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

30–661 PDF 2007

U.S. COAST GUARD LICENSING AND

DOCUMENTATION OF MERCHANT

MARINES

(109–91)

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

JULY 20, 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

Autin, Shull, Chief Operating Officer, SEACOR Marine, LLC ............................ 10

Bone, Rear Admiral Craig E., Assistant Commandant for Prevention, U.S.

Coast Guard .......................................................................................................... 3

Davis, Ronald, President Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association and Executive Board Member, Maritime Trades Department .......................................... 10

Gedney, Captain Elizabeth, Director of Safety Security and Risk Management, Passenger Vessel Association ................................................................... 10

Sause, Dale, President, Sause Brothers, Coos Bay, Oregon, and Chairman

of the Board, the American Waterways Operators ........................................... 10

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Filner, Hon. Bob. of California ............................................................................... 42

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Autin, Shull .............................................................................................................. 26

Bone, Rear Admiral Craig E. .................................................................................. 31

Davis, Ronald ........................................................................................................... 36

Gedney, Captain Elizabeth ..................................................................................... 44

Sause, Dale ............................................................................................................... 54

(1)

U.S. COAST GUARD LICENSING AND

DOCUMENTATION OF MERCHANT MARINERS

Thursday, July 20, 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 10:10 a.m., in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Honorable Frank LoBiondo

[Chairman of the committee] presiding.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to

order.

Today we are having an oversight hearing on the United States

Coast Guard’s Merchant Mariner Credentialing Program. This program helps ensure mariners have the experience, training, physical

ability and character to serve on vessels. Since September 11th, the

program has another important role: helping our Nation to know

who is working on our waterways.

The Coast Guard has had the responsibility for credentialing of

merchant mariners for decades. However, the Service has recently

been given substantially more duties to carry out the program. For

example, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 introduced a drug testing

program for applicants, as well as a requirement that applicants

submit a check of the National Driver Register, so that a mariner’s

driving record could be examined.

After September 11th, additional safety and screening procedures

were put into place. There is now strict enforcement of the regulations concerning verifying the identity and nationality of applicants. Also, the merchant mariner document was replaced with a

new card incorporating tamper-resistant and anti-counterfeiting

features. It is apparent the evaluation process for mariner credential applications has become significantly more elaborate and time

consuming for all involved, especially the Coast Guard. The Service

has experienced a 25 percent increase over the past 10 years in the

number of applications received annually.

In fiscal year 2004, over 84,000 credentials were processed by the

regional examination centers, which also had to collect and account

for $7 million in user fees. Despite this increased workload, staffing

levels have changed little since 1982, except for the addition of

some contract employees in recent years. The lack of an increase

in personnel commensurate with the increase in workload is very

troubling. Mariners and industry rely on the Coast Guard to process mariners’ applications quickly, because a mariner is not permitted to work without a valid credential. Any backlog could have
2

a serious, in fact almost devastating effect, on the hard-working

men and women, as well as our economy.

Although the program does not have as high a profile with the

public as the Service’s search and rescue or port security missions,

it is nevertheless just as important and very critical.

I would like to thank the witnesses for coming this morning, and

I look forward to your testimony. I am particularly interested in

learning about the current status of the program, how the implementation of the TWIC card will affect the process and whether it

will aggravate current backlogs. I also want to hear about the possible solutions to the problems.

Admiral Bone, it is great to see you once again. I am sure your

experiences as Captain of the Port in New York and New Jersey

have served you extremely well. Congratulations and best of luck

on your new job.

I would note that given the extensive concerns of the witnesses

on the second panel and their intent to express their concerns

today, you clearly have your work cut out for you at this time. I

would urge either you or a senior member of your staff to stay and

to listen first-hand to what the second panel has to say. The Subcommittee will attempt to track this very carefully. Their concerns

are longstanding and have a serious impact on the U.S. maritime

industry.

Mr. Taylor, would you like to say anything in opening up?

Mr. TAYLOR. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Boustany?

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very

important hearing. Admiral Bone, welcome. It is good to see you

again. I want to thank you, Admiral Allen and the Coast Guard for

the fine work that you continue to do.

I am pleased also that in the second panel we are going to have

Mr. Shull Autin, who is COO with SEACOR Marine, to testify before the Subcommittee today. SEACOR operates one of the world’s

largest fleets of diversified marine support vessels and provides

vital services to the offshore oil and gas industry in the Gulf of

Mexico. SEACOR has facilities located in my district, and I am

proud to have Mr. Autin testify on behalf of the Offshore Marine

Service Association this morning.

Ensuring that the Coast Guard’s mariner licensing and documentation program works efficiently is vital to maritime commerce

in the Gulf of Mexico. Backlogs and delays in the processing of

merchant mariner credentials not only impact those mariners who

make their living in the Gulf of Mexico, but also the Nation as a

whole that relies on the Gulf’s offshore energy resources. One-third

of our Nation’s energy comes through Louisiana and our oil and

gas industry is dependent on these supply vessels. They are the

lifeline to our offshore energy supply.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita dealt a major blow to our oil and

gas infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico. The Coast Guard’s New

Orleans Regional Examination Center was all but destroyed, forcing lengthy delays in the processing and renewal of hundreds of

mariner credentials, adding stress to a system that was already

facing major backlogs before these storms.
3

I can tell you, I dealt personally with a number of companies in

Louisiana that were forced to operate in a state of flux for months,

wondering if their mariners’ licenses would expire. Mr. Chairman,

I want to thank you for acknowledging this problem and including

language in the 2006 Coast Guard authorization bill to accommodate the licensure of Gulf Coast mariners through the end of this

year. I am eager to hear from Admiral Bone today regarding the

Coast Guard’s plan to take advantage of this provision and the impact it will have to help alleviate stress on the MLD program.

I am told, however, that the New Orleans REC has received

nearly double the number of applications this June as compared to

last June. Yet they only have about half the staff necessary to process them. It is no secret that the U.S. Coast Guard was the shining

star in an otherwise dismal sky in the immediate days after both

these hurricanes.

I have full faith and confidence in Admiral Thad Allen and Admiral Bone and the rest of the Coast Guard and the leadership that

you all provide as we wait to see what the 2006 hurricane season

will deliver. I am eager to work with the Coast Guard to address

the delay in processing the merchant mariner credentials, so that

we can make sure that maritime commerce continues to thrive in

the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Boustany.

Master Chief Coble.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you for the promotion, Mr. Chairman, but no

opening statement.

[Laughter.]

Mr. COBLE. It is good to have you all with us today.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Fortuno.

Mr. FORTUNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for today’s

hearing. Welcome, Admiral Bone.

As you know, for the insular areas, including Puerto Rico, the

constant presence of the Coast Guard is of the utmost importance

for our livelihood. So in that sense, I do have a keen interest in

today’s hearing and I welcome you again.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Fortuno.

Admiral Bone, welcome. We are glad you could join us today.

Please proceed.

TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL CRAIG E. BONE, ASSISTANT

COMMANDANT FOR PREVENTION, UNITED STATES COAST

GUARD

Admiral BONE. Good afternoon, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking

Member Filner and distinguished members of the Committee. I am

Rear Admiral Craig Bone, Assistant Commandant for Prevention.

