day safety,
regulatory, law enforcement and human resource missions.
Thank you, Chair Carbajal. I yield back.

Appendix

----------

Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Vice Admiral Paul F. Thomas,
Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, U.S. Coast Guard

Question 1.a. The Coast Guard's Aids to Navigation Team (ANT)
Saugerties is in upstate New York. The men and women there perform
critical missions for upstate New Yorkers including aids to navigation
along the Hudson River, ice breaking, and funeral honors. We have heard
from our colleague Rep. Delgado that ANT Saugerties has significant
shoreside infrastructure needs, inadequate perimeter security, and
lacks an on-base boat ramp. Does the Coast Guard recognize the
immediate infrastructure needs of ANT Saugerties and where are these
needed improvements on your priorities list?
Answer. Thank you for your support and advocacy for Coast Guard
infrastructure needs. The Coast Guard continues to identify and
validate the infrastructure needs of ANT Saugerties. There is $700,000
of approved or contracted Depot Level Maintenance projects to include:
increasing the septic system's capacity, garage reconfiguration, and
roof replacement and garage insulation.

Question 1.b. It is my understanding that total facilities upgrade
on the Coast Guard's Unfunded Priority List only amounts to $429
million which falls far short of the nearly $3 billion recapitalization
and maintenance backlog total. Where does ANT Saugerties fall on this
list?
Answer. Through your support and advocacy for Coast Guard
infrastructure needs, Congress appropriated $309 million for projects
on the Coast Guard's Unfunded Priority List (UPL) for Procurement
Construction and Improvement (PC&I) investments. Though ANT Saugerties
projects were not on the Coast Guard's FY 2022 UPL, backlog projects
for ANT Saugerties' across PC&I, Depot-Level Maintenance (DLM), and
Organizational-Level Maintenance (OLM) items are important backlog
items and will be scheduled for completion once additional funding is
available.

Question 1.c. Are the investments needed at ANT Saugerties
Organizational-Level Maintenance (OLM) or Depot-Level Maintenance?
Answer. ANT Saugerties projects would require additional OLM, DLM,
and PC&I investments to reduce all existing backlog items.

[all]