U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2007

110–72 

Calendar No. 171 

INTEGRATED DEEPWATER PROGRAM 

REFORM ACT 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 924 

MAY 24, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MARGARET CUMMISKY, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HELMS, Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

KENNETH NAHIGIAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
Calendar No. 171 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–72 

INTEGRATED DEEPWATER PROGRAM REFORM ACT 

MAY 24, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. INOUYE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 924] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 924) to strengthen the United States 

Coast Guard’s Integrated Deepwater Program, having considered 

the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do 

pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 924 is to correct problems with the United 

States Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Integrated Deepwater Program 

that were discussed at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oceans, 

Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on February 14, 2007. Significant concerns with the program have been raised by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Inspector General (IG) of 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), including: the Coast Guard’s reliance 

on a single private entity, Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS), 

to make significant procurement decisions under a unique Lead 

Systems Integrator (LSI) contract; incorporation of terms adverse 

to the Coast Guard in the contract; a lack of competition of subcontracts; and weak oversight by the Coast Guard. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Deepwater is the largest and most complex procurement project 

in the Coast Guard’s history. Its primary purpose is to modernize 

an aging fleet of 90 cutters and 200 aircraft used for missions that 

occur beyond 50 miles from the shoreline through a mix of new acVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:32 May 26, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR072.XXX SR072

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
2 

quisitions and retrofits to existing ‘‘legacy assets.’’ In 2002, the 

Coast Guard selected ICGS, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin 

and Northrop Grumman, as the primary contractor under the nontraditional LSI approach intended to develop new Coast Guard assets as an integrated ‘‘system-of-systems.’’ The LSI contract approach provides the contractor with significant decision-making 

and management authority over many aspects of the acquisition, 

including decisions on whether to ‘‘make or buy’’ assets to be delivered. The contract also did not require competition for subcontracts. 

In 1998, the Coast Guard’s initial estimated cost for the project 

was $17 billion with all new and retrofitted assets to be delivered 

by 2018. The Coast Guard submitted a revised Deepwater implementation plan to the Congress in February 2005, to address increased costs and to account for new security capabilities and the 

service’s new missions following its shift from the Department of 

Transportation to DHS subsequent the events of September 11, 

2001. Under this revised plan, the overall program cost increased 

to $24 billion, with the final assets scheduled for delivery in 2027. 

Problems with the Deepwater program, many of which have been 

documented in reports from the DHS IG and the GAO, have raised 

serious concerns about specific acquisitions under the program, as 

well as more fundamental problems with the program as a whole. 

The GAO issued a report in March 2004, citing significant risks 

with the use of the LSI contracting model, and recommended 

changes to address three broad areas of concern: (1) improving program management; (2) strengthening contractor accountability; and 

(3) promoting cost control through greater competition among potential subcontractors. A report of the GAO in January 2006 detailed problems with the design of one of the three major new vessel assets to be acquired, the Fast Response Cutter (FRC), that led 

the Coast Guard to issue a stop-work order to ICGS. On November 

30, 2006, the Coast Guard announced the decision to suspend all 

operations of the eight 110-foot patrol boats that had been converted to 123-foot patrol boats, due to structural damage and safety 

concerns. A report of the DHS IG issued on January 23, 2007, 

found that the largest new vessel to be delivered under the contract, the National Security Cutter (NSC), would not meet the 

Coast Guard’s performance requirements and had design flaws that 

could result in significant additional costs. Another report from the 

DHS IG dated February 9, 2007, found that ICGS failed to install 

low-smoke cable and other elements of the command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) system on the converted 123-foot vessels, as required 

by the contract specifications. 

