U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–287 PDF 2006

COAST GUARD MISSION CAPABILITIES

(109–72)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 11, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington,ViceChair

CONNIE MACK, Florida

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

BOB FILNER, California, Ranking Democrat

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Justice, Rear Admiral Wayne E., Director of Enforcement and Incident Management, U.S. Coast Guard ................................................................................. 4

Nimmich, Rear Admiral Joseph L., Assistant Commandant for Policy and

Planning, U.S. Coast Guard ................................................................................ 4

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER OF CONGRESS

LoBiondo, Hon. Frank A., of New Jersey .............................................................. 34

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Justice, Rear Admiral Wayne E ............................................................................. 18

Nimmich, Rear Admiral Joseph L .......................................................................... 18

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Kelly, Hon. Sue, a Representative in Congress from New York, U.S. Coast

Guard ship photographs ...................................................................................... 12

Justice, Rear Admiral Wayne E., Director of Enforcement and Incident Management, U.S. Coast Guard, and Rear Admiral Joseph L. Nimmich, Assistant Commandant for Policy and Planning, U.S. Coast Guard:

Rescue 21 Ground Subsystem Installation timeline, chart .............................. 16

Responses to questions from Rep Brown-White ................................................ 26

(1)

COAST GUARD MISSION CAPABILITIES

May 11, 2006,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2167,

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Frank A. LoBiondo

[Chairman of the committee] presiding.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The Subcommittee is coming to

order, and the Subcommittee is meeting this morning to review the

Coast Guard’s capabilities to carry out its many traditional maritime homeland security missions, as well as to examine the

progress of several systems designed to enhance maritime domain

awareness.

Over the last five years, the Coast Guard’s budget, personnel

level and mission scope have expanded to meet the Service’s increased responsibility for maritime homeland security. However, it

is unclear whether these enhanced maritime homeland security responsibilities are negatively affecting the Coast Guard’s responsibility to carry out its many traditional missions. A GAO report

in 2004 revealed that resource hours for many of the Coast Guard’s

traditional missions have decreased as demands of the port security missions have increased.

While I do not believe the number of hours devoted to each mission is a true indication of mission performance, I am concerned

that the Coast Guard’s traditional missions may be suffering as a

result of the priority level of homeland security missions. At the

same time, the Coast Guard’s legacy vessels are increasingly unavailable, due to operational restrictions or unscheduled maintenance, caused by the unexpected deterioration of the assets.

For example, the 110-foot patrol boat fleet has experienced numerous hull failures, creating an overall readiness gap. These vessels will be replaced under the Deepwater program. But I am very,

very concerned how any shortfall in asset readiness will affect the

Coast Guard’s mission capabilities in the meantime.

I hope to hear more this morning from the Coast Guard’s plans

to maintain a balance between all its missions and about the actions the Coast Guard is taking to improve the efficiency of each

of its missions.

The Coast Guard currently is in the process of employing improved technology systems to enhance its awareness of activities

occurring within the maritime domain. The Coast Guard has begun

the national implementation of the Automatic Identification Sys-
2

tem, AIS, in U.S. ports and coastal waters. AIS will enhance the

Coast Guard’s capabilities to target and track vessels as they enter

and exit our Nation’s ports. This system, coupled with long range

vessel tracking systems, will allow the Coast Guard to monitor

commercial vessel traffic up to 2,000 miles from shore.

Under current law, the Coast Guard is required to develop and

implement a long range vessel tracking system. However, no such

system is in place today. I believe we must extend our tracking capabilities beyond our immediate coastal waters. I realize that the

Coast Guard is working through the International Maritime Association to develop international standards for such a system, but

this should not stop the United States from instituting its own program in the interim. I hope the witnesses will provide us with an

update on this important program and an idea of when and where

we should expect a final system to be implemented.

Lastly, the Coast Guard is in the process of recapitalizing its

maritime control command and communications system through

the Rescue 21 program. This program will allow the Coast Guard

personnel to respond faster to maritime emergencies through the

use of directional finding equipment that will aid in locating distressed mariners. Rescue 21 is already in place in my home State

of New Jersey, and we have seen the tremendous upgrades that

this program provides.