It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the mariners’

credentials and Coast Guard plans for improving the mariner licensing and documentation program.

Over the past 15 years, the demand for services and the complexity of the mariner licensing and documentation program has grown

and our mariners have not been provided the timely, efficient service they deserve when applying for mariner credentials. Based on
4

several studies and discussions with various stakeholders, including the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, maritime

labor unions, Towing Safety Advisory Committee, National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, committees which witnesses at

today’s hearing belong to, and with whom the Coast Guard has collaborated with on many safety, security and credentialing issue, it

was determined that the public would be better served if processing

all of the application for merchant mariner credentials were centralized.

Accordingly, the Commandant approved a plan in March 2005 to

centralize most functions related to the issuance of credentials. The

existing 17 regional exam centers will be reduced in size and limited in their responsibilities. The RECs will focus on providing direct customer services, such as testing, fingerprinting, identity verification, acceptance of application packages and verifying all the

paperwork is in order, and then conducting oversight of approved

training courses.

The new centralized facility will be located in Martinsburg, West

Virginia, and the first steps toward centralization, a 24 month

process culminating in the summer of 2008, have already begun. A

temporary space with 42 Government and contractor personnel will

begin operations next month. This detachment of the Coast Guard

National Maritime Center will initially focus on processing all applications received in New Orleans. A second temporary space located in the Martinsburg area will begin operations in November

and will be devoted toward expanding the centralized processing of

applications. These actions alone should provide for a smoother

transition with the least disruption and inconvenience to the public.

The centralization effort has been fully funded and the Coast

Guard is working with TSA to procure a permanent facility. Construction of the permanent facility is expected to be completed in

August of 2007. REC New Orleans will be the first to relocate. As

an interim step in the relocation, all existing applications held in

backlog at REC New Orleans have been distributed to other RECs

for processing.

We have also directed the RECs to give the highest priority to

processing applications from applicants who are currently employed in the industry and are renewing their credentials. Applications for upgrades of mariner qualifications or for entry level qualifications are given similar high priorities to ensure continued supply of credentialed mariners is available to the maritime industry.

In an attempt to improve services, we will add additional contract personnel to augment the staffs of some RECs. To further assist RECs we are seeking to expand our capabilities through the

use of Coast Guard auxiliarists and reservists. Specifically, they

will be providing fingerprinting services, ensure identification of

applicants and administer oaths in remote locations, thus reducing

the need for some applicants to travel extensive distances to RECs.

Along with the centralization of REC functions, we are also planning for the implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Card, or TWIC. TWIC is a common biometric credential for

maritime workers, including all merchant mariners requiring

unescorted access to secure areas of port facilities and vessels.
5

TWIC includes intelligence-based vetting upon enrollment, with

perpetual vetting conducted to dynamically identify threats after

card issuance.

The Coast Guard is working with the Transportation Safety Administration, TSA, to develop a unified process for issuing credentials to reduce the burden on the public.

In closing, the Coast Guard is actively taking steps to improve

the merchant marine licensing and documentation program. I can

tell you that I am personally committed to this and have the full

support of the Commandant on this effort.

Centralization of the application processing provides the ability

to focus our efforts and gain economies of scale. Centralization will

offer uniformity in interpretation of the regulation and help reduce

backlogs and make certain that credentials are only issued to

qualified persons. The implementation of TWIC will further

strengthen our security efforts and help ensure the integrity of

maritime credentials.

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As requested,

Captain Fink, the CEO of the National Maritime Center, will be

staying to hear the second panel. I will be happy to answer any

questions that the members have. Thank you, sir.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Coble, do you have questions?

Mr. COBLE. I have to go to another meeting.

Mr. LOBIONDO. You have to go to another meeting.

Mr. Boustany?

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral Bone, as I mentioned in my opening statement, our 2006

Coast Guard authorization bill provided the authority to extend licenses that were up for renewal for our mariners in the Gulf Coast

who were impacted by the hurricanes. As a conferee, I pushed for

this provision. It was our intent to help to make sure that no mariner loses his or her job while the application is being processed. I

know it has been a tough situation. The Coast Guard has really

performed admirably throughout this hurricane effort.

Is the Coast Guard utilizing this new authority, and if not, when

do you expect to do so, or do you expect to do so?

Admiral BONE. First, Congressman, we appreciate the flexibility

that Congress did provide, and we are going to exercise that. We

are drafting the guidance out to the field and the direction to the

mariners and to the organizations. Just as you put it, the surety

of, while there is a backlog and while there is this transition, allowing to make sure that our mariners can be and remain employed

is of highest priority as well. This will be coming out shortly. We

will notify you both the notifications as well as put it on Home

Port, and the procedures that mariners will use to be able to identify themselves as being eligible for this.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Admiral. It has been 10 months since

the hurricanes, and I still have mariners back in my State who are

telling me that the system is plagued with delays and I know you

are working hard to address this. We will continue to work with

you and hopefully we can get some resolution to this.

I know Coast Guard is moving forward, as you said, with the

plan to centralize. Mariners in Louisiana have expressed the concern to me that the Coast Guard is going to get wrapped up in the
6

details of the move and they are going to end up having customer

service sacrificed in the process. Can you talk a little bit more

about what assurances you can give to the mariners so that they

will continue to receive that kind of quality service that they have

come to know from the Coast Guard?

Admiral BONE. Yes. What I would like to say, too, is that the

quality of service will restore itself in the Coast Guard when it

comes to merchant mariner documents. First off, we are reopening

the storefront in New Orleans on the 9th of August. The personnel

will be back in there and providing those services as I discussed

before, really focused on the application process, the fingerprinting,

the training centers, et cetera.

At the same time, by the middle of August, the National Maritime Center will be moving 42 people, of which 20 or 30 are additional contract staff, to assist in the processing of applications and

the evaluation of those applications. The backlog has already been

distributed to other RECs and they will also assist in any other

backlog that RECs would have as time would permit. The focus initially, to take care of New Orleans which has the most severe backlog, and as you said, has experienced the most disruptive costs and

is also experiencing significant growth in the maritime environment at the same time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

In industries where customer service is important, some companies have created advisory boards that provide inputs regarding

levels of service and quality. Have you considered working with industry representatives in this sort of fashion?

Admiral BONE. In fact, we work all the time with MERPAC, and

actually the Advisory Committee for merchant personnel. And

again, what the union says well, it is with the industry, different

sector components. I can tell you that industry is not short of mentioning the issues and concerns, and quite often it is not what we

are asking to be done, it is how we execute it. We absolutely need

that continued dialogue, and we need to continue to hear and be

responsive to the industry’s issues.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Maritime industry has indicated that

they do not feel that they have adequate time to provide input on

the TWIC proposal. I have heard from a number of Louisiana companies and their employees, I joined my colleagues from the Louisiana delegation and sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff and the Commandant seeking an extension of the comment period and to request a hearing in New Orleans so that more of the industry could

voice their concerns.

Our request on this was denied. Does this open the Coast Guard

up to criticism that you are not willing to listen to industry concerns?