The DAU, housed within the Department of Defense (DOD), released a study on February 5, 2007, which found problems with 

nearly every aspect of the Deepwater program, including the implementation of the ‘‘system-of-systems’’ approach; the LSI contractual 

arrangement; and Coast Guard management, workforce and organizational structure, financial management, and logistics. The report encompasses many specific recommendations on all fronts, including improvements to acquisition strategy, contract structure, 

and management. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
3 

The Coast Guard has started to take steps to respond to these 

recommendations; however, many specific details of reforms remain 

unclear. The Coast Guard is currently negotiating with ICGS on a 

new contract, possibly for the full 43-month period of the next 

award term, to replace the existing contract which expires in June 

2007. Although the Coast Guard has stated that it is making 

changes to the contract to address Congressional concerns, significant uncertainty remains. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

The bill would direct the Coast Guard to stop using an LSI on 

future Deepwater acquisitions, while allowing the LSI to complete 

limited work as follows: upgrades of the HC–130J aircraft which 

would be completed in fiscal year (FY) 2008; acquisition of the 

C4ISR system; and completion of only those NSCs and Maritime 

Patrol Aircraft (MPAs) on contract for production as of the date of 

enactment. The bill also allows the Coast Guard to use the LSI for 

the remaining NSCs and MPAs currently planned for under the 

program but only after a third-party analysis of alternatives is 

completed, and the Coast Guard concludes that: (1) this approach 

is in the best interests of the Federal government, (2) Federal justifications on sole-source contracts are met, and (3) conflicts of interest for subcontracts are addressed. The bill would require the 

Coast Guard to fully compete all other Deepwater assets for which 

the Coast Guard is using an outside contractor. The requirement 

for full and open competition is not intended to apply to procurements for which a simplified acquisition procedure is allowed under 

the Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 13. 

The bill would require an analysis of alternatives by an independent third party expert of all proposed Deepwater assets, other 

than those already under contract or which the LSI is allowed to 

complete, or those being competed. This analysis would include additional NSCs and MPAs, and any major future changes to the 

Deepwater acquisitions program. It also would require a plan from 

the Coast Guard outlining how the agency will move forward with 

the program, including revised cost and schedule information. 

An analysis of alternatives is routinely used for major changes 

to DOD contracts. The rationale for undertaking such a review for 

the Deepwater program is two-fold. First, various concerns with 

proposed Deepwater assets, including the NSC, have been identified. Second, since problems with the program surfaced, the Coast 

Guard has made many significant changes to what it plans to procure. For example, the Coast Guard has decided to alter its plans 

for three of the four planned major vessel components. It has halted the conversion of its 110-foot patrol boats to 123-foot vessels, 

stopped work on the original Fast Response Cutter and is rethinking whether to build a newly-designed vessel for its Offshore Patrol 

Cutter or to purchase a different vessel. It also has put on hold the 

development of the Vertical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV), 

after Bell Helicopter, the company making the VUAV, encountered 

problems in the asset’s development. The VUAV was to be a ‘‘force 

multiplier’’ used in combination with the NSCs and was a factor in 

the decision to purchase only eight NSCs to replace the twelve 

Hamilton Class 378-foot cutters. Given this situation, an analysis 

of alternatives for proposed Deepwater assets is warranted to enVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:32 May 26, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR072.XXX SR072

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
4 

sure that the Coast Guard will procure the mix of assets that best 

meets its needs. 

The bill would require changes to terms of new Deepwater contracts, including changes to award term and award fee criteria, as 

recommended by the GAO and the DAU. It would require the 

Coast Guard to adhere to the Systems Acquisition Manual, which 

the Coast Guard waived in order to enter into the current contractual arrangement but has since asserted that it will apply to Deepwater projects moving forward. The bill also would end the practice 

of allowing the private contractor to self-certify the design and performance of assets being delivered to ensure adherence to accepted 

industry-wide standards and procedures. 

The bill would require a number of improvements to the Coast 

Guard’s internal management of the Deepwater program. It would 

ensure better technical oversight by the Coast Guard’s engineering 

staff, and it would allow the Coast Guard new authority to shift 

personnel to support acquisitions projects. 

The bill would require the Coast Guard to provide significant information to Congress regarding the status of the Deepwater program, including information similar to what the DOD provides to 

Congress for major acquisitions. It would require a specific report 

from the Coast Guard on the 110-foot patrol boat gaps and a report 

from the IG on cost overruns for Deepwater assets. It would also 

require the GAO to provide an annual report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House 

of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the Coast Guard’s progress in implementing the provisions 

of the bill, the GAO recommendations in its March, 2004 report, 

GAO–04–380, and any subsequent recommendations issued before 

March 1, 2007. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On March 20, 2007, Senators Cantwell and Snowe introduced S. 