I hope to hear more about the plan for the implementation of this

system nationwide and on how the Coast Guard plans to incorporate the capabilities of this program with the Service’s other

maritime domain awareness initiatives.

I want to again thank the witnesses for coming this morning. We

look forward to hearing your testimony. Now I will turn it over to

Mr. Filner.

Mr. FILNER. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

this hearing.

As you may remember, several years ago when Admiral Collins

testified before this Committee, he said that the multi-mission approach of the Coast Guard means they cannot carry out any of

their missions optimally, but they can provide them in the most

cost effective manner for our Nation. If we were to have different

single purpose agencies for the various Coast Guard missions, they

might be more successful carrying out those missions, but it would

cost a lot more.

Since the transfer of the Coast Guard from the Department of

Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security, we have

seen a reduction of resources in traditional Coast Guard missions

and an increase in homeland security missions of the Coast Guard.

In the President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, the Administration is proposing to cut funding for marine safety programs

from $502 million to $453 million, and cutting funding for search

and rescue missions from $629 million to $569 million. Meanwhile,

funding for port security would increase from $1.2 to $1.4 billion.

Now, the automatic identification system mentioned by the

Chairman was developed as a collision avoidance system to help

protect ships from colliding in our waters. The law requires, as you

know, all commercial vessels over 65 feet long and all towing vessels over 26 feet to have an AIS system on board.
3

However, the Coast Guard’s own regulations only require AIS

systems for those vessels that operate in a so-called vessel traffic

service area. As a result, if a towing vessel operates above Baton

Rouge, Louisiana, they are required by law but not Coast Guard

regulation to have an AIS system on board. I think it is time for

the Coast Guard to recognize that this system was developed for

prevention of marine casualties and not solely as a means of tracking vessels for homeland security purposes. Just because the Coast

Guard can’t track a vessel on the Mississippi River north of Baton

Rouge doesn’t mean that the vessels aren’t required by law to have

that AIS transponder.

Similarly, Congress has required these same vessels to have electronic charts on board beginning January 1st of 2007. However, the

Coast Guard has not yet prescribed any regulations telling them

what kind of electronic charts they have to have on board. Again,

just because the Coast Guard doesn’t prescribe the standards for

electronic charts doesn’t mean the vessel owners don’t have to have

them.

Congress wrote this statutory requirement to prevent accidents,

like the one where the captain of the towing vessel Mauvilla got

lost in the fog and struck a railroad bridge on September 22nd of

1993. Shortly thereafter, the Amtrak train, Sunset Limited, crossed

the bridge and plunged into the waterway, killing 45 people. Electronic charts with GPS can prevent these types of disasters. So the

Coast Guard, I think, needs to provide the resources necessary for

the marine safety program to prescribe these regulations on time

for the industry to comply with our statutory deadline.

If the Coast Guard is not committed or cannot carry out these

statutory responsibilities for programs like marine safety, then

maybe it is time that these functions be transferred back to the Department of Transportation. Vessel safety inspections, licensing of

mariners, documentation of registration of ships, are exactly the

same functions that are carried out by DOT today for both aviation

and rail. Those safety responsibilities for these other modes of

transportation were not transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, because they were not thought to be directly related

to our security. But in fact, these safety missions of the Coast

Guard were not transferred to the Coast Guard until after World

War II and had been carried out previously by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation.

So these are issues I hope we explore today, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for scheduling this hearing. I look forward to working

with you to ensure that there continues to be adequate support for

all of the Coast Guard’s non-homeland security missions as well as

their homeland security function.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Filner.

We are very pleased with the panel that has joined us. We have

Rear Admiral Joseph L. Nimmich, Assistant Commander for Policy

and Planning of the United States Coast Guard and Rear Admiral

Wayne E. Justice, Director of Enforcement and Incident Management for the United States Coast Guard.

We thank you very much for being here. Admiral Justice, please

proceed.
4

TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL WAYNE E. JUSTICE, DIRECTOR

OF ENFORCEMENT AND INCIDENT MANAGEMENT, UNITED

STATES COAST GUARD; REAR ADMIRAL JOSEPH L. NIMMICH,

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR POLICY AND PLANNING,

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Admiral JUSTICE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished

members of the Committee.