Admiral BONE. Well, first off, the TWIC, we have received over

1,800, maybe even 1,900 comments on the record. We are still evaluating all those comments. I don’t think the Administration has

taken a position yet with regard to the next course of action.

We want to make sure there is full consideration of those comments that are already received before a determination of next

steps have been put in place. So I am not aware that TSA has

made a statement in any way of where they are going with that
7

regulation process. We continue to work with them, and we are examining all of these comments that we have received to date. So

I wouldn’t say that a determination has been made what the next

step would be.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I see my time has expired. Admiral, thank you

very much for your answers. I look forward to continuing the work

with you as we try to resolve some of these issues.

Admiral BONE. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, I also want to

really compliment the Coast Guard; what they did in the immediate aftermath of Katrina and the quick response and the leaning

forward decisions that were made by a lot of people to get assets

in the area where it needed to be, from places where it is less likely

to be needed in those days.

But to that point, I think it is fair to say the failure to reestablish your Eighth Coast District documentation office, to take this

long, that is not where you want to be. And I have had some charter boat captains in the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and I would imagine the folks down in the bayou country are probably experiencing

some serious problems. And again, let’s try to put ourselves in

those shoes. Those guys are offshore for two weeks, they are home,

they want to see their family. The last thing they want to do is

squander what little time they have on shore at an office that isn’t

set up. So I cannot encourage you enough to follow up on the great

work you did in the immediate aftermath of Katrina on the documentation side. It is important.

There are opportunities, unfortunately because of the BRAC

Commission, I don’t want to hear anybody say we need money for

military construction. Because there are a lot of very nice buildings, some of which are brand new, available for you all to move

into. I would be certainly willing to work with you on that. We

have to get those offices up and running. If we are going to require

those people to have those documents, then we need to be in a position to make the filling out of the forms and the taking the tests,

it has to be easily accessible to the public.

It does lead to an interesting question. My other committee is the

Armed Services Committee, and I really, through my many years

of association with some very smart people in the Defense Department, I am convinced that it is just a matter of time until there

is an attack on the homeland, of some sort, a weapon of mass destruction, chemical, biological, maybe electromagnetic pulse. All of

which could jeopardize, and I think what we saw in Katrina, an attack on the homeland is going to look a lot like Katrina. We are

going to lose communications, electricity is going to be out.

Which goes to my question, what sort of backup do you have for

your data? I am told that your records in New Orleans East were

destroyed. Well, there should have been a backup somewhere, and

it should have been readily accessible in a much shorter period

than 310 days that we have seen. Again, I am going to give you

full credit. Your guys did the right thing in the aftermath of

Katrina, when you had yeoman who normally are bookkeepers are

rescuing people. You did the right thing then.
8

But we have to get back to work now. So what kind of backup

did you have available for those records that were in New Orleans

East? And if you didn’t have a backup, what kinds of plans are in

place so that we don’t get stung by this again? And again, I am

probably oversensitive to the whole idea of an electromagnetic

pulse and how it is going to fry everything electronic. And I am

even aware, and it was in the Discovery Channel last night, there

are folks out there who have the limited ability to do an EMP in

this room. And so I am not talking out of shop. I am convinced we

are going to see that.

So how are you hardening your records for that inevitable scenario?

Admiral BONE. First off, we do have the commitment to restore

those services, just as you asked. We are going to begin that process again in August. We have in fact distributed those personnel

in Memphis, Houston and I think that in order to support, but we

know that is a long way to go from New Orleans, and even Morgan

City.

But in regard to your other question, which really comes to bear

on was the backup, the reality for the licenses is the paper licenses

were at the RECs. There was no imaging system and no other

record, other than a data record. I am talking about a formal

record of the documents. We are in fact putting into place an imaging system and we are starting with the New Orleans records in

that imaging process as part of this, again, as we move forward

and we utilize technology as part of the centralization process.

Mr. TAYLOR. Is that effort funded?

Admiral BONE. Yes. In the funding that Congress has provided

us, this will be done. Again, over a period of time. It is not immediate.

Mr. TAYLOR. What is your target date for implementation?

Admiral BONE. Again, by 2008, as we move the RECs through

and we move the work out, we will in fact be conducting the imaging on those licenses. The documents themselves, the MMDs themselves already have imaging being done centrally. But the licenses,

which are again, a large number of documents, and the paperwork

that went with those documents, were not provided that imaging

background.

So it is one of those, as you move from systemically, we are looking to do it as time allows and as resources allow. But initially, it

makes sense to us to do it as part of that transition of the REC.

Mr. TAYLOR. OK. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. I was fortunate enough to attend the Military Times

awards last week. I have to tell you, I had the opportunity to meet

Petty Officer Jackson, I believe he is a yeoman second class. Any

kid who is going to jump into the Industrial Canal in New Orleans

to save a drowning policeman who asks for the opportunity to go

to office candidate school, my two cents is, you guys would be crazy

not to give that young man that opportunity. So that is my two

cents.

Admiral BONE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Admiral Bone, let me pick up a little bit on questions that Mr. Boustany started with on the TWIC card. Once
9

TWIC is implemented, and we are assuming that is going to happen some time in this century, merchant mariner credentials will

not be issued until the mariner has a valid TWIC card. When is

it estimated that the requirement will start? Do you have any idea?

Admiral BONE. In fact, it is being done in parallel. As the TWIC

card is put into place, when the TWIC card is put into place, there

will be a parallel processing with the merchant mariner documents,

so that in fact, a person can make application for a merchant mariner’s document at the same time they make the application for the

TWIC card. One doesn’t have to follow the other in the processing.

But the actual issuance of the merchant mariner document, that

credential won’t be actually issued to an individual until we are assured that that person has cleared the security background. They

are interlinked, I guess, in that regard. Until then, we will continue to provide the security background checks on MMDs that we

currently do. I think one of the things that may be of interest is,

prior to this we used the old fingerprinting system. We now use

live scan, which moves it from six to eight weeks to process fingerprints now to basically two days maximum to get the results back.

So there is no reason that these, if someone is cleared well, that

we shouldn’t be able to process in a reasonable period of time.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Are you talking at all about a grace period

planned after that date, so that mariners seeking renewal won’t

suddenly be surprised and unable to work? Or are you going to

take that under advisement or assess it as it comes along?

Admiral BONE. I think again, the merchant mariners themselves,

all the current merchant mariners that have already had the background check done, they have had the background completed, that

more than satisfies the TWIC card. So in that regard, those members themselves are already found to be in compliance with the

background check. I guess I am not, the issue is new mariners are

going to be fit into a different profile, because they haven’t had

that extensive background check completed yet. In the fact of a

merchant mariner, they also have, as you said, the NDR check as

well, being completed, as well as medical.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Any other panel members have any follow-ups for

Admiral Bone?

Admiral, we thank you very much. As some of you may have

been able to tell, we have a series of votes that have been called.

So we are going to go into recess until after the votes, then we will

pick up with the second panel. The Committee is in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. BOUSTANY. [Presiding] The Subcommittee will now resume

proceedings. We will call forth the second panel of witnesses. Gentlemen and ladies, if you will please come forward.

Welcome. It is good to see you all. We are pleased to have a very

good panel here of four witness. I would like to welcome Mr. Shull

Autin, Chief Operating Officer with SEACOR Marine, LLC, testifying on behalf of the Offshore Marine Service Association. Mr.

Baird, would you like to proceed?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Dale Sause,

head of Sause Brothers Marine, who is from Coos Bay, Oregon, and

also Captain Gedney, who happens to be the mother of one of my

former staff members. So I have two good friends here, and I look
10

forward very much to their testimony. I have promised them softball questions.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BOUSTANY. We also have Mr. Ron Davis, President of the

Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association.

I am sure most of you, or all of you, are aware of the process.

We will have a five minute period of time for each of you to give

your testimony. You can submit extended statements into the

record. I ask you to keep to that five minute period, and then we

will go into questioning.

You have a light in front of you which will be green. When you

get down to yellow it is one minute, and then when it turns red,

your time is up. So I will ask you to try to observe that five minute

rule.

With that, Mr. Autin, you may begin.

TESTIMONY OF SHULL AUTIN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,

SEACOR MARINE, LLC; DALE SAUSE, PRESIDENT, SAUSE

BROTHERS, COOS BAY, OREGON, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE

BOARD, THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS; RONALD

DAVIS, PRESIDENT MARINE ENGINEERS’ BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION AND EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER, MARITIME

TRADES DEPARTMENT; CAPTAIN ELIZABETH GEDNEY, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY SECURITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT,

PASSENGER VESSEL ASSOCIATION

Mr. AUTIN. Good morning. Thank you first for giving us the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Shull Autin. I am the Chief Operating Officer of

SEACOR Marine. I am also representing the Offshore Marine Service Association.

We share the Coast Guard’s belief that the human factor is critical to maritime safety and that licensing is one of the most important ways that we ensure that our managers are up to the task.

Unfortunately, ever since the hurricanes, problems with the licensing and documentation process on the Gulf Coast have hurt our

ability to attract the best into our business.

We have surveyed OMSA members and we have found out that

first, it can take up to three to five months for a newly hired crew

member to receive an entry level merchant mariner document. Obtaining an upgrade in a license can also take up to five months.

A license renewal, which should be a very simple process, may take

six weeks to four months to complete. Anything involving a medical

waiver may take up to a year from nine months.

This creates some terrible obstacles for American workers and

for our companies. How can we hope to attract the best in our industry if we can’t actually put them to work for five months after

they have been hired? How can we tell our long-term employees

they can’t work because their licenses have expired while they were

waiting for them to be renewed?

We believe that the Coast Guard has worked energetically to

overcome the logistical challenges caused by the loss of the New

Orleans Regional Exam Center and the destruction of thousands of

mariner files. However, given the extreme delays in processing applications, it does not appear that the RECs have received the level
11

of resources that they need to make the minimal levels of customer

service for the American mariners.

The Coast Guard’s plan to reorganize the licensing process

should help in the long run. But we really need to go into that

process with our eyes open. Even the most successful private sector

reorganizations frequently produce six months of disruption before

the benefit emerges. And I can attest to that.

We have three suggestions. First, Congress gave the Coast Guard

the authority to extend mariners’ licenses that are up for renewal.

We think the Coast Guard should use this power to help keep

mariners on the job and to help clear up the backlog in other applications.

Second, we feel that an expansion of a program called the

Streamline Evaluation Process, or SEP, should be done nationwide.

This has been very successful in a pilot project of the Houston

REC. Under SEP, companies take responsibility for making sure

that their mariners’ applications are error-free and letter perfect

before they are ever sent into the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard

is then able to expedite these applications and process them with

a minimal amount of delay.

Third, we feel that the application itself needs to be simplified.

The Coast Guard has reported that between 50 and 80 percent of

all applications that come in directly from mariners contain errors

or omissions that slow down the process. Clearly, our industry

needs to do what it can to cut down on mistakes. But if nearly

eight of out ten mariners can’t successfully complete the application, maybe the application needs to be simplified.

In closing, let me also say that the proposed plan for the Transportation Worker Identification Cards is of great concern to the entire maritime industry. We suggest that Congress mandates that

there will be one application, one background check and one reasonable fee for both the TWIC and the Coast Guard documents.

We also urge the agencies to phase in TWIC so the Coast Guard

National Maritime Center reorganization can be successfully completed before mariners are required to obtain a TWIC. This can be

done without threatening security, because mariners already undergo a background check that is more thorough than the proposed

TWIC process. This would have the added benefit of reducing the

total number of American workers that would be in the initial implementation of TWIC.

We consider the Coast Guard to be our close partners in safety,

and we share their view on the importance of licensing and documentation. But we feel that the U.S. mariner needs to maintain a

high level of professionalism and the ability that has allowed us to

operate safely and securely is also important.

I very much appreciate having this opportunity to testify today,

and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you very much, Mr. Autin. We appreciate

your testimony.

Mr. Sause, you may proceed. Thank you.

Mr. SAUSE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you

this afternoon in my capacity as Chairman of the Board of the

American Waterways Operators.
12

In my day job, I am President of Sause Brothers, headquartered

in Coos Bay, Oregon. We are a family towing company, carrying

forest products, building materials and petroleum to and from Alaska and Hawaii and up and down the U.S. west coast. We employ

over 500 people, including 300 mariners who crew our vessels. My

family has been in the marine transportation business since 1937.

Although I am testifying today on behalf of AWO member companies, I feel that I am here to speak also on behalf of the more than

30,000 mariners who work in our industry. These dedicated individuals are quite simply indispensable, both to our companies and

to our Country. The licensing issues that we will discuss today affect not only the ability of AWO companies to operate vessels, but

more importantly, the ability of these men and women to do their

jobs and to provide for their families.

Mr. Chairman, this hearing is very timely. The towing industry

is facing a critical shortage of vessel personnel. We are actively

seeking ways to address and solve this personnel shortage, because

the stakes are very high. Quite simply, without crews to man our

vessels, we are out of business.

It is true the Coast Guard licensing system did not create this

personnel shortage. However, it can and does exacerbate a situation that is reaching crisis proportions. The lengthy delays, bureaucratic quagmires and enormous backlogs at the Coast Guard regional examination centers are not just unpleasant statistics to us.

They are the difference between working and not working, operating a vessel or tying it up.

When I talk to AWO members around the Country about this

issue, I am struck by the emotional intensity of their response. People are frustrated, they are angry, they feel devalued. They wonder,

if our work is as important as we say it is, why can’t we establish

a simple, efficient system for processing the documents that mariners need to do their jobs?

In many parts of the Country, delays have gotten so bad that the

Coast Guard routinely advises mariners to submit renewal applications a full year before their licenses expire. The system is broken.

A fix is desperately needed and long overdue.

My formal statements detail the difficulties that AWO members

are experiencing as their crews engage in the licensing process. As

those examples demonstrate, Mr. Chairman, the current licensing

system is in dire need of better processes, better technology, better

staffing and more uniform application of licensing requirements

and medical standards. We believe that there are several actions

that can be taken.

First, the Coast Guard has begun to implement a plan to consolidate the processing of licenses in one national center. This overhaul

has been a long time coming, and AWO is pleased that the agency

is finally moving forward to implement these needed changes.

Second, in May the Coast Guard issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would consolidate and streamline the process for obtaining the merchant mariner credential. AWO believes that many

of the features of the proposed rule will have a positive impact on

the licensing system.

Third, the Coast Guard should move quickly to make common

sense changes to the licensing regulations for towing vessel officers
13

as recommended by the Towing Safety Advisor Committee in their

October 2005 report, so that the pipeline of future wheelhouse personnel coming into the towing industry is not shut off.

Fourth, we should address license creep. A mariner should be

able to submit an application for renewal up to 12 months before

his existing license expires and the renewal should become effective

at the expiration of the full term of his existing license.

Mr. Chairman, if we can accomplish all four of these things, we

will have gone a long ways toward improving the Coast Guard licensing system and reducing the deep frustration to so many in our

industry feel today. But we will still be facing a vessel personnel

shortage that threatens the viability of a critical segment of our

Nation’s transportation system.

We would ask Congress and the Coast Guard to recognize this

and evaluate all of the proposed legislation and regulation that

comes before you through the prism of personnel shortage problems. We would ask that you ask yourselves how would this proposal impact the ability of individuals to work in the maritime industry or maritime employers to crew their vessels. Will this action

help the situation or make it worse? At a minimum, our goal

should be to do no harm.

I can think of no clearer example of the need for this kind of

harm analysis than the TWIC regulations recently proposed by the

Coast Guard and TSA. The new proposal is devastating. AWO has

characterized it as a blunt instrument that will impose substantial

hardship on mariners and the companies that employ them. Its

worst impact will be the serious barriers that it erects to bringing

new mariners into the industry in a timely way.

We have therefore proposed that the final rule include an interim

work provision for new hires, allowing new employees to work

aboard a vessel on a probationary basis until the TWIC application

is either granted or denied. This would address the need of companies to crew their vessels in a timely manner and the need of mariners to begin earning a living. It would also avoid the serious disruptions to the flow of commerce that could result if companies

were forced to lay up vessels because of the delays in obtaining

TWICs.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the current state of mariner licensing, with lengthy delays and burdensome requirements on the

mariners themselves, is exacerbating an already difficult personnel

shortage situation facing the maritime industry. The Coast Guard

is taking some steps to alleviate this. AWO and its member companies stand ready to work with this Committee and the Coast Guard

to ensure high standards of safety and security while keeping mariners working, vessels moving and the commerce of the United

States flowing.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Sause.

Mr. Davis, you may proceed.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, for offering maritime labor the opportunity to discuss the unique issues that our members face in regard

to mariner credentialing. I ask that our written statement be submitted into the hearing record.
14

My name is Ron Davis, and I am President of Marine Engineers’

Beneficial Association. Today I am speaking on behalf of maritime

labor as an executive board member of the Maritime Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. MTD represents 5 million workers in the

maritime trades. These comments reflect the opinions of the seagoing maritime unions, including MEBA, the Seafarers’ International Union of North America and its affiliates, as well as the

International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots and the

American Maritime Officers.

On a personal note, I come from a long line of merchant seaman,

with family members sailing in both licensed and unlicensed capabilities. I have been a licensed mariner for almost 30 years. I originally began my seagoing career in the U.S. Navy, where I served

during Vietnam. Following my service, I attended the MEBA Engineering School, where I sailed as an unlicensed seaman, then

earned my license. I continued my career for the next 20 years,

moving up through the various billets. I currently hold a chief engineer steam and motor license, which coincidentally is up for renewal as we speak.

My comments today can be briefly summarized in five major

points. First, the current process for credentialing mariners can be

improved by increasing funding to the Coast Guard specifically for

credentialing, allowing them to continue their efforts to centralize

data and systems to speed up mariner document processing.

Second, in regards to future changes in mariner credentialing

and the creation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, the Department of Homeland Security should allow the existing U.S. merchant mariner document to serve as both the TWIC

and a mariner credential for the purpose of identification and

qualifications held by the mariner. Essentially, we propose keeping

the MMD as is with the exception of adding a biometric identifier

as mandated in the MTSA Act of 2002.

Third, licensed deck and engine officers should receive a license

that can be displayed onboard vessels for inspection purposes.

Fourth, the U.S. Coast Guard should continue to be the sole agency

responsible for vetting and credentialing merchant mariners. And

fifth, our proposed revised MMD should allow mariners access to

their vessels docked at any port facility in the United States.

The members of our maritime unions serve in all aspects of the

merchant marine. As a result, we work very closely with the Coast

Guard on nearly every maritime issue. Without the dedication,

hard work and patriotism that the Coast Guard demonstrates, the

job would be much more difficult. I am pleased to say that maritime labor and the Coast Guard enjoy a very professional partnership.

The primary concerns seafarers have regarding the current

credentialing process is the time factor. The Coast Guard has taken

steps to address this concern. Recently, they have begun allowing

credentials to be processed in regional exam centers outside the

mariners’ immediate area. This has been helpful in dealing with

the backlog of MMDs.

In addition, in August the New Orleans REC will reopen. It is

the largest and busiest center in the Country. We feel that increased funding for the Coast Guard and a focus on increasing the
15

speed of the credentialing process through the hiring of more personnel, the encouragement of document and data centralization

and the development of best practices would go a long way to removing any inefficiencies in the current system.

DHS recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to streamline and consolidate the current merchant mariner documents into

one merchant mariner credential. Maritime labor disagrees with

the consolidation of merchant mariner documents. We believe that

any issues with the current MMD can be resolved without requiring a complete revamping of the credentialing process.

For instance, in order to comply with the requirements of MTSA,

a biometric identifier should be added to the current mariner document, and an officer should still receive a license for the purpose

of displaying and verifying their qualifications. The license will be

posted and open for inspection on any vessel.

Requiring members to obtain both an MMD and a TWIC adds an

unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the current system. Two background checks, one for an MMD and one for a TWIC, is expensive,

repetitive and wasteful. We strongly recommend that the TWIC

and MMD be combined so that mariners would generally need only

one document containing identification and qualifications.

Maritime labor proposes there should be only one background

check that mariners need to go through. And as Admiral Bone said

earlier today, the Coast Guard background check now exceeds the

TWIC requirements. It is important to note that DHS recognizes

the proposed rule that credentialed mariners pose less of a security

risk due to successful completion of security and safety background

checks. They have been identified as a population who could potentially be lower on the priority list for the receipt of TWICs.

The Coast Guard already performs one of the most in-depth

background checks for civilian employment. We firmly believe the

Coast Guard should continue to perform this role. TSA should not

play a role in mariner vetting and credentialing. They have no institutional experience with the unique issues mariners face. The

Coast Guard does. TSA will have its hands full overseeing the documentation for port workers, who were never required to obtain a

Federal identification card in the past.

There is also a problem with mariners gaining access to their

vessels through port facilities in some States. We strongly urge

Federal supremacy in regards to all mariner identification documents. Notwithstanding rights of individual States, the federallyissued MMD should be accepted for entrance into any port in the

United States. If a mariner is thoroughly vetted and cleared by the

Coast Guard to work aboard a vessel, then it only makes sense the

mariner should have access to the vessel through the port facility.

Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. We thank you for that testimony, Mr. Davis.

Captain Gedney, you may now proceed.

Captain GEDNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. I am Captain Beth Gedney, Director of Safety, Security and Risk Management for the Passenger Vessel Association.

PVA is the national trade association for U.S.-flag passenger vessels of all types.
16

PVA currently has more than 600 vessel and associate members.

Some of those members include Cape May Lewis Ferry, Ship Island

Excursions in Gulfport, Mississippi, Puerto Rico Ports Authority

and Washington State Ferries, for example. PVA member vessels

are operated by Coast Guard licensed officers. In addition, the deck

hands of many of our vessels have merchant mariner documents.

The individuals who work on U.S.-flag small passenger vessels

must be able to rely on professional, courteous and prompt service

at the Coast Guard regional exam centers when they seek to obtain

or renew their Coast Guard credential. PVA vessel member companies need a smooth functioning Coast Guard licensing process so

that they can put their employees to work quickly and keep them

working. Many of our members rely heavily on summer or temporary employees who they frequently hire with very short lead

time.

For too many years, our members have reported the quality of

service at many RECs has been unacceptable. At too many RECs,

processing time takes weeks and months. Applications and supporting documents, far too often, are lost by REC employees, and

the burden is then placed on the applicant to supply duplicates. Inquiries by phone are impossible because automated phone systems

sometimes tell the caller that the mailboxes are full. If one is able

to leave a message, calls are not returned. Counter service to walkin applicants is not customer friendly.

These problems are not a function of increased emphasis on security after September 11th, 2001, nor did they arise after the hurricane flooded the New Orleans REC. These developments have

made the problems worse, but they are not the root cause. My own

effort to renew my license illustrates the deficiencies of the process.

I drove the 75 miles to apply in person to renew my license at the

Baltimore REC. The staff refused to credit my extensive marine experience, even though it had always been perfectly acceptable to

the REC in Seattle, where I had worked previously. Instead, a

take-home test was required.

I subsequently mailed all required documents. There was no special circumstances or complicating factors. I didn’t need a medical

waiver and I didn’t have a criminal record.

My licensing user fee was immediately collected, but over the

next eight months, I received no word from the Baltimore REC and

my many inquiries received no reply. Last November, I described

my experience to the head of the Charleston, South Carolina, REC

whom I happened to meet at a conference. Two days later, my license arrived, dated November 1st, nearly eight months after the

completed application was submitted. I have to assume the

Charleston REC chief had communicated details of my case to Baltimore.

But more than 16 months after my completed application, I have

never received the companion STCW documents. I still cannot sail

on ocean voyages.

Plenty of other mariners have their own horror stories. How can

such poor service be justified or tolerated, especially when the lack

of a license or document can result in a mariner not being able to

work? The basic problem is the Coast Guard has never given licensing the priority it deserves. Coast Guard has consistently failed
17

to provide the funding, personnel and training needed to make all

RECs function well.

Licensing and documentation is simply too far down the Coast

Guard’s list of priorities. This is a disgrace, because this is the one

Coast Guard function with which nearly every mariner interacts.

Compounding the problem, of course, of quality service is the new

Coast Guard policy requiring the mariner to initiate all credential

transactions by means of an in-person visit to an REC. Under this

policy, many mariners must travel hundreds of miles to a distant

REC to undertake the credentialing process.

Attached to my written testimony is an article written by the

PVA’s past president who writes of his 1,000 mile two day road trip

from northeastern Wisconsin to the Toledo, Ohio REC to renew his

captain’s license.

Finally, proposed rules on TWICs and merchant mariner credentials will add even more delays. A mariner will have to first apply

for and receive a TWIC from a TSA contractor with an estimated

wait of between 30 and 60 days, before the Coast Guard will process the application for a merchant mariner credential. These documents should be processed concurrently, not sequentially.

To the individual mariner and the vessel operating companies

that want to hire an employee in a timely fashion, the REC is the

face of the Coast Guard. By failing to allocate the necessary resources to enable better professionalism and customer service, the

Coast Guard, as an organization, has been indifferent to, if not hostile to, the needs of American citizens who work in the maritime

industry. The Passenger Vessel Association urges Congress to force

the Coast Guard to upgrade its performance.

The Subcommittee should ask the GAO to undertake a review

and analysis of the Coast Guard’s mariner licensing and documentation program, including an analysis as to whether the program would be better if it were moved from the Coast Guard to the

U.S. Department of Transportation. Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. We thank you for your testimony, Captain

Gedney.

We will start the questioning now, and we are all aware that one

of the biggest challenges to the maritime industry is obtaining

mariners to operate the vessels. What is the average delay for

entry level mariners to get their credentials, and how does this

compare to before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? I welcome any of

you to answer that.

Captain GEDNEY. In my experience, I spoke with Cape May

Lewis Ferry just this week. To get an entry level mariner in right

now it is taking from five to six weeks. They are saying that in

their very competitive employment market, which most of us are

experiencing, I believe, the applicant is long gone before the six

weeks are over and they are working for someone else. Our employees are competing with restaurants and the entertainment facilities

more than with other maritime employers. So it is I think particularly crucial for our industry.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Captain Gedney.

Mr. AUTIN. In the Offshore Marine Services, we are seeing in

some cases as much from three to five months. We are experiencing

the same thing, people are not getting involved in our industry, be-
18

cause the time restraints are too long to get an entry level document, and they are going elsewhere, and we are not breeding the

future mariner that is going to run one of our vessels.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Sause?

Mr. SAUSE. Our experience on the west coast mirrors these other

examples. My son just went through a replacement documentation

process that took over 90 days just to simply replace his MMD before he could go back. So we are seeing long, long delay times, anywhere from six to eight to twelve week periods to process.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Davis, do you have any comments on that?

Mr. DAVIS. No.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

What other factors are contributing to the shortage of mariners,

besides this? Are there other factors that you all see? What legislative changes might you propose that we undertake?

Mr. AUTIN. As far as processing mariners through the system?

Mr. BOUSTANY. Yes.

Mr. AUTIN. Well, one of the things, besides the other areas that

we talk about, we feel that if the entire process of documentation

and licensing could be done quicker, then we could get people

through the system. Also, in looking specifically at the problems

that we are facing with the renewal process, it should be very easy

and efficient to renew a license, and it is not. It is our understanding that looking at the application between signatures and initials,

there are some 11 blanks that need to be initialized. So we think

just by simplifying that process that it could work.

Part of what Congress has done in the past has allowed the

Coast Guard to give extensions, but the Coast Guard really hasn’t

relied on those extensions much.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Captain GEDNEY. If I could, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Yes, please.

Captain GEDNEY. I believe a temporary document would go a

long way to help, something where once an applicant has applied,

some way for that applicant to get to work while they wait for the

full process. And certainly as TWIC comes forward, that will become more important.

Another issue that is a problem for mariners is what we call license creep. You have heard the panel here say that their mariners

are applying up to a year in advance. Then what happens is if your

package does move through quickly, you end up losing that year on

your license. A statutory change that I think the Coast Guard

would appreciate as well would be the ability to date the new license the day your old license expires. Then you would get the full

five year viability out of every document.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Could any of you highlight common errors made

by mariners when applying for their credentials? Is there a common thread there?

Mr. AUTIN. One of them deals with the signature and the initial

process being 11 different areas are required. It is our understanding from the Coast Guard, if any particular area is not signed correctly or is not signed, that will stop the process from going

through. That is one example.
19

Mr. BOUSTANY. Are there any application form changes that you

would recommend that might improve the process and reduce errors?

Captain GEDNEY. I think the application could indeed be renewed. Having to sign for every attestation on the document is certainly a problem. But I know the Coast Guard tells us that this is

an 80 percent error rate. But mariners have been presenting themselves in person. We haven’t been doing mail-in applications for

over two years now. So I don’t understand how, if a mariner is at

the counter with their documents and everything is being checked

before they leave the counter how it can still be the mariner’s fault

that that form is incomplete. I am hesitant that there are other

issues.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Anyone else?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. I don’t disagree with that, but basically I also

have run into many people, including myself, in the process of renewal, where you do leave out a form or a piece of paper or something along those lines. And then the feedback or the time spent

basically of being informed by the Coast Guard that there is something missing, there is a delay in that.

But I also think that it is important to focus on the TWIC aspect

here, in that with these problems that these people are stating

here, currently what is going on, if you add the TWIC on top of

that, I think that the problems are going to be significantly more

increased.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. AUTIN. One additional comment, if I may.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Yes.

Mr. AUTIN. As a specific example, one of the requirements on the

application is that the individual applicant has to attest that they

do not have a past criminal record. This is after the background

check is conducted. So the information is already available to the

examiner at the time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you very much. My time has expired.

Mr. Filner?

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my opening

statement be made part of the record.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. FILNER. As I listened to all of you, you have a common testimony, basically. Common sense recommendations. I assume, and

they have been going on for some time. I am just wondering what

your reaction has been when you give these same suggestions to

the Coast Guard. I think you are on an advisory committee, Captain. It just seems to me these should not have to be talked about

here. These are easy things to change. I don’t know if you want to

respond to this. But I mean, they either have a lack of resources

or they are mismanaged or they have no culture of customer service or some combination of all those.

What has been your experience when you make these suggestions, and what do you think we can do in the policy matter of

changing that?

Captain GEDNEY. I think that certainly the REC employees are

hard-working, diligent, subject matter experts. But there is definitely a disconnect when the mariner is across the counter. And I
20

think the REC employees are doing the best they can with the assets that they have available. But as I said in my testimony, I don’t

believe that the highest level, the licensing program is a priority.

I think that it needs more personnel and probably like everyone

else, it needs more funding.

Mr. FILNER. How has the management responded to these requests? I am sure you have made these before your testimony

today.

Captain GEDNEY. We certainly have.

Mr. FILNER. What has happened to them?

Captain GEDNEY. As problem areas have come to our attention

and we discussed with the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard has responded by adding auxiliary personnel. They have added what they

call tiger teams, so that extra personnel can go into these problem

RECs and assist. But the problem is, when the extra personnel and

the tiger team go away, the backup goes right back up again.

Mr. AUTIN. One of the things, the Coast Guard has responded in

looking at reorganization and will reorganize. We really feel that

the reorganization is going to help when it occurs. But from this

point in the interim to the time that not only the reorganization

occurs, but the reorganization is effective, that is the time period

that we are looking at. Because we are at a point now where mariners are sitting at home, after picking this livelihood as their career, and unable to come to work because of the application process

or because of the renewal process.

So we really feel that the work that is being put in by the Coast

Guard in the future is definitely going to pay off. It is to get us

from that point back to this point, or from this point back to that

point. One of the specific things that we think can be done is the

pilot program with the streamline evaluation process that has

worked well selectively in Houston. But each REC has operated

separately and there is not much going on to expand that project

throughout the RECs.

Mr. FILNER. I missed the opening panel. Did the Admiral show

recognition that these were problems? Is there an understanding

that there are problems?

Mr. DAVIS. Congressman, if I could. In my conversations with the

Admiral, he recognizes to me basically that he understands there

are problems. But he feels that they are on their way to some solutions with that.

I think we have seen some positive results of this. We have seen

essentially thousands of unlicensed seafarers that are going to sea

for the first time on cruise ships in Hawaii that have, they were

processing all their documentation through Baltimore, because that

is where the maritime union schools are closest to, is the Baltimore

REC. What the Coast Guard has done to help out, basically, is they

have changed their procedure, and they have taken, when they

have received these forms in Baltimore, they have decided that

they have other RECs around the Country that are not as overwhelmed, and they are sending them out to other ones in different

parts of the Country.

In addition to that, I guess they are setting up a central location

in West Virginia, I believe, to begin processing at all one place to

get consistency. So my response to that would be that we have seen
21

some significant improvement and significant cooperation from the

Coast Guard in recent times.

Mr. FILNER. Well, this is not rocket science. We ought to be able

to do this. Mr. Chairman, there is always a reluctance to micromanage. But given the widespread complaints that have taken

place for so long, we may want to include in legislation mandated

response times. And enforce that. If your unit can’t do that, you

don’t get promoted or you don’t get a pay raise. You may not even

be able to take a collector user fee unless you get it back to people

on time.

Captain, I hope you will take it back to the Admiral that I have

dealt with many bureaucracies at different levels of Government.

The only way a policy board has much effect is if it mandates accountability standards. You find a way to do it in a week or two

weeks, or you are out. We have to say stuff like that, I think, in

our legislation. Because this stuff, it is so reasonable.

All you are doing is asking for common sense stuff that any organization should be able to handle. If they don’t handle it with the

resources they have, tell us what resources they need. I mean, they

ask for $50 million less, I think, in that safety budget than they

did last year. Clearly, they are saying to us that they don’t need

the resources.

But I think we have to look at some accountability standards and

time lines and reporting back here in a way that helps these people

who are just trying to do their job. The working people, you are

just trying to run a business. And it depends all on the Government bureaucracy that we should be able to mandate responsiveness to you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Taylor?

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Captain, would it be inappropriate to call on you? Are you familiar with the licensing process? I know that not everyone in Coast

Guard—would you mind coming to the table for a second? Please,

these 53 year old eyes cannot read your name tag.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Taylor, he is not a witness in this panel.

Mr. TAYLOR. I realize, sir, but I am a former Coast Guard and

I am going to be very respectful of the Captain. There are some

questions that I do think—if I may.

Captain, I am just curious, if you could pinpoint for the Committee some of the things that you think are slowing down the process,

based on your experience? I think that is a very fair question.

Captain FINK. There are many vacancies that

Mr. BOUSTANY. Captain, let me ask you to refrain for a moment

until we resolve this. I hate to be a thorn in your side, but the gentleman is not a witness in this panel. And we should proceed with

the questioning of the witnesses at this time.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have been granted five

minutes, the gentleman is here, the Coast Guard sent him here. He

may be familiar with the problem, and I think that these gentlemen have outlined some problems. The Admiral touched on some

problems. If someone knows what in particular is causing these

problems, then I think we have a duty to the taxpayer to try to address it right now.
22

Mr. FILNER. If the gentleman would yield, I would support Mr.

Taylor’s request.

Mr. TAYLOR. You and I have similar constituents. All of them are

finding that many of them lost their documents in the storm, they

lost their vessel documents in the storm, they are having great

frustration in replacing those documents. If there is something the

Captain can tell us to enlighten this Committee, then heck, we

have a responsibility to try to find out what that is.

Mr. FILNER. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, the Admiral

said that, I think explicitly, that the Captain would be here to listen to things. And I assume that he knows, that he has some expertise.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Well, I think the appropriate thing would be to

have Admiral Bone at least notified of this intent.

Mr. TAYLOR. OK.

Mr. BOUSTANY. And bring you back for questioning.

Mr. TAYLOR. OK. Mr. Chairman, we are not going to get into a

spitting contest here.

Captain, for the record, based on your professional experience,

for the record, I mean, in writing, when you get around to it, I

would like to request of the Coast Guard what in particular can

they point to as being a problem. Is it manpower? Has it been exacerbated by the need to call up port security units and send them

to places like Kuwait? Were certain computers destroyed as a result of the hurricanes or other actions that have, we have taken too

long to replace as a Nation? Again, if there are some things you

can point to.

I worked briefly in one of those offices in New York in 1971. One

of the things I really would like to know from the Coast Guard perspective, have we as Congress asked you all to look into too many

people? Are there people who are so far down the food chain that

maybe they don’t need a full background investigation?

I would welcome those suggestions. I know we did a lot of things

in the wake of 9/11 that we thought were prudent at the time.

Maybe we as a Nation overreacted. And if it is your professional

opinion that we did that, I would like to hear so.

So if the Chairman doesn’t want to hear from you now, I am asking for the record, and I would like an answer in writing in a timely manner.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Captain, we don’t want to put you on the spot

here. I feel it is appropriate that Admiral Bone be part of this, with

all due respect to him, sir. And I think the appropriate thing would

be to relay those questions to Admiral Bone and respond to Mr.

Taylor and the Committee in writing.

Captain FINK. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. And my second question, Captain, would be, what

other agencies, I would think that TSA has to perform similar type

checks on pilots and flight crew personnel. Just in defense of the

Coast Guard, I would be curious, how many people do they have

to run background checks on, how many people do you have to run

background checks on? What sort of resources do they have peoplewise, what sort of resources do you have people-wise?

And again, the issue of the port security units, I know that that

mission has evolved a lot since the days when I did it. But port se-
23

curity men used to do things like that, and now I know you have

got port security men doing things like running Boston Whalers in

Kuwait. Who has picked up that mission? Has that been assigned

to civilians primarily, with Coast Guard oversight, uniformed personnel oversight? Is it still performed by uniformed personnel?

Again, these gentlemen have outlined some very valid concerns.

And we want to help solve those problems. I believe everyone

wants to solve these problems. We just need to know what we can

do to help and where the bottlenecks are. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

I will ask unanimous consent if you all want another round of

questioning.

We are pleased to welcome Mr. Diaz-Balart from Florida, and

you are now recognized for five minutes for questioning.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to

thank you for the hearing and at this point I have no questions.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I have one final question before we break up

here. Congress gave the Coast Guard authority to grant temporary

extension of existing merchant mariner credentials in the Coast

Guard Hurricane Relief Act of 2005. It expired on February 28th

of 2006. Similar authority allowing an additional one year extension was included as part of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, which recently became law. Did the authority to grant mariners an extension that expired in February 2006

help reduce mariner shortage, the shortage of mariners? I would

welcome anyone to answer that.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, from organized labor’s point of view,

we have been very fortunate in that we don’t really have a shortage of personnel, even with the Iraqi situation going on and that

sort of thing, we have always been able to find enough seamen.

But if I could, since the gentleman from Florida came in, if I

could just raise one other additional point. That was in regard to

the fact that there are a couple ports in Florida right now that require their own i.d. in order to get in and out of the port. One of

the things in my statement was basically that we wanted to see the

merchant mariner document supersede that, basically, with a biometric i.d., so that merchant mariners who go to various States,

and sometimes could go to 10 States in 20 days, don’t have to have

20 different i.ds, basically, to get through a port facility.

Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Mr. Autin, do you want to respond

to that?

Mr. AUTIN. Yes. It was such a short period of time that it was

in place that it was very difficult to truly get quantitative numbers

to see how effective it was. But just simply looking at it, it appears

that if that was extended, it would give us help in the long run.

We know of mariners, again, in our own company, that are sitting

at home right now because they have extended beyond the grace

period.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Did you all receive notice of the new Coast Guard

authority when it was passed into law?

Mr. AUTIN. At the time?
24

Mr. BOUSTANY. Yes.

Mr. AUTIN. Yes.

Mr. BOUSTANY. You did, OK. How many mariners who wish to

be in the work force and have expired licenses would therefore be

affected by this extension? Do we have an estimate?

Mr. AUTIN. Well, just looking inside of SEACOR Marine, figuring

that approximately 20 percent of our fleet needs to renew their licenses, our mariners need to renew their licenses on an annual

basis, we predict that right now, in looking inside of SEACOR Marine, there is probably approximately six people that could benefit.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Captain Gedney?

Captain GEDNEY. If I may, the hurricane not only has affected

the one REC, but because of the movement and personnel, I believe

it has affected all of the RECs. It would be helpful if the Committee could consider expanding the extension to assist all the mariners in the U.S.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

I have no further questions. Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I want to thank Mr. Davis for bringing that

up. It is an issue that I have heard a lot back home. You have longshoremen and others who, as you know, Florida has a number of

deepwater ports. Some of them are very close together. Particularly, for example, if you look at Dayton-Broward. They have to

have, in many cases, different i.ds, which, I am not an expert on

these issues, but it would seem to me that if it is good for one port,

knowing the security requirements that we have, it should be good

for other ports, at least other ports in the State and hopefully other

ports in the Country.

So it is an issue I think that is relevant. It is an important issue.

There are people who have to have multiple i.ds. It would seem to

me that there has to be a better way.

So I thank the gentleman for bringing that up, and thank you,

Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me on that point. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Mr. Taylor, any additional questions? No?

Well, we want to thank the panel. Mr. Baird just arrived. Mr.

Baird, do you have any questions for the panel?

Mr. BAIRD. Because I wasn’t able to attend the rest of it, I just

want to say that the opening remarks I found very troubling. I

think we need to make sure, I am sure people have addressed this

already, but we need to take some action. If it is harming our industry to the level that I think it may well be, I think we need to

do whatever we can to try to modify it.

One of the frustrations I often have about these things is, what

we really need is to have you folks here and the Coast Guard on

the same panel and say, so what about what they just said, so we

could do it the kind of problem solving way. But I hope that we

will follow up as a Committee and do just that, based on what we

have heard today. I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for

holding the hearing and thank our witnesses.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. That concludes the questioning. I want to thank the distinguished panel for your testimony

and your wonderful answers. We appreciate your work and we will

look forward to working with you to resolve some of these issues.
25

With that, the Subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67Æ