924, the Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act. The bill was 

referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation. 

On April 25, 2007, the Committee considered this bill and reported it unanimously, along with two manager’s amendments offered by Senators Cantwell and Snowe. The manager’s amendments modified the bill as introduced to reflect comments received 

from members and other parties and incorporated additional 

changes to streamline the process requiring the Coast Guard to 

consult with GAO. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 924—Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act 

Summary: S. 924 addresses the contracting practices used by the 

United States Coast Guard (USCG) for the Integrated Deepwater 

Program (IDP), a 25-year, $24 billion initiative to replace many of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
5 

the agency’s vessels, aircraft, and other assets. CBO expects that implementing the bill would add about $20 million to USCG’s costs 

over the next 2 years, but that increase would probably be more 

than offset by savings in future years. Enacting this legislation 

would not affect revenues or direct spending. 

Several provisions of the bill could increase contract administration and other program costs, but those provisions and other reforms required by the bill also could result in lower procurement 

costs. Moreover, many of the bill’s required reforms may be implemented by the Coast Guard even in the absence of legislation. CBO 

expects that implementing those reforms (whether under current 

law or as a result of enacting S. 924) would reduce the long-term 

cost of the Integrated Deepwater Program, but CBO cannot estimate the likely size of that cost savings or clearly identify what 

proportion of any long-term savings would be attributable to this 

legislation and what share would result from changes the Coast 

Guard would implement under current law. Any annual costs or 

savings realized by the agency as a result of the legislation would 

depend on future changes in the level of discretionary appropriations for this initiative. 

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of State, local, or tribal governments. 

Major provisions 

S. 924 would restrict the Coast Guard’s reliance on private entities to manage IDP and would require the agency to revise other 

procurement practices to rectify problems identified by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), and the Government Accountability Office. S. 924 also 

would mandate that future acquisitions for the program be open to 

competition and be subject to formal analyses of alternatives carried out by an independent entity. For acquisitions that exceed $10 

million, the agency would have to certify that it has performed appropriate technological research and feasibility studies. Finally, the 

bill would require the Coast Guard to produce various reports on 

its contracting and acquisition activities. 

Estimated effect on the Federal Budget: CBO estimates that implementing S. 924 would increase USCG’s administrative costs by 

$20 million over the next two years. Most of this cost would be incurred in 2008 to obtain an independent analysis of alternatives 

(AoA) for the Deepwater program, as required by section 3. Under 

this requirement, the USCG would contract with an independent 

entity such as DOD or a federally funded research center for a 

comprehensive review of the agency’s existing deepwater plan and 

feasible alternatives. We estimate that the costs of implementing 

other administrative requirements, such as certifications on large 

contracts or smaller AoA’s on future acquisition projects, would not 

add significantly to the costs of the Deepwater program. 

The budgetary impact of other provisions of the bill is uncertain—as is the cost of the deepwater initiative under existing law. 

According to the DHS Inspector General, the Coast Guard’s most 

recent cost estimate for the program—$24 billion—is likely to be 

too low because it does not take into account costs of hundreds of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
6 

millions of dollars resulting from delays, design failures, and other 

problems. S. 924 would seek to address those problems by requiring greater agency supervision and more reliance on competitive 

bidding. CBO expects that those reforms would result in savings, 

but we cannot estimate the magnitude of such savings or predict 

the extent to which some savings would be realized by implementing certain reforms under current law. 

Pending acquisitions 

CBO expects that implementing the bill would not directly affect 

pending acquisitions of certain classes of assets, such as the national security cutter and the maritime patrol aircraft, two assets 

that the USCG has already begun acquiring from its chosen contractor. The bill would exempt those and other specified projects 

from its requirements on management and competitive bidding if 

certain conditions are met. The administrative burden of meeting 

those conditions could cause delays in acquiring some fleet replacements and thus result in additional operating and maintenance 

costs over the next few years for existing assets.Similar delays, 

however, may occur under current law; the Coast Guard has already had to begin revising the design of those assets to address 

known problems. 