It is our pleasure to appear before you today representing the

men and women of the Coast Guard to discuss our continuing success in balancing the Coast Guard’s organizational performance

across our missions. Additionally, we will provide you with an update on the Coast Guard’s ongoing efforts to improve our mission

performance for the scope and application of technology to the Nation’s maritime domain awareness needs. I ask that my written

statement be entered into the hearing record.

The Coast Guard’s world of work is our oceans, lakes, rivers, harbors and our waterways. It is the maritime domain and it is

unique. Distinct from land borders characterized by clear, easily

distinguished legal boundaries, our oceans represent the last global

commons. It is fundamental to our own and the international communities’ economic prosperity.

As a result, maritime safety and security are not just issues of

U.S. national interest, but of global stability. The maritime domain

is extremely intricate and unparalleled by the variety of users.

Our Nation has built a Coast Guard within the Department of

Homeland Security that is able to successfully operate in this complex and unique environment. The Coast Guard exercises authorities and deploys capabilities to guarantee the safety and security

of the U.S. maritime domain. That’s who we are: military, multimission and maritime.

While the character and the nature of our service are clear, our

missions are by no means static. New threats emerge as others are

mitigated, and the Coast Guard’s capabilities, competencies, organizational structure and processes must evolve accordingly. The

Coast Guard must be steadfast in its character but adaptive in its

methods.

The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for maritime homeland security, a role supported by its unique complement of authorities, maritime capabilities, proven competencies and longstanding domestic international partnerships. Carrying out this

role requires a Coast Guard that is ready to act, enabled by awareness and well equipped.

In addition to current activity levels, focus should be on examining the Coast Guard’s results with respect to its performance targets and the degree to which the Coast Guard continues to mitigate

risks for me in the maritime domain across all missions. The post–

9/11 environment demands that we focus on addressing the

threats, reduce risk in the maritime domain and strive to achieve

our performance goals in all mission areas.

The Coast Guard has successfully insured that both homeland

security and non-homeland security missions are properly executed. We met 8 of our 11 mission goals in fiscal year 2005 through

a balanced allocation of resources across all Coast Guard mission

programs. While we do not have the final results of the fiscal year
5

2006 performance, all indications are that the balance of performance will be similar to that of 2005.

Coast Guard forces are flexible, rapidly deployable and able to respond to crises in a full range of capabilities. The Coast Guard has

adapted to growing mission demands, to enhanced maritime security, while continuing to meet other mission requirements. Examples of these growing demands include natural disaster response,

drug and migrant interdiction, military security, and support for

Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

Looking forward to fiscal year 2007, our budgets and missions

further strengthens the Coast Guard preparedness across all our

missions and enhances our capability to respond to all hazards and

threats within the maritime domain. Our fiscal year 2007 budget

submission, among other things, reduces the inflationary cost gaps

for depot level maintenance and energy resources, supports the medium endurance cutter mission affecting this project and funds

Deepwater logistic support.

Equally important to readiness and awareness is equipping and

training the Coast Guard personnel with capabilities and competencies to respond effectively. For example, the advance notice of

arrival requires vessels entering the United States, it is critical to

understand who and what is arriving in order to identify potential

threats. However, if Coast Guard assets do not have the capabilities necessary to deal with these identified threats early and effectively, an opportunity to mitigate risk is lost.

Fiscal year 2007 budget initiatives include funding the Deepwater modernization program, Rescue 21, National Capital Region

Air Defense Infrastructure and Operations, enhancements to maritime security and response team, and our airborne use of force operations. Additionally, securing our vast maritime borders depends

upon our ability to enhance maritime domain awareness, which

Rear Admiral Nimmich will further discuss.

Thank you. It is an honor to be here, sirs, and I look forward to

answering your questions.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Admiral Justice.

I would like to ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Kelly be allowed to participate in this hearing. Thank you.

Admiral Nimmich, please proceed.