Future acquisitions 

The bill would require that future phases of IDP be subject to 

open competition and other reforms. The resulting savings from 

such reforms could be significant—perhaps hundreds of millions of 

dollars—but cannot be estimated with any precision. Moreover, 

many of the contracting changes may occur even in the absence of 

legislation. For example, the Coast Guard recently announced that 

it intends to begin managing the program itself rather than relying 

on a private systems integrator. The agency has also begun implementing some of the other reforms suggested by DHS, such as 

more reliance on competition and independent analysis. 

Any costs or savings that result from implementing S. 924 would 

depend on corresponding changes in annual appropriation acts. Annual funding for acquisitions under the program has varied widely—from $320 million in fiscal year 2002 to more than $1.1 billion 

to date for 2007. The President’s budget request for 2008 includes 

nearly $840 million for the program. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 924 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Deborah Reis; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact on the 

private sector: Craig Cammarata. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
7 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

The reported bill would require changes to the contracting approach used by the Coast Guard in its Deepwater program, and improvements to the Coast Guard’s management of this program. It 

does not authorize any new regulations and therefore will not subject any individuals or businesses to new regulations. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

The reported bill would have little, if any, impact on the United 

States economy or on United States citizens. The provisions of the 

bill, including changes to the contracting approach and the requirement for increased competition, are aimed at reducing costs under 

the Deepwater program. 

PRIVACY

The reported bill would not have any adverse impact on the personal privacy of the individuals that will be impacted by this legislation. 

PAPERWORK

The reported bill would not increase paperwork requirements for 

the private sector. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents 

Section 1 would entitle the legislation as the ‘‘Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act.’’

Section 2. Procurement structure 

Section 2(a) would direct the Coast Guard to stop using a LSI on 

future Deepwater acquisitions and to have a full and open competition of all Deepwater assets that have not yet gone on contract, 

other than those that the LSI can complete or that the Coast 

Guard is doing in-house. 

Section 2(b) would allow the Coast Guard to use the LSI to complete any specific work for which a contract or order had already 

been issued. It would also allow the Coast Guard to use the LSI 

to complete the C130–J modifications and the C4ISR program in 

their entirety, and to complete procurements of the NSCs and 

MPAs already under contract for construction. It would allow the 

Coast Guard to use the LSI to complete all of the remaining NSCs 

and MPAs only after an analysis of alternatives has been conducted, and the Coast Guard concludes that: (1) these procurements and the use of an LSI are in the best interest of the Federal 

government, (2) justifications for not competing assets under the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations are met, and (3) financial conflicts 

of interest for subcontracts are addressed. This section also would 

allow the Coast Guard to directly award any work to a subcontractor that it could award to the LSI under this section. 

Section 3. Analysis of alternatives 

Section 3 would prevent procurement of additional assets 

under the Deepwater program, except those already under contract 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
8 

or which the bill allows the LSI to complete, or those for which a 

request for proposals had been issued prior to the date of enactment, until completion of an analysis of alternatives. Such review 

would have to be conducted by an independent third party entity 

with expertise in major acquisitions and no financial conflict of interest. It would require the Coast Guard to provide a plan to Congress for how to move forward with Deepwater procurements based 

on this review, including a revised cost and schedule for the program. A similar review would be required for any major changes 

to the agreed plan in the future. 

Section 4. Certification 

Section 4 would require the Commandant to certify to Congress, prior to issuing new contracts, delivery orders, or task orders 

for procurements exceeding $10 million, that the proposed procurement meets objective criteria on feasibility, maturity of design, and 

costs. 

Section 5. Contract requirements 

Section 5 would require improvements to any contract entered 

into by the Coast Guard for Deepwater assets, including changes 

to award term and award fee criteria as recommended by the GAO. 

It would end the practice of allowing the private contractor to selfcertify the design and performance of assets being delivered to ensure adherence to accepted industry-wide standards and procedures. This would be accomplished by requiring an independent 

third party to certify any procurement for performance and safety. 