Admiral NIMMICH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be here with

you today to discuss the Coast Guard’s maritime domain awareness

efforts. Because of its vast size and complex nature, the maritime

domain is particularly susceptible to the exploitation by individuals, organizations and nations. It uniquely facilitates freedom of

movement and flow of goods while allowing people, cargo and conveyances to transit with a degree of anonymity generally unavailable with land and air movement.

To counter these threats, the foundation of our maritime strategy

relies on three key points: achieving maritime domain awareness,

establishing and leading a maritime security regime; and the deployment of effective and integrated operational capability. These

are not standalone goals, but rather part of an active system of layered maritime security. Enhancing our awareness in the maritime

domain will only be made possible by improving our ability to col-
6

lect, fuse, analyze, display and disseminate actionable information

and intelligence to our operational commanders.

This awareness must become increasingly comprehensive as potential threats approach the U.S. coast. We must know what is normal and what is not normal throughout the marine transportation

system and the maritime domain, so we can best assess potential

risks and take the appropriate actions.

The collection to dissemination process emphasizes unity of effort

between all levels of government, the private sector and our international partners with the following goals in mind: enhance transparency in the maritime domain to detect, deter and defeat threats

as early and as distant from our shores as possible; enable accurate, dynamic and competent decisions and responses to the full

spectrum of the maritime threat; persistently monitor vessels and

craft, cargo, crews and passengers, in identified areas of interest in

the global maritime domain, and then fully adhere to the law to ensure the freedom of navigation, the efficient flow of commerce and

individual rights.

Thanks to the strong support of the Administration, Congress

and this Committee in particular, a number of initiatives are underway to transform Coast Guard capabilities to align with these

national goals and the efforts of our partners. However, we must

do more than provide improved capabilities. Our efforts must also

include policy, technology and operation contributions that will enable enhanced global maritime security.

I would like to provide you with three examples related to partnerships, research and technology deployment. In partnerships, we

are establishing partnerships to share information and better leverage resources. These efforts include partnerships with Federal departments such as the Project Seahawk in Charleston, and the

Joint Harbor Operations Centers with the Navy and other partners

in San Diego and the Hampton Roads.

Internationally, we are developing information sharing agreements with a number of other maritime nations, as well as pursuing global solutions at the IMO, International Maritime Organization. In research, we are also partnering with the Department of

Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, as well as

numerous entities within the Department of Defense to explore

technological solutions to some of our thorniest problems.

We have just completed the first stage of an effort to look at

probably our most difficult problem: assessing, collating and organizing all the relevant, existing data about a given vessel, its cargo

and its persons and identifying that and tracking it with the vessel.

Technological deployment, we are finally taking a serious and deliberate look at our needs and how to prioritize and address them

with technology that is available today.

Through the Presidentially-chartered Maritime Domain Awareness Implementation team, our senior officials from across every

Federal department are looking at their roles, responsibilities, existing capabilities and gaps in the Nation’s maritime awareness.

The MDA implementation team will develop, among other things,

a coherent, integrated, interagency investment strategy that will

help leverage existing capabilities and guide future budget efforts.
7

Mr. Chairman, this Committee has played a significant role in

the Coast Guard’s recent noteworthy achievements and our ability

to balance all of its post–9/11 missions. I would like to thank you

for your strong support on behalf of the military, our civilian and

our auxiliary volunteers.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Admiral.

I would like to turn to Mr. Filner to start off questions.

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Admirals, for being here. When we began this experiment of giving the

Coast Guard new homeland security duties on top of the traditional

role of the Coast Guard, we all wondered aloud, I think, whether

that could be done successfully, and whether there were sufficient

resources and sufficient adaptability of the organization to do that.

And let me just ask some questions about that, if I may. As I understand it, you have created sectors in your organization that

merge maritime safety with operations centers. Now, that may

make sense for homeland security. But the other aspects of your

role, for example, marine safety, may be compromised. For example, can it happen that someone with little or no experience in marine safety be put in charge of the whole operation in a port, like

a helicopter pilot? Is that possible under that new organization and

how do you compensate for that?

Admiral JUSTICE. Great question, sir.

We absolutely look at the skills sets of our sector commanders.

I will speak from my experience. I just spent three and a half years

in Miami, sir, where we stood up sectors. We made sure across the

Seventh Coast Guard District, as we put people in San Juan and

St. Petersburg and Miami and Key West and Charleston and Jacksonville that the skills sets required, whether they be search and

rescue, law enforcement, maritime security and safety, were filled

by the commanding officers.

And if the CO, if the commanding officer didn’t come in with that

strongest background in one of the missions, he made sure that the

executive officer, the deputy, the number two person, had that skill

set. That was done very distinctly and with great forethought, sir.

Mr. FILNER. I’m sorry you didn’t use the West Coast for your example.

[Laughter.]

Mr. FILNER. But they may put me in charge of the San Diego sector, and that really would be a problem.

Have you thought about hiring, for example, civilian maritime

safety officers or inspectors who would have experience directly in

that field? You rotate people around, you have to try these balancing acts. Do you have any plans to hire civilian inspectors?

Admiral JUSTICE. Specifically, I can’t answer that, but I do know

that we absolutely have that option and we do take the opportunity

to hire civilians into the Coast Guard world that would provide

continuity. I know for a fact we have done it in the search and rescue world, in our command centers at these sectors. We have taken

the opportunity to put one or two civilians in there, to add some

continuity and some local knowledge to those programs. So yes, sir.

Mr. FILNER. OK. I hope you will look at that for these sector

kinds of issues.
8

Just quickly on Katrina, where we have consistently praised the

Coast Guard for its response, as this crisis is prolonged, I guess,

you have had to reallocate resources and now we are told by some

of the vessel owners that people who were conducting safety inspections are now doing other things. So they are not sure they are

going to have their certificate of inspection on time.

Do you have enough inspectors in the Gulf of Mexico to make

sure that that won’t happen?

Admiral JUSTICE. I would answer that, yes, we do. I would answer that, and I appreciate your calling that to my attention. What

we do also, as we showed in Katrina, we have the ability, if we find

an area that is light, we will surge people to that area to make

sure we can respond to the needs of that mission.

Mr. FILNER. I hope so. Maybe we can get you those exact problem

areas that have been referred to us so that we can make sure that

doesn’t occur.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how you are going to handle the

vote that is going on now.

Mr. LOBIONDO. It is going to be a long day.

We have about 11 minutes left in this vote. I don’t want to cut

Mrs. Kelly off, so what I am going to ask for is a brief recess. It

looks like only one vote. As soon as we can get over and vote and

get back, we will pick back up again.

So the Committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. LOBIONDO. The Committee will come back to order.

I will now recognize Mrs. Kelly.

Mrs. KELLY. I first want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to sit in. I very much appreciate this.

My concern is that the Indian Point nuclear facility lies in my

district in Westchester County. It has a very close proximity with

New York City, and it is a highly visible target for terrorists. And

security of the plant is a top priority of mine. You may or may not

know that the planes that took down the World Trade Towers flew

over the Indian Point nuclear facility on their way to New York

City.

Currently, outside of the private security that is provided by the

plant’s owners, the main source of protection is the New York

Naval Militia. Two militia vessels are stationed in the Hudson near

the Indian Point patrol for water-borne attacks. The Naval Militia

is good, brave volunteers who have an unfortunate lack of adequate

resources.

As you can imagine, I am very interested in what the Coast

Guard is doing to augment this really strong volunteer force, and

gentlemen, I have been on the boat with them. So I know what

they are doing, I know how they are equipped, and I am interested

in what you are doing to try to support them. I don’t feel that what

you are doing is enough.

I was told in January that the Coast Guard conducts a weekly

patrol of a power plant with a cutter, WLR, it is a 65 foot inland

tug. That is the picture of the tug. And I also understand the Coast

Guard provides a weekly fly-by.

Admiral Nimmich, both you and I know that the Coast Guard

tug is not a fast or a well-armed vessel. What the people have on
9

that vessel in terms of guns is sidearms. The WLR’s top speed is

10 knots. Anyone, including a terrorist, can buy a boat that is two

or three or four times faster than the WLR.

I don’t know how the Coast Guard intends to stop a high-speed

boat loaded with explosives with people who want to kill themselves, blow themselves up with the boat. I don’t know how they

expect a tug to be effective at that. The terrorists have used boats

like that in the past in Israel and in locations in the Persian Gulf.

I am wondering if it wouldn’t be more appropriate to assign a high

speed patrol boat with a weapon that can sink a boat, like a Cyclone or an Island class cutter.

Small arms are only going to deter somebody. They can’t stop a

boat crew that wants to die. The only weapon, it needs to be at

least a 25 millimeter or higher cannon, and the WLR has no fixed

armament, with the Coast Guard and Israeli experience with suicide boats show a boat sinking weapon of 25 millimeters is need.

There are no WYTL class tugs that have ever been deployed in the

Persian Gulf to protect. Neither we nor the Israelis guard our

naval port facilities in the Middle East with tugs.

So why would the Coast Guard use a tug for a waterside nuclear

facility in New York? That is my question.

Admiral JUSTICE. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the question.

As the Coast Guard works with the industry, State, locals, as we

look at the infrastructure that needs protection in an area. We look

at it, we see what is available, we see what the security plans are.

Then as we take the threat-based approach to it, then there is,

what kinds of resources can we apply, given the piece.

What I would answer would be that, on this issue, I will take

back this issue, we would be happy to talk with our people in New

York. I will say that I actually agree with your construct that that

vessel in itself is not properly armed to do the mission that you are

talking about. What the depth of the water is there, I can’t really

speak to the peculiarities of the security.

Mrs. KELLY. It is a pretty good deepwater port.

Admiral JUSTICE. And how far away the plan is from the beach

and all those sorts of things. But I absolutely will take this back

and we will look at what is being done and what else might be

done, different sorts of assets that would be available to property

attend to that concern.

Mrs. KELLY. If we were able to have a cutter, if we were able to

have a 25 millimeter or larger gun, I would feel a lot more comfortable about the job that the Coast Guard is doing. Because we

right now are being protected by naval militia volunteers in a boat

that they themselves have been working on to make it seaworthy.

You talked about identified areas of interest being the things you

want to protect. It seems to me that this is something we need to

look at. I don’t know what the Coast Guard uses to protect a high

value asset in a central command. Is it a boat like that or more?

Admiral JUSTICE. Certainly not. But this location and area that

you are talking about there gets into, it is a risk mitigation strategy, and what are the threats and how—we just can’t protect everything with the best assets that we have. That remains, of

course, a struggle that we are here talking about today, is how do
10

we balance where we are going to put those assets to get the most

effective use out of them to deter just what you are talking about.

Mrs. KELLY. Well, that tug is plying the river. That tug also

comes from New York City. So what you have with that tug is a

way of, I assume, you are using it as a protective device from the

river. But it is also New York City. So anything that is coming up

to protect the nuclear plants is also going to be something I am

sure you are going to be using for the ports in New York.

Admiral JUSTICE. Right.

Mrs. KELLY. Perhaps we need to change the asset there and

move from a 10 knot tug to something that does have the armament that would stop people who are bent on a suicide destructive

act, with a loaded boat. And we should put the affixed armament

in a way that fixed armament is out there, visible, so they know

we will blow that boat up before it gets to shore.

Admiral JUSTICE. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. KELLY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to come

and speak——

Admiral NIMMICH. Mr. Chairman, if I may?

Mrs. KELLY. Yes.

Admiral NIMMICH. Ma’am, what I want to add to the picture is,

as you know, that is a very well traveled and highly dense pleasure

boat area. They move up and down in a very narrow channel. One

of the things that we need to look at is not just how to stop but

how to prevent, what is the awareness we have, what is the regulatory framework by which we know what those boats are and

what their intent is, not just merely the end product, but stop it

before those explosives travel down the river, stop it at its source.

So I ask that as we talk about the technologies and the information sharing and the regulatory framework we will need to put in

place about knowing what recreational boats are doing, where they

are going, who is on board, licensing of recreational boat operators,

should be equally as important as how do we put the end, if we

fail all the way up, we need that measurable line. But we really

don’t want to even get to that point where we have to use force.

We really want to prevent it through knowledge up front.

Mrs. KELLY. And I agree with you on that score. However, if we

don’t have the force in place, we couldn’t use it if we needed it. And

New York is a prime target. New York is the only place where we

have experienced terrorism on our shores.

The thing is that within the area of the nuclear plants, there are

20 million people. If you expand that, if there is an explosion at

that plant and there is a release of some kind of nuclear material

that goes into the air, that population grows to 50 million if there

is a southern wind. There are so many people there, it is a high

priority target for the terrorists. We need to be able to protect that

target. And if you can do anything to help us do that, I would really, I think that the people in the area would feel a lot more comfortable than what we have now.

I know the river.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mrs. Kelly, would you yield?

Mrs. KELLY. Yes.

Mr. LOBIONDO. There is something you can do. There is something that every member in Congress who comes to this Committee
11

with a request like this can do. That is, redouble your efforts on

Deepwater. They don’t have the assets. We have this day in and

day out.

And we have a plan in place. We first want to keep it from slipping. We secondly want to accelerate. If Deepwater were fully online and everything were flowing with new assets coming in, the

Coast Guard would be in a much better position to tell you an absolute yes.

So I am sure they are going to go back, I am sure you have done

a good job articulating this. But we are going to have another battle this year. The battle is shaping now. And again, we have a

number of members who come in with similar type concerns, and

the Coast Guard does a magnificent job with the resources at their

disposal.

But unless Operation Deepwater kicks into high gear and we get

the money to keep it flowing, we are going to continue to have requests like this.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, you probably know I stand right

with you on this. Operation Deepwater is absolutely essential for

the safety of the Nation. I certainly hope we are able to get Operation Deepwater passed and get you the money we need. This is

high priority for the safety of all of us, but especially for people like

the Chairman from New Jersey and me, from New York. We are

in the target zone. We have experienced it. We know what it feels

like, and we don’t ever want this to happen again.

So we will help, whatever we can do. And if there is something

that we can do to help you, Admiral Nimmich, to get started on the

study, I am glad to work with you in the Hudson region. A good

part of the Hudson Valley falls within my district, and I am glad

to be able to help you do anything I can there.

Admiral NIMMICH. Thank you, ma’am.

Mrs. KELLY. I thank you, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman,

for letting me come

[Photographs submitted by Rep. Kelly follow:]
12
13
14

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. This sort of

points at the discussion we have been having. But very pointedly,

does the Coast Guard currently have adequate resources, including

funding, personnel and assets to carry out all of its homeland security and traditional missions? Whoever wants to take a stab.

Admiral JUSTICE. Sir, that is a tough question, sir. The answer

is that we have been magnificently funded, increased over the last

few years. We have taken those resources that have been given to

us and we work hard, across all missions, to focus on, we set goal

for results, and we strive to get those results. And each year, it is

not each year, it is each month, it is every quarter, we see how we

are doing as we get toward those results. And if need be, we shift

resources to react.

And then of course, as importantly, sir, I do want to make the

point that on top of the attending to our resources on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, you have built a surge capacity to be able

to, like last summer, take Coast Guard completely out of the entire

Country, go somewhere, do something very important, very needed,

but still leave behind enough to get some adequate work done. So

all those things go into the mix.

Mr. LOBIONDO. I certainly agree that the Coast Guard has done

a magnificent job with the assets provided. But I guess it really

wasn’t a fair question, because the answer is obviously no. And the

Coast Guard, the point I am trying to make is, the Coast Guard,

over a long period of time, when asked that question over and over

again, always said yes, we can do it. And the realities are that we

are now in a position where we can’t do it all because of how much

has been thrown onto your plate.

I think that the Coast Guard from top to bottom has got to understand a clear mission to articulate why you can’t do things like

Mrs. Kelly is asking for and why you can’t do everything that is

asked for.

Along those same lines, has the deterioration of the 110 foot patrol boat class and operational restrictions on the 123 converted

boats affected the Coast Guard’s ability to carry out its missions?

Admiral JUSTICE. Yes, they have. Absolutely, sir. As I mentioned,

I have just spent three plus years in Miami, very up close with our

counter-drug and our counter-migrant mission down there. The patrol boats are the backbone of getting that mission done there, as

well as they are out in San Diego and as well as they are doing

fisheries up in New England. Our patrol boat challenge is there.

We have a Deepwater solution. The Deepwater solution has been

moved up in the cycle to be sooner than later. However, that answer is not here yet.

In the meantime, there has been mitigation that we have to do

to take care of the patrol boat challenge. That includes, we have

gotten patrol boats from the Navy, as you know, the 179 foot patrol

boats that worked very well for us. We have had more 87 foot patrol boats that have been purchased and brought online, and we

have used them as, they are not as capable maybe as a 110, but

they do get the job done, as Coast Guard people do that.

We continue to leverage our partners, particularly our DHS partners, to be smarter and to use their assets to support the patrol
15

boats as needed. And as well, we have taken an aggressive effort

to maintain the 110s. We have a 110 foot maintenance program at

the Coast Guard yard that we are going to cycle these boats

through that will get them, keep them around for a longer period

of time.

So all of that goes into trying to mitigate this patrol boat gap

that we definitely have, sir.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Switching gears a little bit, can you tell me the

time line for having Rescue 21 in place by region?

Admiral JUSTICE. Yes, sir, I can speak to it, and also I can submit a more formal answer for you. We are finishing the LRIP

phase, as you know, in Mobile and St. Petersburg. Then we start

to, as we finish the IOC phase in Atlantic City and the Eastern

Shore, we will start to roll it out and we start to move north and

south from there in year 2007. The goal, sir, of course, is to have

it all done by 2011.

It would be easier to get a picture to you with all the dates on

it and provide it to you.

Mr. LOBIONDO. You’ll submit something to us?

Admiral JUSTICE. Yes, sir.

[The information received follows:]
16
17

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. It has been three years since the long range

vessel tracking system was authorized under the Maritime Transportation Security Act. And I understand the need that has been

articulated, to work through the International Maritime Organization on this issue.

But has the Coast Guard set up a voluntary program in the interim?

Admiral NIMMICH. Sir, we have voluntary programs where people

can provide information. But as we talk in terms of long range

tracking, I want to make sure that you’re comfortable and aware

that there is a long range tracking, non-voluntary system using national assets that we can give you a further brief on in a classified

setting. So there is tracking of vessels.

The voluntary tracking and the providing of voluntary information, which is critical to validate against those other systems that

we would use, we have put out several experiments, some tests and

evaluation and we are working very closely with IMO. We have

Coast Guard flag officers at IMO as we speak now, and we believe

we will get the long range tracking validation we want.

The critical piece is it would be purely voluntary if we don’t go

with IMO. So having voluntary without any regulatory framework

on which to enforce it doesn’t protect you very much more than not

having a voluntary system.

Mr. LOBIONDO. According to previous Coast Guard reviews, the

AIS transponders would have resulted in only a .05 percent reduction in the number of fishing vessel casualties that occurred between 1994 and 2000. How do the cost of imposing AIS carriage requirements on all fishing vessels compare to the benefits that can

be expected from such a requirement?

Admiral NIMMICH. Well, sir, as you know, the legislation in ESA

2000 required that fishing vessels be included in their 65 feet and

greater. As you indicated in your opening remarks, or Representative Filner indicated in his opening remarks, we have not closed

that gap and we are moving in that direction.

We have a notice for public rulemaking prepared to be released

in the very near future that starts to close that gap. We are working with the fishing industry to find a viable solution between the

vessel monitoring that they are currently required under fishing

regulations and the AIS we would like for broader information,

both for safety, but also security, and how we might be able to utilize that VMS information in a way that would produce what we

need on the security side.

As you know, that is point to point information that is restricted

in our use. So if we can expand the use of that information, we

may be able to find a compromise position with the fishing industry. We are looking at that now, sir. But even that 5 percent, if it

saves a few lives, may be worth that $3,000 to $4,000 investment

for an AIS system on a fishing vessel.

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. I think that is all I have at this time. I want

to thank you both for being here, and the Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38Æ