However, such third-party certification is not intended to apply to 

certain performance standards, such as sea trials of vessels, for 

which the Coast Guard has the appropriate internal expertise. This 

section also would require the Coast Guard to adhere to its Systems Acquisition Manual. 

Section 6. Improvements in Coast Guard management 

Section 6 would require improvements to the Coast Guard’s 

management of the Deepwater program, including implementation 

of the Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform, as well as 

recommendations for improved management included in a February 5, 2007, DAU report and in reports by the GAO. It also 

would ensure better technical oversight by the Coast Guard’s engineering staff by requiring the Coast Guard to make the head of its 

Engineering and Logistics program the technical authority for all 

design, engineering, and technical decisions for the Deepwater program. It also would allow the Coast Guard to shift personnel to 

support acquisitions projects. 

Section 7. Procurement and report requirements 

Section 7 would require the Coast Guard to provide significant 

additional information to Congress regarding the status of the 

Deepwater program. It also would require a report on how the 

Coast Guard will address gaps in operational hours stemming from 

its suspension of the eight converted 123-foot cutters. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
9 

Section 8. GAO review and recommendations 

Section 8 would require the GAO to closely monitor the Coast 

Guard’s implementation of improvements to its management of the 

Deepwater program. It also would require the GAO to provide an 

annual report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure on the Coast Guard’s progress in 

implementing the provisions of the bill, the GAO recommendations 

in its March, 2004 report, GAO–04–380, and any subsequent recommendations issued before March 1, 2007. 

Section 9. Inspector General review of Deepwater program 

Section 9 would require the IG of DHS to provide Congress 

with a report regarding decisions under the Deepwater program 

that have led to cost overruns or cost increases for Deepwater assets. 

Section 10. Definitions 

Section 10 would set forth definitions for certain terms used in 

the bill. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 14. COAST GUARD 

PART I. REGULAR COAST GUARD

CHAPTER 5. FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

§ 93. Commandant; general powers 

(a) For the purpose of executing the duties and functions of the 

Coast Guard the Commandant may: 

(1) maintain water, land, and air patrols, and ice-breaking 

facilities; 

(2) establish and prescribe the purpose of, change the location of, consolidate, discontinue, re-establish, maintain, operate, and repair Coast Guard shore establishments; 

(3) assign vessels, aircraft, vehicles, aids to navigation, 

equipment, appliances, and supplies to Coast Guard districts 

and shore establishments, and transfer any of the foregoing 

from one district or shore establishment to another; 

(4) conduct experiments, investigate, or cause to be investigated, plans, devices, and inventions relating to the performance of any Coast Guard function and cooperate and coordinate 

such activities with other government agencies and with private agencies; 

(5) conduct any investigations or studies that may be of assistance to the Coast Guard in the performance of any of its 

powers, duties, or functions; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
10 

(6) collect, publish, and distribute information concerning 

Coast Guard operations; 

(7) conduct or make available to personnel of the Coast 

Guard such specialized training and courses of instruction, including correspondence courses, as may be necessary or desirable for the good of the service; 

(8) design or cause to be designed, cause to be constructed, 

accept as gift, or otherwise acquire patrol boats and other 

small craft, equip, operate, maintain, supply, and repair such 

patrol boats, other small craft, aircraft, and vehicles, and subject to applicable regulations under subtitle I of title 40 and 

title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 

Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) dispose of them; 

(9) acquire, accept as gift, maintain, repair, and discontinue 

aids to navigation, appliances, equipment, and supplies; 

(10) equip, operate, maintain, supply, and repair Coast 

Guard districts and shore establishments; 

(11) establish, equip, operate, and maintain shops, depots, 

and yards for the manufacture and construction of aids to navigation, equipment, apparatus, vessels, vehicles, and aircraft 

not normally or economically obtainable from private contractors, and for the maintenance and repair of any property used 

by the Coast Guard; 

(12) accept and utilize, in times of emergency in order to 

save life or protect property, such voluntary services as may be 

offered to the Coast Guard; 

(13) rent or lease, under such terms and conditions as are 

deemed advisable, for a period not exceeding five years, such 

real property under the control of the Coast Guard as may not 

be required for immediate use by the Coast Guard, the monies 

received from any such rental or lease, less amount of expenses 

incurred (exclusive of governmental personal services), to be 

deposited in the Treasury; 

(14) grant, under such terms and conditions as are deemed 

advisable, permits, licenses, easements, and rights-of-way over, 

across, in, and upon lands under the control of the Coast 

Guard when in the public interest and without substantially 

injuring the interests of the United States in the property 

thereby affected; 

(15) establish, install, abandon, re-establish, re-route, operate, maintain, repair, purchase, or lease such telephone and 

telegraph lines and cables, together with all facilities, apparatus, equipment, structures, appurtenances, accessories, and 

supplies used or useful in connection with the installation, operation, maintenance, or repair of such lines and cables, including telephones in residences leased or owned by the Government of the United States when appropriate to assure efficient response to extraordinary operational contingencies of a 

limited duration, and acquire such real property, rights-of-way, 

easements, or attachment privileges as may be required for the 

installation, operation, and maintenance of such lines, cables, 

and equipment; 

(16) establish, install, abandon, re-establish, change the location of, operate, maintain, and repair radio transmitting and 

receiving stations; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
11 

(17) provide medical and dental care for personnel entitled 

thereto by law or regulation, including care in private facilities; 

(18) accept, under terms and conditions the Commandant establishes, the service of an individual ordered to perform community service under the order of a Federal, State, or municipal court; 

(19) notwithstanding any other law, enter into cooperative 

agreements with States, local governments, non-governmental 

organizations, and individuals, to accept and utilize voluntary 

services for the maintenance and improvement of natural and 

historic resources on, or to benefit natural and historic research on, Coast Guard facilities, subject to the requirement 

that—(A) the cooperative agreements shall each provide for the 

parties to contribute funds or services on a matching basis 

to defray the costs of such programs, projects, and activities under the agreement; and 

(B) a person providing voluntary services under this subsection shall not be considered a Federal employee except 

for purposes of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, 

with respect to compensation for work-related injuries, and 

chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, with respect 

to tort claims; 

(20) enter into cooperative agreements with other Government agencies and the National Academy of Sciences; 

(21) require that any member of the Coast Guard or Coast 

Guard Reserve (including a cadet or an applicant for appointment or enlistment to any of the foregoing and any member of 

a uniformed service who is assigned to the Coast Guard) request that all information contained in the National Driver 

Register pertaining to the individual, as described in section 

30304(a) of title 49, be made available to the Commandant 

under section 30305(a) of title 49, may receive that information, and upon receipt, shall make the information available to 

the individual; 

(22) provide for the honorary recognition of individuals and 

organizations that significantly contribute to Coast Guard programs, missions, or operations, including State and local governments and commercial and nonprofit organizations, and pay 

for, using any appropriations or funds available to the Coast 

Guard, plaques, medals, trophies, badges, and similar items to 

acknowledge such contribution (including reasonable expenses 

of ceremony and presentation); 

(23) rent or lease, under such terms and conditions as are 

considered by the Secretary to be advisable, commercial vehicles to transport the next of kin of eligible retired Coast Guard 

military personnel to attend funeral services of the service 

member at a national cemetery; øand¿ 

(24) after informing the Secretary, make such recommendations to the Congress relating to the Coast Guard as the Commandant considers øappropriate¿ appropriate; and 

(25) notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any fiscal 

year transfer funds made available for personnel, compensation, 

and benefits from the appropriation account ‘Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement’ to the appropriation account ‘OperVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:32 May 26, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR072.XXX SR072

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
12 

ating Expenses’ for personnel compensation and benefits and related costs necessary to execute new or existing procurements of 

the Coast Guard. 

(b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(14), a lease described in 

paragraph (2) of this subsection may be for a term of up to 20 

years. 

(2) A lease referred to in paragraph (1) is a lease— (A) to the United States Coast Guard Academy Alumni Association for the construction of an Alumni Center on the 

grounds of the United States Coast Guard Academy; or 

(B) to an entity with which the Commandant has a cooperative agreement under section 4(e) of the Ports and Waterways 

Safety Act, and for which a term longer than 5 years is necessary to carry out the agreement. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING