U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

19–010 

" ! SENATE 

112TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2012

112–135 

Calendar No. 300 

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 

FISCAL YEARS 2012 AND 2013 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 1665 

JANUARY 26, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

ELLEN DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

TODD BERTOSON, Republican Staff Director 

JARROD THOMPSON Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 300 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 112–135 

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 

2012 AND 2013 

JANUARY 26, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 

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

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1665] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 1665) to authorize appropriations for 

the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and for other purposes, 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. 1665, the Coast Guard Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013, as amended, is two-fold. First, the bill 

would authorize amounts to be appropriated and set levels of military strength and training for the Coast Guard for each of fiscal 

years (FYs) 2012 and 2013. S. 1665 authorizes funding levels covering seven accounts: (1) operation and maintenance expenses 

(OE); (2) acquisition, construction, and improvement of facilities 

and equipment (AC&I); (3) research, development, testing, and 

evaluation (RDT&E); (4) retired pay; (5) alteration or removal of 

bridges; (6) environmental compliance and restoration (EC&R); and 

(7) the reserve program. Second, S. 1665 would make a number of 

refinements to the Coast Guard’s statutory authorities in order to 

help ensure that the Service is able to maintain—and in certain 

cases augment—its current operational capabilities across its eleven statutory missions. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1 S. Rep. No. 63-300 (1914). 2 Act of Jan. 28, 1915, ch. 20, 38 Stat. 800 (1915). 3 Department of Transportation Act § 6(b)(1) Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931. 4 6 U.S.C. § 468(b) (2010). 5 6 U.S.C. § 468(a) (2010). 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

The Coast Guard is unique among Federal Government entities 

in that it not only constitutes a part of the military forces of the 

United States but also is authorized to enforce all applicable Federal laws on, under, and over the high seas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It is a military, multi-mission, maritime 

service with its genesis in the Revenue Cutter Service, which was 

established in 1790 by the First Congress at the recommendation 

of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. On February 27, 1914, 

the Senate Committee on Commerce reported favorably 1, and on 

January 28, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson signed into law S. 

2337, which formed the modern-day Coast Guard by combining the 

Revenue Cutter Service and the U.S. Lifesaving Service and established its operation within the Treasury Department in time of 

peace and as a part of the Navy in time of war or at the direction 

of the President.2 In the 96 years since its creation, the Coast 

Guard’s missions have grown and evolved. In the mid-twentieth 

century, the Service absorbed additional Federal Government entities of significant importance to maritime commerce and transportation—first the United States Lighthouse Service in 1939, then 

the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation and its Steamboat 

Inspection Service in 1946. In 1967, the Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of 

Transportation (DOT).3 With the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Coast Guard and a number of other Federal 

agencies were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS).4

Today, the Coast Guard consists of over 42,000 active duty personnel, 7,000 reservists, 7,800 civilian employees, and 30,000 auxiliary volunteers. It performs eleven statutory missions, namely: 

• Aids to navigation; 

• Defense readiness; 

• Drug interdiction; 

• Ice operations; 

• Living marine resources (fisheries law enforcement); 

• Marine environmental protection; 

• Marine safety; 

• Migrant interdiction; 

• Ports, waterways, and coastal security; 

• Other law enforcement; and 

• Search and rescue.5

These diverse missions can be grouped broadly into three categories—safety, security, and stewardship. On average, each day 

the Coast Guard saves 13 lives, responds to 64 search and rescue 

cases, keeps 959 pounds of cocaine off the streets, prevents 

$260,000 in property damage, interdicts ten undocumented migrants seeking to unlawfully enter the United States, services 49 

buoys and other aids to navigation, ensures compliance of 15 fishVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:01 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR135.XXX SR135

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

6 U.S. Coast Guard, Coast Guard 2010 Snapshot: A Summary of Facts and Figures about 

America’s Coast Guard, http://www.uscg.mil/top/about/doc/uscglsnapshot.pdf. 7 Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr., U.S. Coast Guard, State of the Coast Guard Address, Feb. 10, 

2011, http://www.uscg.mil/seniorleadership/SPEECHES/2011-02-10lStateloflthelCoastl Guard.pdf. 8 Admiral Thad Allen, U.S. Coast Guard, State of the Coast Guard Address, Feb. 12, 2010, 

http://www.uscg.mil/history/allen/speeches/docs/SOTCG12Feb2010Transcript.pdf. 

ing vessels with fisheries laws, investigates 12 marine accidents, 

responds to and investigates ten pollution incidents, conducts security inspections of five high interest vessels, and escorts four U.S. 

Navy vessels transiting U.S. waterways.6

Currently, the Coast Guard finds itself at a crucial juncture in 

its long and storied history. Over time, the jobs assigned to the 

Coast Guard by Congress and the President have grown not only 

in number, but also in diversity and complexity. This steady expansion of Coast Guard missions has not been accompanied by a commensurate growth in the resources needed to fully fund those missions, and within the last year the Commandant of the Coast 

Guard has begun speaking openly and frankly about the potential 

need to reduce the number and range of new Coast Guard capabilities until they can be properly resourced.7

Coast Guard Recapitalization 

At the same time that the Coast Guard is adapting to the increased number, diversity, and complexity of missions it is being 

asked to perform, it also continues to pursue its critically important, long-term fleet recapitalization program for the replacement 

of its timeworn ships and aircraft. Currently, the fleet recapitalization plan contemplates replacing the Coast Guard’s ten remaining 

378-foot High Endurance Cutters (HECs), which were commissioned between 1967 and 1972, with eight 418-foot National Security Cutters (NSCs); 27 of its 210-foot and 270-foot Medium Endurance Cutters (MECs), which were commissioned between 1964 and 

1991, with 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs); 41 110-foot Patrol 

Boats, which were commissioned between 1985 and 1992, with 58 

154-foot Fast Response Cutters (FRCs); and replacing its 10 HU– 

25 Guardian medium-range, fixed-wing aircraft with 36 HC–144A 

Medium-Range Surveillance aircraft. 

The average age of the Coast Guard’s HECs, which are widely 

regarded for their versatility and capability of performing a variety 

of missions, is over 40 years—25 years older than the average age 

of Navy ships.8 Owing to their advanced age, the Coast Guard is 

only getting roughly 75 percent of the desired days out of the HECs 

because of breakdowns. Furthermore, the vessels are reaching an 

age where many of the parts and equipment onboard are no longer 

in production, and the Coast Guard must special-order custommade replacements at significant expense. The HECs are by no 

means the lone example of the challenges associated with the Service’s effort to maintain its aging fleet. Many other Coast Guard vessels and aircraft are struggling with major mission-debilitating casualties, resulting loss of operational days, and ever increasing 

maintenance costs. 

As the Coast Guard has pursued its sorely needed recapitalization program, it has continued to grapple with steadily increasing 

total cost estimates and slipping timelines for completion. In 1998, 

the Coast Guard’s initial estimated cost for the Deepwater recapiVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:01 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR135.XXX SR135

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

9 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Coast Guard: Action Needed as Approved Deepwater Program Remains Unachievable 10 (2011). 10 Id. 11 National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25 

(Jan. 9, 2009). 

talization program was $17 billion, with an estimated delivery date 

for all new and retrofitted assets of 2018. In February 2005, following its move from DOT to DHS, the Coast Guard submitted a 

revised Deepwater implementation plan to Congress to address increased costs and account for new security capabilities and missions. Under this revised plan, which was approved by DHS in May 

2007, the overall program cost increased to $24.2 billion, with the 

final assets scheduled for delivery in 2027. In July of 2011, the latest in a series of Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports 

examining the recapitalization program estimated that the total acquisition cost could ultimately be as much as $29.3 billion.9 Furthermore, GAO warned that additional program cost growth is 

looming because the Coast Guard has yet to develop and submit revised baselines for every asset-type it will acquire—most notably 

the OPC, which GAO calls the largest cost driver in the entire program.10 The Committee continues to be concerned that the current 

rate at which aging Coast Guard assets are being replaced cannot 

keep pace with the rate at which current ships and aircraft are 

reaching the end of their service lives. This situation, if left 

unaddressed, will force the Coast Guard to make operational tradeoffs that have the potential to create gaps in mission readiness. 

Arctic & Ice Operations 

While the fleet recapitalization program does not currently include within its scope the Service’s polar icebreaking facilities, 

these fleet assets also are at or near the end of their useful service 

lives. The Coast Guard is required by law to develop, maintain, and 

operate the Nation’s icebreaking fleet in the polar regions, but with 

aging assets and sparse resources the Service faces serious challenges in executing tasks necessary to perform its statutory missions in the Arctic and Antarctic. These challenges come just as the 

evidence is now undeniable that drastic environmental changes are 

occurring in the polar regions, and particularly in the Arctic. Reduced extent of sea ice in the Arctic is leading to a significant increase in commercial and non-commercial activity in the Arctic 

waters. New shipping routes that were previously frozen solid and 

unnavigable are now being used by vessels of foreign nations to reduce transit times. 

In recent years, as changes in the polar regions have become 

more readily apparent, U.S. attention to Arctic issues has increased 

significantly. On January 9, 2009, President Bush signed a presidential directive establishing a new U.S. policy for the Arctic region.11 This policy directive was issued as National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential 25 (NSPD 66/ 

HSPD 25) and superseded a 1994 presidential directive on Arctic 

policy. The directive states that the United States is an Arctic nation and it is the policy of the United States to: meet national security and homeland security needs relevant to the Arctic region; protect the Arctic environment; ensure natural resource management 

and economic development in the region; strengthen institutions for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

12 U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2009. 

cooperation among the eight Arctic nations; involve the Arctic’s indigenous communities in decisions; and enhance scientific monitoring and research. In carrying out this policy as it relates to national security and homeland security interests in the Arctic, it directs the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, in 

coordination with the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, to: 

• develop greater capabilities and capacity, as necessary, to 

protect U.S. air, land, and sea borders in the Arctic region; 

• increase Arctic maritime domain awareness in order to protect maritime commerce, critical infrastructure, and key resources; 

• preserve the global mobility of U.S. military and civilian 

vessels and aircraft throughout the Arctic region; 

• project a sovereign U.S. maritime presence in the Arctic in 

support of essential U.S. interests; and 

• encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes in the Arctic 

region. 

In October 2009, the U.S. Navy released the U.S. Navy Arctic 

Roadmap, which is intended to guide the Navy on policy, strategy, 

and investments relating to the changing Arctic.12 The roadmap 

contemplates a number of strategic drivers, including national policy guidance, the changing Arctic environment, the potential increase in natural resource extraction and inter- and intra-Arctic 

shipping, the activities and interests of other Arctic nations, past 

and present Navy experiences in the Arctic, and current fleet capabilities and limitations for Arctic operations. The goal of the roadmap is to ensure naval readiness and capability, and to promote 

maritime security in the Arctic region. Key elements of the plan include increasing operational experience, promoting cooperative 

partnerships, and improving environmental understanding. Recommendations from the roadmap include an assessment of Navy 

readiness for operating under harsh Arctic conditions, with a methodical review of current capabilities and gaps; the continuation 

of Arctic and sub-Arctic training exercises, including joint search 

and rescue, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief exercises 

with the Coast Guard; and investments in sensors and platforms 

to expand Arctic maritime domain awareness, including more robust environmental sensors to support enhanced modeling that will 

lead to better predictive capabilities. 

In May 2010, President Obama signed the National Security 

Strategy which lays out a strategic approach for advancing American interests, including the security of the American people, a 

growing U.S. economy, support for U.S. values, and an international plan to address future challenges. In this strategy, the 

President notes that the United States is an Arctic nation with 

broad and fundamental interests in the Arctic region, where we 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

13 National Security Strategy (May, 2010), http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ rsslviewer/nationallsecuritylstrategy.pdf. 14 U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 6 (2009). 15 Letter from General Victor E. Renuart, General Norton A. Schwartz, and Timothy J. 

Keating to General James E. Cartwright (May 21, 2008). 

seek to meet our national security needs, protect the environment, 

responsibly manage resources, account for indigenous communities, 

support scientific research, and strengthen international cooperation on a wide range of issues.13

The Committee has long been, and continues to be, concerned 

that the Nation is in jeopardy of losing the fundamental polar operational capabilities necessary to successfully pursue these important strategy and policy goals. 

Prior to 1965, icebreaking needs for our Nation were provided by 

the Navy. In 1965, the Navy permanently transferred responsibility for the operation of icebreakers and responsibility for mission 

requirements in the polar regions to the Coast Guard. The Navy 

has stated that the Arctic is critical to national defense, and that 

maintaining a continued presence in the region on the surface, subsurface, and in the air is required.14

Today, the Federal Government owns only three polar icebreakers—the Coast Guard Cutters HEALY (WAGB–20), POLAR 

SEA (WAGB–11), and POLAR STAR (WAGB–10). Currently, only 

the HEALY, a ‘‘medium’’ polar icebreaker is capable of operating in 

the Arctic, but not the Antarctic. The POLAR STAR, one of two 

‘‘heavy’’ polar icebreakers capable of operating in either polar region, has been maintained in ‘‘caretaker’’ status since 2006. It is 

currently undergoing a service life extension in order to be reactivated, but it will not be operational until January 2013, at the 

earliest. This refurbishment will only extend its service life to 2020. 

The POLAR SEA, the other of the two heavy polar icebreakers, received a service life extension in the early 2000s which should have 

extended its useful service life through 2015. In the summer of 

2010, possibly due to a modification to the original configuration of 

its diesel engines made during its service life extension, the 

POLAR SEA encountered accelerated engine wear which required 

it to enter emergency dockside repair. In February 2011, the President’s proposed budget for the Coast Guard for FY 2012 included 

plans to decommission the POLAR SEA. 

With no heavy icebreaker and only one medium icebreaker, U.S. 

capabilities in the polar regions stand in stark contrast to the 

icebreaking capability of other nations in the Northern Hemisphere. Most notably, Russia has twenty-five icebreakers—eight of 

which are heavy icebreakers—and is using them to assert sovereign control over the Arctic region and its many valuable resources. Other Arctic countries with significant icebreaking capability include Finland, with seven icebreakers; Sweden, with seven; 

and Canada, with six. In this regard, it is worth noting that a May 

21, 2008, letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 

Commander of the U.S. Northern Command, the Commander the 

U.S. Transportation Command, and the Commander of the U.S. 

Pacific Command emphatically stated, ‘‘To assert our interests in 

these regions, the United States needs assured access with reliable 

icebreaking ships’’.15 This letter also stated that the icebreakers 

were essential instruments of the U.S. policy in the polar regions 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

16 Nat’l Research Council of the Nat’l Academies, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World 100– 

101 (2007). 17 Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-281 § 307(f), 124 Stat. 2905, 2928 

(2010). 18 Id. 

and included recommendations for the construction of new polar 

icebreakers for the Coast Guard and adequate funding to keep existing icebreakers ready and viable. 

Since 2007, the Coast Guard has been studying the full range of 

capabilities needed for the Service to meet its statutory mission requirements and the requirements issued by the U.S. Navy in the 

polar regions, identifying gaps in mission capabilities in the regions 

and the number and types of assets—including polar icebreakers— 

needed to close the gaps. In 2007, the National Research Council 

of the National Academies (NRC) issued a report which concluded 

that ‘‘[n]ational interests in the polar regions require that the 

United States immediately program, budget, design, and construct 

two new polar icebreakers to be operated by the U.S. Coast Guard,’’ 

and that ‘‘[t]o provide continuity of U.S. icebreaking capabilities, 

the POLAR SEA should remain mission capable and the POLAR 

STAR should remain available for reactivation until the new polar 

icebreakers enter service.’’ 16

Following the publication of the NRC report, in 2008 Congress 

directed the Coast Guard to undertake its own study of icebreaking 

and other capabilities needed to fulfill its statutory missions in the 

polar regions, known as the High Latitude Study (HLS). On July 

20, 2011, the HLS was provided to Congress. It concludes that, in 

order to fulfill Coast Guard statutory missions in both polar regions, the Coast Guard requires three heavy and three medium icebreakers. Furthermore, the study concludes that, in order to fulfill 

its statutory missions in the polar regions and maintain the continuous presence requirements of the Navy’s Naval Operations Concept, the Coast Guard requires six heavy and four medium icebreakers. 

On October 15, 2010, the President signed into law the Coast 

Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (CGAA). The CGAA included a 

mandate that the Coast Guard require a non-governmental, independent third party with extensive experience in the analysis of 

military procurements to conduct a comparative cost-benefit business case analysis (BCA) of rebuilding the existing fleet of polar 

icebreakers on the one hand, and constructing new polar icebreakers on the other.17 Included in the scope of the required BCA 

was a comparative treatment of the costs and benefits associated 

with the operation of such assets by the Coast Guard versus their 

operation by the National Science Foundation.18 The BCA, which 

was provided to the Committee on November 2, 2011, contains the 

following summary findings: 

In order for the Nation to address its polar icebreaker 

shortfall, this analysis concludes: 

• The polar icebreaker fleet should be recapitalized by 

constructing new heavy polar icebreakers for operation by 

the Coast Guard. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

19 ABS Consulting, U.S. Polar Icebreaker Recapitalization, A Comprehensive Analysis and Its 

Impacts on U.S. Coast Guard Activities VI–VII (2011). 20 Id. L-1. 

• The acquisition of heavy polar icebreakers within the 

existing Coast Guard budget would have significant adverse impact on all Coast Guard activities. 

• Given the age of the Polar Star, and based on inspection records and ship visits, there is risk to assume Polar 

Star can remain fully operational until at least 2020 once 

it completes its revitalization. 

• The design-build timetable for a new heavy icebreaker, 

even under an aggressive schedule, is at best eight years. 

It is paramount that planning and budgeting begin immediately. 

The recapitalization of the polar icebreaker fleet cannot 

be funded within the Coast Guard budget. The requirement for full up-front funding places undue pressure on 

the acquisition of major assets. Even if such requirements 

can be waived; the Coast Guard budget does not have the 

tradespace for incremental funding of polar icebreakers. . . . 

An approach that should be considered is that which 

was used for the icebreaker Healy. After the Administration identified the need for one additional Coast Guard icebreaker, $329 million was appropriated for the ‘‘Coast 

Guard icebreaker ship program’’ in the FY 1990 Department of Defense (DOD) Budget (Pub. L. 101–165 of November 21, 1989). There is considerable strain on the DOD 

budget, thus a means to relieve that stress would be to 

provide relief from the requirement for full up-front funding such as used for the U.S. Navy’s Aircraft Carrier procurements which would reduce single year funding impacts.19

Notably, although not required by the congressional mandate, 

the BCA includes a treatment of the costs and benefits of leasing 

polar icebreakers. The BCA identifies a number of drawbacks to 

the leasing option, the most notable of which is the following: 

Finally, the lack of a currently existing domestic commercial vessel capable of meeting requirements reduces available options to Purchase and Build-to-Lease. A theoretical 

Cost-Benefit Analysis comparison of Build-to-Lease versus 

Purchase suggests that the lease option may actually be 

more costly at reasonable profit rates (12 percent) over the 

expected 30-year life of the asset.20

The Committee wishes to express its agreement with the conclusions of the NRC report, the HLS, and the BCA. It is of critical importance to our present and future national interests to, at a bare 

minimum, maintain the Coast Guard’s current polar icebreaking 

fleet, thereby maintaining its operational capabilities in the polar 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

21 14 U.S.C. § 2 (2010). 22 6 U.S.C. § 468(a) (2010). 23 6 U.S.C. § 468(c) & (e) (2010). 24 See Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-241, § 210 (2006) 

(requiring, inter alia, that: (1) the Coast Guard formulate a plan for the operation and maintenance after fiscal year 2006 of the POLAR STAR, POLAR SEA, and HEALY, and for the longterm recapitalization of those assets; and (2) the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 

Guard is operating take all necessary measures to ensure that the Coast Guard maintains, at 

a minimum, its current vessel capacity for carrying out ice breaking in the Arctic and Antarctic, 

Great Lakes, and New England regions); H. COMM. ON APPROPRIATIONS, 110TH CONG., CONSOLI- DATED SECURITY, DISASTER ASSISTANCE, AND CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009, at 646 

(Comm. Print 2008) (appropriating $30,300,000 for fiscal year 2009 to reactivate the POLAR 

STAR for an additional seven to ten years of service life); and H. REP. NO. 111–298, at 89 (2009) 

(Conf. Rep.) (providing an additional $32,500,000 in fiscal year 2010 to complete the reactivation 

and service life extension of the POLAR STAR). 

regions. Indeed, the Committee notes that this is required under 

current law. The Coast Guard is required by its organic statute to 

‘‘develop, establish, maintain, and operate, with due regard to the 

requirements of national defense . . . ice-breaking facilities . . . for 

the promotion of safety on, under, and over the high seas and 

waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’’ 21 The 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 reiterates this and related duties 

of the Coast Guard by specifying ice operations as one of the Service’s 11 statutory missions.22 Furthermore, the Homeland Security 

Act clearly states that ‘‘the authorities, functions, and capabilities 

of the Coast Guard to perform its missions shall be maintained intact and without significant reduction after the transfer of the 

Coast Guard to the Department [of Homeland Security], except as 

specified in subsequent Acts,’’ and ‘‘[t]he Secretary may not substantially or significantly reduce the missions of the Coast Guard 

or the Coast Guard’s capability to perform those missions, except 

as specified in subsequent Acts.’’ 23 Far from specifying any reduction in the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaking assets, Congress has 

consistently supported maintaining the Service’s polar icebreakers.24 As Coast Guard mission demands continue to evolve 

and increase concomitant with increased human activity in the 

changing polar regions, the importance of Coast Guard polar 

icebreaking capability adequate to meet those demands cannot be 

overstated. Without that capability, the Coast Guard cannot remove navigational hazards in order to maintain maritime mobility 

and safety of life and property at sea. It cannot assist or escort vessels in distress, or those beset or stranded in ice. 

Marine Environmental Protection 

Another critical mission of the Coast Guard is its statutory mission of marine environmental protection (MEP). The Coast Guard 

is designated by the President as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for all oil spills other than inland spills, under the 

National Contingency Plan. To understand the importance of the 

MEP mission and the Coast Guard’s leadership role as the FOSC 

for coastal and marine spill response, one need look no further 

than the explosion of the mobile offshore drilling unit DEEPWATER HORIZON and resulting crude oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. 

On April 20, 2010, the DEEPWATER HORIZON suffered an explosion after capping an exploratory oil well 42 miles southeast of 

Venice, Louisiana. The explosion originated from a methane gas 

build-up within the well, which shot up and out of the drill column 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

and ignited upon reaching the platform. Most of the rig’s workers 

were able to evacuate the platform as it burned; however, 11 workers were never found. Following the sinking of the rig, it was discovered that oil was gushing from the unsecured well about 5,000 

feet below the water’s surface and a leak began to spread at the 

site. By July 15, when the gushing wellhead was finally capped— 

nearly three months after the spill began—approximately 4.9 million barrels (205,800,000 gallons) of crude oil had been released 

into the Gulf of Mexico in the largest accidental marine oil spill in 

history. 

As the FOSC for the DEEPWATER HORIZON disaster, the 

Coast Guard was called upon to direct and coordinate an effective 

response, sustained over the course of several months, to a subsea 

crude oil leak of almost inconceivable proportions. While the Service appears to have met this challenge without any significant gaps 

in operational capabilities elsewhere, it is clear from the demands 

placed on it in responding to this catastrophic event that the Coast 

Guard must have the authorities and resources necessary to support the full range of Coast Guard capabilities in support of the 

MEP mission. Furthermore, it is crucial that the Coast Guard have 

the autonomy and flexibility to stage those resources as necessary 

to most effectively and efficiently employ them in a given MEP response operation. As an example, the ability to assign national response functions and staff throughout the Coast Guard, rather 

than maintaining a National Strike Force Coordination Center in 

one physical location, would promote increased flexibility, responsiveness, efficiency, and cost savings. 

The DEEPWATER HORIZON oil spill has also highlighted the 

need for improved basic oceanographic research and the research 

and development of new oil spill response and removal technologies. Oceanographic and meteorological observations provide 

data that contribute to a greater understanding of ocean surface 

current flows. This, in turn, increases the accuracy of oil spill trajectory models, which are critical to the oil spill response effort. Acquiring this data over long time periods improves prediction accuracy, so resources can be mobilized in the right place at the right 

time. More innovative technologies, such as unmanned maritime 

vehicles (UMVs) and self-propelled ocean gliders improve the understanding of the ocean. The UMVs can collect ocean data over 

long distances while providing real-time data telemetry to undersea 

sensors. This information can include oxygen content, temperature, 

wave height, density and presence (or absence) of hydrocarbons and 

other sensors that can aid in accurate underwater plume mapping 

and the assessment of the health of underwater habitats. The Committee supports the use of UMVs and other cost-saving maritime 

technologies to complement and enhance the Coast Guard’s MEP 

capabilities, especially such technologies which also have potential 

applications in other Coast Guard missions, such as search and 

rescue; ports, waterways, and coastal security; drug interdiction; 

and migrant interdiction. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

S. 1665, as reported, would authorize appropriations for the 

Coast Guard accounts covered in the bill totaling approximately 

$10.112 billion for each of FY 2012 and FY 2013, and would auVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:01 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR135.XXX SR135

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

thorize an end-of-year strength for active duty personnel of 47,000 

for FY 2012 and 49,350 for FY 2013. The bill would mandate that 

all budget authority for the operation and maintenance of Coast 

Guard vessels, aircraft, systems, aids to navigation, infrastructure, 

and any other Coast Guard assets be allocated to the Coast Guard. 

The bill would make a number of refinements to Coast Guard authorities relating to its ice operations mission, the most important 

of which would be to make the Coast Guard the sole provider of 

polar icebreaking services to agencies of the Federal Government, 

and require the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that the 

Coast Guard continues to operate a minimum of one medium and 

two heavy polar icebreakers as part of its fleet. The bill would extend the current authority for expedited hiring of major acquisitions experts to work on the Coast Guard’s ongoing fleet recapitalization efforts from the current 2012 deadline to 2015. The bill 

would also authorize the Coast Guard advance procurement funding authority for the purchase of new ship construction materials, 

parts, and components that have a long ‘‘lead time’’ for their manufacture or production. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1665 was introduced on October 6, 2011, by Senator Begich, 

and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation. Senator Rockefeller and Senator Snowe are original cosponsors of the legislation. On November 2, 2011, the Committee ordered that S. 1665 be reported with an amendment in the 

nature of a substitute. 

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: 

JANUARY 13, 2012. 

Hon. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1665, the Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Puro. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1665—Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2012 and 

2013 

Summary: S. 1665 would amend various laws that govern the activities of the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The bill also 

would authorize appropriations totaling about $19 billion, primarily 

for ongoing USCG operations during 2012 and 2013 ($8.5 billion 

has already been appropriated for fiscal year 2012). As a result, 

CBO estimates that appropriating the additional amounts specifiVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:01 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR135.XXX SR135

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

cally authorized by the bill and additional amounts estimated to be 

necessary would cost about $9.1 billion over the 2013–2017 period. 

The bill also would increase the authority of the Coast Guard to 

receive direct appropriations from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund (OSLTF) in the event of a significant oil spill in United 

Stales waters. As a result, the bill would increase direct spending 

by $3 million over the 2012–2021 period, CBO estimates; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

Enacting the bill could result in the collection of additional criminal or civil penalties because it would establish new penalties for 

certain violators of environmental law. Penalties are recorded as 

revenues and deposited in the U.S. Treasury. However, based on 

the small number of cases involved, CBO estimates that such collections would be minimal and the effect on revenues would be insignificant. 

S. 1665 contains intergovernmental and private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because 

it would increase the costs of complying with existing mandates related to active-duty personnel in the Coast Guard. The bill would 

impose additional private-sector mandates on owners and operators 

of vessels. CBO estimates that the aggregate cost of complying with 

the mandates would fall below the annual thresholds established 

in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($73 

million and $146 million, respectively, in 2012, adjusted annually 

for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1665 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 400 (transportation). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012– 

2017 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

United States Coast Guard Authorizations: 

Authorization Level a ........................................... 119 8,645 0 0 0 0 8,764 

Estimated Outlays .............................................. 19 5,989 1,494 533 331 156 8,522 

Polar Ice Breakers: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................ 0 1,750 0 0 0 0 1,750 

Estimated Outlays .............................................. 0 50 100 100 100 200 550 

Seafarers Fund: 

Authorization Level ............................................. 2 2 2 0 0 0 5 

Estimated Outlays .............................................. * 2 2 1 0 0 5 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................... 121 10,397 2 0 0 0 10,520 

Estimated Outlays ..................................... 19 6,041 1,596 634 431 356 9,077 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund b

Estimated Budget Authority ............................... * * * * * * 1 

Estimated Outlays .............................................. * * * * * * 1 

CHANGES IN REVENUES 

Estimated Revenues .................................................... * * * * * * * 

Note: * = less than $500,000. 

a The level for 2012 is the additional amount necessary to reach the total authorization under the bill. To date, about $8.5 billion has been 

appropriated for ongoing Coast Guard activities in 2012. b CBO estimates that direct spending under S. 1665 would total $3 million over the 2012–2022 period. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

Basis of estimate: 

Spending Subject to Appropriation 

For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 1665 will be enacted in 

fiscal year 2012 and that the amounts authorized by the bill will 

be appropriated for each year. Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for authorized activities. 

CBO estimates that appropriating the amounts authorized by the 

bill and estimated to be necessary would cost about $9.1 billion 

over the 2012–2017 period. The cost estimate does not include $90 

million in spending by the USCG that would be derived from the 

OSLTF for operating and research expenses because that amount 

is already authorized under existing law. 

USCG Authorizations. S. 1665 would authorize funding for ongoing USCG activities for 2012 and 2013. Specifically, the bill would 

authorize the appropriation of about $17.3 billion for USCG operations (including about $14 billion for operations and maintenance, 

$2.8 billion for capital acquisitions, $274 million for reserve training, $40 million for research programs, $34 million for environmental compliance, and $32 million for construction on certain 

bridges). Those activities received appropriations totaling about 

$8.5 billion in 2012. The bill would authorize $8.6 billion for 2012, 

leaving a remaining authorization level for 2012 of $119 million. 

The bill also would extend the Coast Guard’s authority to expedite 

the hiring of certain personnel in areas where there are staffing 

shortages and would give the Coast Guard additional flexibility in 

procurement. Assuming appropriation of the amounts specified in 

the bill for 2013, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions of S. 1665 would cost $8.5 billion over the 2012–2017 period. 

The bill also would authorize the appropriation of about $1.4 billion for Coast Guard retirement benefits in fiscal year 2012 and 

about $1.5 billion for such benefits in fiscal year 2013, but those 

amounts are excluded from this estimate because such benefits are 

considered an entitlement under current law and are not subject to 

appropriation. Thus, authorizing the appropriation of those 

amounts would have no additional budgetary impact. 

Polar Ice Breakers. Section 403 would require the USCG to acquire and maintain at least two vessels capable of breaking up 

heavy ice. Currently, the USCG has no such vessels in operation 

but is rehabilitating one vessel to provide such capabilities until 

2020. The design and construction of a new icebreaker would take 

8 to 10 years. As a result, the USCG would require appropriations 

to procure a vessel many years before that vessel is expected to be 

in service. Based on information from the USCG, building two 

polar icebreakers would cost about $1.8 billion ($875 million per 

vessel). CBO estimates that the Coast Guard would spend about a 

third of the construction funds ($550 million) over the 2013–2017 

period. 

Seafarers Fund. Section 502 would authorize the appropriation of 

$1.5 million per year over the 2012–2014 period to support certain 

seamen who are required to remain in the United States as witnesses in judicial proceedings and who are not financially supported by the owner of their vessel or who were abandoned by their 

vessel. Based on information from the Coast Guard, CBO estimates 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

that enacting the provisions of section 502 would cost about $5 million over the 2012–2017 period. 

Direct Spending 

Section 602 of the bill would authorize certain administrative 

costs to process claims to be taken from the OSLTF in cases where 

the President declares a future oil-spill incident to be a ‘‘spill of national significance.’’ Under current law, the federal administrative 

costs to process claims are subject to appropriation. (In recent 

years, the USCG has received an appropriation of about $25 million for such activities.) Since 1990, there have been two oil spills 

of national significance. While the frequency of major spills remains subject to a great deal of uncertainty, CBO estimates that 

there will be few major spills in future years. The probability of 

such a spill in any given year is small but not zero. As a result, 

CBO estimates that implementing this provision would not increase direct spending by significant amounts in any one year; over 

the 2012–2022 period, we estimate that such spending would total 

about $3 million on an expected-value basis. 

Revenues 

Enacting the bill could result in the collection of additional civil 

or criminal penalties because it would establish new penalties for 

certain violators of environmental law. Those penalties would be 

deposited into the Seafarers Fund if the balances in that fund were 

below $5 million. Penalties are recorded as revenues and deposited 

in the U.S. Treasury. However, based on the small number of cases 

involved, CBO estimates that such collections would be minimal 

and the effect on revenues would be insignificant. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those pay-asyou-go procedures are shown in the following table. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR S. 1665 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ON NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012– 

2017 

2012– 

2022 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-YouGo Impact ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1665 contains 

intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA because it would increase the costs of complying with existing mandates related to active-duty personnel in the Coast Guard. 

The bill would impose additional private-sector mandates on owners and operators of vessels. CBO estimates that the aggregate cost 

of complying with the mandates would fall below the annual 

thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($73 million and $146 million, respectively, in 

2012, adjusted annually for inflation). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

Mandates that Apply to Both Public and Private Entities 

The bill would increase the costs of complying with existing 

intergovernmental and private-sector mandates by increasing the 

number of active-duty personnel in the Coast Guard. The additional personnel would be eligible for protections under the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). Under SCRA, 

servicemembers have the right to maintain a single state of residence for purposes of paying state and local personal income taxes. 

They also have the right to request a deferral in the payment of 

certain state and local taxes and fees. In addition, SCRA requires 

creditors to charge no more than 6 percent interest on 

servicemembers’ obligations when such obligations predate activeduty service and allows courts to temporarily stay certain civil proceedings, such as evictions, foreclosures, and repossessions. Extending these existing protections to additional servicemembers would 

constitute mandates as defined in UMRA and could result in lost 

revenues to public and private entities. 

The number of active-duty servicemembers covered by SCRA 

would increase by less than 1 percent, CBO estimates. 

Servicemembers’ utilization of the various provisions of the SCRA 

depends on a number of uncertain factors, including how often and 

how long they are deployed. CBO expects, however, that relatively 

few of the added servicemembers would take advantage of the deferrals in certain state and local tax payments; thus, the lost revenues to those governments would be insignificant. Moreover, because the increase in the number of active-duty servicemembers 

covered by SCRA would be so small, CBO expects that the increased costs for private-sector entities also would be small. 

Mandates that Apply to Private Entities Only 

The bill would impose a mandate by accelerating requirements 

related to oil spill response in the Puget Sound. Current law requires the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking that would modify 

the definition of the ‘‘higher volume port area’’ to move the western 

boundary of the higher volume port area in the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca. Modifying the definition will expand the area covered by various federal oil spill response regulations. The bill would codify the 

modified definition and make any requirements related to oil spill 

response applicable on July 1, 2012. By doing so, the bill would 

probably require private entities to comply with the existing requirements related to oil spill responses in higher volume port 

areas earlier than currently anticipated. According to industry 

sources, much of the industry already complies with the requirements for higher volume ports and the additional cost to comply 

with those requirements sooner than under current law would be 

small. 

The bill also would require ship owners to pay certain expenses 

of seamen who are abandoned under the conditions specified in the 

bill. The bill would require ship owners who do not pay those expenses to reimburse the Support of Seafarers Fund the total 

amount paid from the fund to support the seamen, plus a surcharge of 25 percent. 

According to industry sources, situations in which ship owners 

would have to pay such expenses are rare, and payments would 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

probably be low. Therefore, CBO estimates that the cost to ship 

owners to comply with this mandate would be minimal. 

Previous CBO estimate: On September 30, 2011, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011, as ordered reported by the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. That bill also authorized programs operated by the Maritime Administration and 

the Federal Maritime Commission and would cost about $24.4 billion over the 2012–2016 period, CBO estimates. The CBO cost estimates reflect the different provisions in those legislative proposals. 

In addition, CBO’s estimate for H.R. 2838 was completed before appropriations for 2012 were enacted. This estimate (for S. 1665) reflects such appropriations. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Sarah Puro; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, 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: 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

S. 1665 as reported by the Committee would authorize appropriations to continue existing Coast Guard programs and make a number of changes to current law. The bill would have little, if any, 

regulatory impact. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

S. 1665 would enhance existing Coast Guard statutory authorities and authorize funding and levels of military strength and 

training in support of Coast Guard operations and activities that 

positively impact the Nation’s economy. 

PRIVACY

The bill, as reported, is not expected to impact the personal privacy of individuals. 

PAPERWORK

The reported bill is not expected to result in increased paperwork 

requirements for individuals or businesses. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following identification of congressionally directed spending items contained in the 

bill, as reported: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Section Provision Member 

Sec. 603 Oil spill liability trust fund investment 

amount 

Senator Begich 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short Title. 

This section would provide that the legislation may be cited as 

the ‘‘Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2012 and 

2013’’. 

TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION

Section 101. Authorization of Appropriations. 

This section would authorize funds to be appropriated as follows for FYs 2012 and 2013: $7.078 billion for operating expenses for 

each FY; $1.421 billion for acquisition, construction, and improvements (AC&I) for each FY; $19.8 million for research, development, 

test, and evaluation (RDT&E) for each FY; $1.440 billion for retired 

pay for FY 2012 and such sums as are required for FY 2013; $16 

million for alteration or removal of bridges for each FY; $16.7 million for environmental compliance and restoration for each FY; and 

$136.8 million for the reserve program for each FY. 

Section 102. Authorized Levels of Military Strength and Training. 

This section would authorize an end-of-year strength for active 

duty personnel of 47,000 for FY 2012 and 49,350 for FY 2013. This 

section also would authorize average military training student 

loads for FYs 2012 and 2013 as follows: 

CHART 1 

Training FY 2012 Student years 

FY 2013 Student years 

Recruit/Special ................................................................................................................................. 2,500 2,625 

Flight ................................................................................................................................................ 165 173 

Professional ..................................................................................................................................... 350 368 

Officer Acquisition ........................................................................................................................... 1,200 1,260 

TITLE II—ORGANIZATION

Section 201. Coast Guard Authority to Operate and Maintain Coast 

Guard Assets. 

This section would amend section 93 of title 14, United States 

Code, to mandate that all authority, including budget authority, for 

the operation and maintenance of Coast Guard vessels, aircraft, 

systems, aids to navigation, infrastructure, and any other Coast 

Guard assets shall be allocated to the Coast Guard and the department in which the Coast Guard is operating. 

Section 202. Clarification of Coast Guard Ice Operations Mission. 

This section would amend chapter 5 of title 46, United States 

Code, to mandate that the Coast Guard be the sole supplier of 

icebreaking services, on an advancement or reimbursable basis, to 

each Federal agency that requires icebreaking services. In the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

event the Coast Guard is unable to provide these services, a Federal agency would be permitted to acquire icebreaking services 

from another entity. This section also amends section 110 of the 

Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4109), and section 312 of the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act 

of 1984 (16 U.S.C. 2441), to ensure that OMB and DHS consider 

all statutory missions of the Coast Guard when allocating funds for 

icebreaking operations. 

TITLE III—PERSONNEL

Section 301. Acquisition Workforce Expedited Hiring Authority. 

This section would amend the acquisition workforce expedited 

hiring authority provided in section 404 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (124 Stat. 2950), to clarify the term ‘‘shortage category positions,’’ make a technical correction addressing the 

use of the term ‘‘paragraph’’ (vice ‘‘section’’), and extend the authority until 2015, consistent with DOD authority. 

Section 302. Officers Recommended for Promotion. 

This section would make a technical correction to section 259 of 

title 14, United States Code, regarding the selection process for officers recommended for promotion. The current law requires boards 

to completely review and determine the status of all selected and 

non-selected officers on the promotion list before considering any 

for reordering, a cumbersome process that advantages no one and 

creates the potential for administrative or clerical errors. This section would permit selection boards to both select officers for promotion and ‘‘reorder’’ them on the selection list at the same time. 

Selection for promotion and reordering are complementary processes; doing them concurrently is more efficient than doing them 

sequentially. This section would also improve selection board efficiency and reduce the potential for administrative errors without 

compromising fairness for the considered population. 

Section 303. Original Appointment of Permanent Commissioned Officers. 

This section would define the term ‘‘original’’ to eliminate the 

need for Senate confirmation of an officer who leaves and returns 

to the Coast Guard under the Temporary Separation Program. 

When an officer returns to the Coast Guard under the Temporary 

Separation Program, the officer’s re-appointment does not involve 

a promotion, and is therefore not ‘‘original’’ in substance. Nonetheless, due to the fact that the term ‘‘original’’ is not defined in statute, the re-appointment is submitted for Senate confirmation. To 

address this issue within the other armed forces, Congress has defined the term ‘‘original’’ to mean the ‘‘most recent appointment 

. . . that is neither a promotion nor a demotion.’’ (10 U.S.C. 

101(b)(10)). This section would adopt a substantively identical definition for the purposes of section 211 of title 14, United States 

Code. This section also would ensure that members of the Coast 

Guard are, for the purposes of disability determinations, treated in 

the same manner as members of the other armed forces. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

Section 304. Academy Pay, Allowances, and Emoluments. 

In the case of foreign nationals admitted to the U.S. Military 

Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, or the U.S. Air Force Academy 

for instruction, the Academies are authorized to pay for medical expenses and to recover the cost from the foreign national’s government (see 10 U.S.C. 4344(b), 6957(b), 9344(b)). The Coast Guard 

Academy, however, is not so authorized and thus, must require foreign nationals to be insured for health care costs. Currently, notwithstanding this requirement, some foreign nationals matriculate 

at the Academy without such insurance while others permit such 

insurance to lapse during the course of study. Often, the Academy 

is unable to resolve the issues satisfactorily before a cadet requires 

medical care. To address this disparity, this section would amend 

section 195 of title 14, United States Code, to permit the Coast 

Guard Academy, like the other military academies, to pay for medical costs of foreign nationals and recover the same from the foreign nationals’ governments. Additionally, it would make minor 

conforming amendments to subsections (c) and (d) of section 195 of 

title 14, United States Code, to provide consistency in the use of 

the term ‘‘foreign national’’ throughout section 195 of title 14, 

United States Code. 

Section 305. Academy Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence. 

This section would amend chapter 9 of title 14, United States 

Code, with respect to the Coast Guard Academy policy on sexual 

harassment and sexual violence to bring parity with the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the U.S. Air Force 

Academy. Sections 4361, 6980, and 9361 of title 10, United States 

Code, establish identical policy, survey, and reporting requirements 

for the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the 

U.S. Air Force Academy, respectively, with regard to Federal policy 

on sexual harassment and sexual violence applicable to personnel 

at the military academies. On the other hand, a repealed provision 

of law (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, 

P.L. 108–136, § 527, 117 Stat. 1392, 1468 (2003), repealed by John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 

P.L. 109–364, § 532(c), 120 Stat. 2205 (2006))—which established 

a like, but not identical, policy, survey, and reporting requirement 

for the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the 

U.S. Air Force Academy served as the basis for the current policy, 

survey, and reporting requirements for cadets and personnel of the 

Coast Guard Academy. The requirements of sections 4361, 6980, 

and 9361 of title 10, United States Code, and those of the repealed 

statute are not perfectly aligned. Moreover, the manner in which 

the repealed provision of law is made applicable creates ambiguities that frustrate the Coast Guard Academy’s ability to participate in the DOD-executed survey process and harmonize the release of data. To address this incongruence, this section would codify language that is substantively identical to that of sections 4361, 

6980, and 9361 of title 10, United States Code, as Federal policy 

on sexual harassment and sexual violence applicable to Coast 

Guard Academy personnel. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

Section 306. Coast Guard Auxiliarists Enrollment Eligibility. 

This section would amend section 823 of title 14, United States 

Code, to establish parity with active duty Coast Guard by permitting non-U.S. citizens who have been granted permanent resident 

status to become members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Currently, 

section 823 of title 14, United States Code, limits membership in 

the Coast Guard Auxiliary to citizens of the United States and its 

territories and possessions. Non-U.S. citizens who have been granted permanent resident status are, however, permitted to serve in 

the active duty Coast Guard. 

TITLE IV—ADMINISTRATION

Section 401. Advance Procurement Funding. 

This section would provide the Secretary of the department in 

which the Coast Guard is operating advance procurement funding 

authority in order to permit the acquisition of long lead time items 

for the construction of Coast Guard vessels. This would include: 

materials, parts, components, and effort for the vessel; the advance 

construction of parts or components for the vessel; the protection 

and storage of materials, parts, or components for the vessel; and 

production planning, design, and other related support services 

that reduce the overall procurement lead time of the vessel. 

Section 402. Multi-Year Procurement Authority for Coast Guard 

National Security Cutters. 

This section would provide the Secretary of the department in 

which the Coast Guard is operating authority to enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of NSCs and Government-furnished equipment associated with the NSC program as long as the 

Secretary submits to Congress a certification that such a contract 

will result in substantial savings of total anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts. 

Section 403. Requirement to Maintain United States Polar 

Icebreaking Capability. 

This section would require the Secretary of the department in 

which the Coast Guard is operating to acquire not less than two 

polar icebreakers for the Coast Guard either through new construction or by rebuilding existing assets. It would authorize the appropriation of such sums as are necessary to acquire, maintain, and 

operate the polar icebreakers. This section would also prohibit the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard from transferring, relinquishing 

ownership of, or recycling the POLAR STAR or the POLAR SEA. 

Further, the Coast Guard would not be allowed to expend any 

funds associated with the decommissioning of either heavy icebreaker according to this section. 

Section 404. Forward Operating Facility. 

This section would permit the Secretary of the department in 

which the Coast Guard is operating to construct or lease a hangar, 

a berthing, and messing facilities in the Aleutian Island-Bering Sea 

operating area. The infrastructure in this region is very limited 

and forward operating facilities with the capabilities to support airVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:01 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR135.XXX SR135

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

craft maintenance and provide shelter for Coast Guard helicopters 

would help the Service perform its missions in these remote areas. 

Section 405. National Response Functions. 

Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 

U.S.C. 1321), provides for the establishment of a National Response Unit (now commonly known as the National Strike Force 

Coordination Center) and expressly requires that this unit be located in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The Coast Guard is seeking the opportunity to gain efficiencies and cost savings through 

distributing National Strike Force Coordination Center personnel 

and functions throughout other elements of the Coast Guard’s Marine Environmental Response program. The limitations of section 

311 of that Act, however, do not permit the Coast Guard to realize 

these efficiencies. This section would repeal both the statutory references to the Unit and limitations as to location while preserving 

the Secretary’s related authority and mandates. It would permit 

the assignment of national response functions and staff to Marine 

Environmental Response program elements throughout the Coast 

Guard. 

Section 406. Conforming Amendment. 

This section would repeal a prior study on icebreakers, including 

a mandate on the operation and maintenance, reimbursement, and 

authorization of appropriations. 

TITLE V—SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION

Section 501. Designation of St. George Harbor as a Harbor of Refuge. 

This section would require the Commandant of the Coast Guard 

to consult with other appropriate Federal agencies, and with State 

and local interests, to determine improvements necessary to make 

the harbor at St. George, Alaska, a fully functional harbor of refuge 

throughout the year. The consultation would be required to be completed within one year of the date of enactment of the Act. 

Section 502. Protection and Fair Treatment of Seafarers. 

This section would create a legal and fiscal remedy for two intractable, often interrelated problems: humanitarian relief for seafarers abandoned in the United States and support of seafarers 

who are witnesses to maritime-related crimes. In both instances, 

this section would allow the Secretary of the department in which 

the Coast Guard operates to draw from a special fund to pay necessary support for abandoned seafarers, including seafarers who 

are witnesses in Coast Guard investigations and subsequent proceedings. Under current law, the Coast Guard has limited ability 

to assist abandoned seafarers, including those whose testimony is 

necessary for an investigation. 

Section 503. Delegation of Authority. 

This section would amend section 3316 of title 46, United States 

Code, to eliminate a loophole in the law that allows the foreignbased classification societies that represent the United States to 

also represent the governments of countries designated by the SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:01 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR135.XXX SR135

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

retary of State as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. It would prohibit 

the Secretary of Homeland Security and U.S. Coast Guard from 

delegating vessel inspection and certification authority to a foreignbased classification society that also provides these services to or 

on behalf of the governments of countries designated by the Secretary of State as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. 

Section 504. Report on Establishment of Arctic Deep Water Port. 

This section would require the Coast Guard to conduct a study 

on the feasibility and potential of establishing a deep water sea 

port in the Arctic to protect and advance U.S. strategic interests 

within the Arctic region. The report of findings shall be submitted 

to Congress not later than one year after the date of enactment. 

Section 505. Risk Analysis of Transporting Canadian Tar Sands. 

This section would require the Commandant of the Coast Guard 

to assess the increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea (including 

the Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, Rosario Strait, 

and the Strait of Juan de Fuca) that may occur from the transport 

of Canadian tar sands oil. It would require that this assessment include, at a minimum, certain specific considerations, such as potential for increased tank barge and tank vessel traffic, spill response 

capability in shared water of the United States and Canada in the 

Salish Sea, vessel emergency response towing capability at the Entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, tug escort requirements for 

laden tank vessels, and a risk assessment of the increasing tank 

vessel and tank barge traffic associated with Canadian tar sands 

development. In conducting the required analysis, the Commandant would be required to consult with affected State and tribal governments, and would also be strongly encouraged to consult 

with the Secretary of State. The Commandant would be required 

to submit recommendations based on the analysis to this Committee and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, and to consider in those recommendations 

a full range of options to manage any increased maritime traffic 

and minimize any increased likelihood of an oil spill, including legislation, rulemaking, and cooperative agreements for shared funding of spill prevention and response systems. 

TITLE VI—MISCELLANEOUS

Section 601. Conveyance of Decommissioned Coast Guard Cutter 

STORIS. 

This section would authorize the conveyance of the decommissioned Coast Guard Cutter STORIS to the Storis Museum in Juneau, Alaska, provided: the museum agrees to use the vessel as a 

historic memorial; the cutter is made available to the public as a 

museum; the museum works cooperatively with other museums to 

provide education and memorialize the maritime heritage of the 

STORIS and other maritime activities in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Arctic Ocean, and adjacent oceans and seas; the vessel is 

not used for commercial transportation purposes; the vessel is 

made available to the Federal Government if needed for use by the 

Commandant in time of war or national emergency; the museum 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

holds the Federal Government harmless for any claims arising 

from exposure to hazardous materials; and the museum agrees to 

any other conditions the Commandant considers appropriate. 

Section 602. Coast Guard Administrative Costs. 

Although the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), 

makes Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) amounts available 

to pay claims for damages without further appropriation, the President’s use of the OSLTF to process claims is subject to annual appropriations that do not contemplate surge requirements for major 

spills. Just as major spills, such as the DEEPWATER HORIZON 

spill of national significance, require extraordinary Federal oil removal efforts and costs to meet public expectations of an effective 

clean-up, such spills can generate similar public expectations of 

prompt and effective compensation by responsible parties or by the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) using the OSLTF. This 

section would close this funding gap by making the amounts available to pay the NPFC’s administrative and personnel costs to process claims. 

Section 603. Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Investment Amount. 

This section would increase the principal amount of funds that 

support the Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) by $12.851 million 

to account for reduced funding in recent years as a result of low 

interest rates and inflation. The OSRI conducts research and develops technologies to prevent and mitigate the effects of oil spills, 

and has a unique capability to conduct such research in Arctic and 

sub-Arctic regions. As hydrocarbon resources are developed in these 

regions, new research will be needed to mitigate potential spills in 

extreme cold water and icy conditions. 

Section 604. Dry Dock Operation. 

This section would clarify that a vessel transported in Dry Dock 

#2 (if, during such transportation, such dock remains connected by 

a utility or other connecting line to shoreside connections in Ketchikan, Alaska) is not ‘‘merchandise’’ for the purposes of the coastwise trade requirements that apply to vessels generally. 

Section 605. Technical Amendments. 

This section would make technical corrections to section 290(a) 

and section 740(d) of title 14, United States Code. 

Section 606. Vessel Determinations. 

This section would provide that the documented U.S. vessels 

with official numbers 981472 and 988333 shall be deemed new vessels following the completion of their major shipyard reconstruction 

projects. The certificates of documentation showing the ‘‘new vessel’’ status for those vessels may not be issued until there are no 

encumbrances on record for those vessels with the Coast Guard 

National Vessel Documentation Center at the time of issuance. The 

vessels would retain their official numbers of 981472 and 988333, 

and this section would not change U.S. Coast Guard vessel safety 

and inspection requirements applicable to each vessel prior to the 

enactment of this section. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

Section 607. Alteration of Bridge Obstructing Navigation. 

This section would require the Commandant to certify to Congress that the Coast Guard has commenced the interagency administrative review of the pending proposal to alter the obstruction to 

navigation of the Bayonne Bridge no later than 15 days after enactment. This section would also require the Commandant to expedite 

this interagency administrative review making use of all resources 

offered to the Coast Guard by the bridge owner and be completed 

with this review no later than December 31, 2011. 

Section 608. Documentation of LNG Tankers. 

This section would allow the issuance of certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement to documented U.S. vessels with 

official numbers 595752, 595753, and 595755. The issuance of 

coastwise endorsement would be limited to carriage of natural gas 

only. 

Section 609. Notice of Arrival. 

This section would clarify that notice of arrival regulations promulgated pursuant to the Security and Accountability for Every 

Port Act of 2006 (120 Stat. 1884), only apply to vessels arriving 

from a foreign port. 

Section 610. Homeporting of FSV HENRY B. BIGELOW. 

This section would require the Administrator of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to make a final 

decision with respect to the homeport for the FSV HENRY B. 

BIGELOW not later than 180 days of the date of enactment of the 

Act. This section would direct the agency to give special consideration to specific factors as a part of its decision making process. It 

also would require the Administrator of NOAA to notify Congress 

of his/her proposed final decision, and the rationale upon which 

that proposed decision is based, no later than 45 days before implementing the final decision. Finally, this provision would require the 

Administrator of NOAA to submit a report to Congress on the 

progress in making the final decision no later than 30 days after 

the date of enactment. 

Section 611. Higher Volume Port Area Regulatory Definition 

Change. 

This section would amend subsection (a) of section 710 of the 

Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (124 Stat. 2986), which 

changed the regulatory definition of ‘‘higher volume port area’’ for 

Puget Sound to establish its westerly boundary at the entrance to 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca, in order to expedite that definitional 

change. Under this section, the change in definition would take effect on July 1, 2012. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(25) 

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): 

ARCTIC RESEARCH AND POLICY ACT OF 1984 

SEC. 110. COORDINATION AND REVIEW OF BUDGET REQUESTS; OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY; OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. 

[15 U.S.C. 4109] 

(a) The Office of Science and Technology Policy shall— 

(1) review all agency and department budget requests related to the Arctic transmitted pursuant to section 108(a)(5), in 

accordance with the national Arctic research policy and the 5- 

year program under section 108(a)(2) and section 109, respectively; and 

(2) consult closely with the Interagency Committee and the 

Commission to guide the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s efforts. 

(b)(1) The Office of Management and Budget shall consider all 

Federal agency requests for research related to the Arctic as one 

integrated, coherent, and multiagency request which shall be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget prior to submission of the President’s annual budget request for its adherence to 

the Plan. The Commission shall, after submission of the President’s 

annual budget request, review the request and report to Congress 

on adherence to the Plan. 

(2) The Office of Management and Budget shall seek to facilitate planning for the design, procurement, maintenance, deployment, and operations of icebreakers needed to execute the 

statutory missions of the Coast Guard and to provide a platform for Arctic research by allocating all funds necessary to 

support icebreaking operations, except for recurring incremental costs associated with specific projects, and all budget 

authority related to such operations to the Coast Guard. 

ANTARCTIC MARINE LIVING RESOURCES CONVENTION ACT 

OF 1984 

SEC. 312. FEDERAL AGENCY COOPERATION. 

[16 U.S.C. 2441] 

* * * * * * * 

(c) ICEBREAKING.—The Department of Homeland Security shall 

facilitate planning for the design, procurement, maintenance, deployment, and operation of icebreakers needed to execute the statuVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:01 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR135.XXX SR135

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

tory missions of the Coast Guard and to provide a platform for Antarctic research. All funds necessary to support icebreaking operations, except for recurring incremental costs associated with specific projects, shall be allocated to the United States Coast Guard. 

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

SEC. 404. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE EXPEDITED HIRING AUTHORITY. 

[124 Stat. 2950] 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of sections 3304, 5333, and 5753 

of title 5, United States Code, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 

may— 

(1) designate any category of acquisition positions within the 

Coast Guard øas shortage category positions¿ as positions for 

which there is a shortage of candidates or a critical hiring 

need; and 

(2) use the authorities in such sections to recruit and appoint 

highly qualified persons directly to positions so designated. 

(b) LIMITATION.—The Commandant may not appoint a person to 

a position of employment under this øparagraph¿ section after September 30, ø2012¿ 2015. 

(c) REPORTS.—The Commandant shall include in reports under 

section 562(d) of title 14, United States Code, as added by this title, 

information described in that section regarding positions designated under this section. 

SEC. 710. HIGHER VOLUME PORT AREA REGULATORY DEFINITION 

CHANGE. 

[124 Stat. 2986] 

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—Within 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Commandant shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding 

to modify the definition of the term ‘‘higher volume port area’’ in 

section 155.1020 of the Coast Guard regulations (33 C.F.R. 

155.1020) by striking ‘‘Port Angeles, WA’’ in paragraph (13) of that 

section and inserting ‘‘Cape Flattery, WA’’.¿ 

(a) HIGHER VOLUME PORTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, the requirements of subparts D, F, and G of part 155 of 

title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, that apply to the higher 

volume port area for the Strait of Juan de Fuca at Port Angeles, Washington (including any water area within 50 nautical 

miles seaward), to and including Puget Sound, shall be deemed 

to apply, in the same manner, and to the same extent, to the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca at Cape Flattery, Washington (including 

any water area within 50 nautical miles seaward), to and including Puget Sound. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall take effect on 

July 1, 2012. 

(b) VESSEL RESPONSE PLAN REVIEWS.—Within 5 years after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Coast Guard shall complete its 

review of any changes to vessel response plans under the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) resulting from 

øthe modification of the higher volume port area definition required by subsection (a)¿ higher volume port requirements made 

applicable under subsection (a). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 

SEC. 311. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES LIABILITY. 

[33 U.S.C. 1321] 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—For the purpose of this section, the term— 

(1) ‘‘oil’’ means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but 

not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil 

mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil; 

(2) ‘‘discharge’’ includes, but is not limited to, any spilling, 

leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping, but 

excludes (A) discharges in compliance with a permit under section 402 of this Act, (B) discharges resulting from circumstances identified and reviewed and made a part of the 

public record with respect to a permit issued or modified under 

section 402 of this Act, and subject to a condition in such permit,[,] (C) continuous or anticipated intermittent discharges 

from a point source, identified in a permit or permit application under section 402 of this Act, which are caused by events 

occurring within the scope of relevant operating or treatment 

systems, and (D) discharges incidental to mechanical removal 

authorized by the President under subsection (c) of this section; 

(3) ‘‘vessel’’ means every description of watercraft or other 

artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a 

means of transportation on water other than a public vessel; 

(4) ‘‘public vessel’’ means a vessel owned or bareboat chartered and operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, except when 

such vessel is engaged in commerce; 

(5) ‘‘United States’’ means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 

Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; 

(6) ‘‘owner or operator’’ means (A) in the case of a vessel, any 

person owning, operating, or chartering by demise, such vessel, 

and (B) in the case of an onshore facility, and an offshore facility, any person owning or operating such onshore facility or offshore facility, and (C) in the case of any abandoned offshore facility, the person who owned or operated such facility immediately prior to such abandonment; 

(7) ‘‘person’’ includes an individual, firm, corporation, association, and a partnership; 

(8) ‘‘remove’’ or ‘‘removal’’ refers to containment and removal 

of the oil or hazardous substances from the water and shorelines or the taking of such other actions as may be necessary 

to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health 

or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, 

and public and private property, shorelines and beaches; 

(9) ‘‘contiguous zone’’ means the entire zone established or to 

be established by the United States under article 24 of the 

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone; 

(10) ‘‘onshore facility’’ means any facility (including, but not 

limited to, motor vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind located 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

in, on, or under, any land within the United States other than 

submerged land; 

(11) ‘‘offshore facility’’ means any facility of any kind located 

in, on, or under, any of the navigable waters of the United 

States, and any facility of any kind which is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is located in, on, or under 

any other waters, other than a vessel or a public vessel; 

(12) ‘‘act of God’’ means an act occasioned by an unanticipated grave natural disaster; 

(13) ‘‘barrel’’ means 42 United States gallons at 60 degrees 

Fahrenheit; 

(14) ‘‘hazardous substance’’ means any substance designated 

pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section; 

(15) ‘‘inland oil barge’’ means a non-self-propelled vessel carrying oil in bulk as cargo and certificated to operate only in the 

inland waters of the United States, while operating in such 

waters; 

(16) ‘‘inland waters of the United States’’ means those waters 

of the United States lying inside the baseline from which the 

territorial sea is measured and those waters outside such baseline which are a part of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway; 

(17) ‘‘otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States’’ means subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 

by virtue of United States citizenship, United States vessel 

documentation or numbering, or as provided for by international agreement to which the United States is a party; 

(18) ‘‘Area Committee’’ means an Area Committee established under subsection (j); 

(19) ‘‘Area Contingency Plan’’ means an Area Contingency 

Plan prepared under subsection (j); 

(20) ‘‘Coast Guard District Response Group’’ means a Coast 

Guard District Response Group established under subsection 

(j); 

(21) ‘‘Federal On-Scene Coordinator’’ means a Federal OnScene Coordinator designated in the National Contingency 

Plan; 

(22) ‘‘National Contingency Plan’’ means the National Contingency Plan prepared and published under subsection (d); 

ø(23) ‘‘National Response Unit’’ means the National Response Unit established under subsection (j);¿ 

ø(24)¿ (23) ‘‘worst case discharge’’ means— 

(A) in the case of a vessel, a discharge in adverse weather conditions of its entire cargo; and 

(B) in the case of an offshore facility or onshore facility, 

the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather conditions; 

ø(25)¿ (24) ‘‘removal costs’’ means— 

(A) the costs of removal of oil or a hazardous substance 

that are incurred after it is discharged; and 

(B) in any case in which there is a substantial threat of 

a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance, the costs to 

prevent, minimize, or mitigate that threat; and 

ø(26)¿ (25) ‘‘nontank vessel’’ means a self-propelled vessel 

that— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

(A) is at least 400 gross tons as measured under section 

14302 of title 46, United States Code, or, for vessels not 

measured under that section, as measured under section 

14502 of that title; 

(B) is not a tank vessel; 

(C) carries oil of any kind as fuel for main propulsion; 

and 

(D) operates on the navigable waters of the United 

States, as defined in section 2101(17a) of that title. 

* * * * * * * 

(j) NATIONAL RESPONSE SYSTEM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Consistent with the National Contingency 

Plan required by subsection (c)(2) of this section, as soon as 

practicable after the effective date of this section, and from 

time to time thereafter, the President shall issue regulations 

consistent with maritime safety and with marine and navigation laws (A) establishing methods and procedures for removal 

of discharged oil and hazardous substances, (B) establishing 

criteria for the development and implementation of local and 

regional oil and hazardous substance removal contingency 

plans, (C) establishing procedures, methods, and equipment 

and other requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of 

oil and hazardous substances from vessels and from onshore 

facilities and offshore facilities, and to contain such discharges, 

and (D) governing the inspection of vessels carrying cargoes of 

oil and hazardous substances and the inspection of such cargoes in order to reduce the likelihood of discharges of oil from 

vessels in violation of this section. 

(2) øNATIONAL RESPONSE UNIT.—The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall establish 

a National Response Unit at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. 

The Secretary, acting through the National Response 

Unit¿NATIONAL RESPONSE FUNCTIONS.—The Secretary of the 

department in which the Coast Guard is operating— 

(A) shall compile and maintain a comprehensive computer list of spill removal resources, personnel, and equipment that is available worldwide and within the areas designated by the President pursuant to paragraph (4), and of 

information regarding previous spills, including data from 

universities, research institutions, State governments, and 

other nations, as appropriate, which shall be disseminated 

as appropriate to response groups and area committees, 

and which shall be available to Federal and State agencies 

and the public; 

(B) shall provide technical assistance, equipment, and 

other resources requested by a Federal On-Scene Coordinator; 

(C) shall coordinate use of private and public personnel 

and equipment to remove a worst case discharge, and to 

mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge, from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility 

operating in or near an area designated by the President 

pursuant to paragraph (4); 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

(D) may provide technical assistance in the preparation 

of Area Contingency Plans required under paragraph (4); 

(E) shall administer Coast Guard strike teams established under the National Contingency Plan; 

(F) shall maintain on file all Area Contingency Plans approved by the President under this subsection; and 

(G) shall review each of those plans that affects its responsibilities under this subsection. 

(3) Coast Guard District Response Groups. 

(A) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast 

Guard is operating shall establish in each Coast Guard 

district a Coast Guard District Response Group. 

(B) Each Coast Guard District Response Group shall 

consist of— 

(i) the Coast Guard personnel and equipment, including firefighting equipment, of each port within the 

district; 

(ii) additional prepositioned equipment; and 

(iii) a district response advisory staff. 

(C) Coast Guard district response groups— 

(i) shall provide technical assistance, equipment, 

and other resources when required by a Federal OnScene Coordinator; 

(ii) shall maintain all Coast Guard response equipment within its district; 

(iii) may provide technical assistance in the preparation of Area Contingency Plans required under paragraph (4); and 

(iv) shall review each of those plans that affect its 

area of geographic responsibility. 

(4) AREA COMMITTEES AND AREA CONTINGENCY PLANS.— (A) There is established for each area designated by the 

President an Area Committee comprised of members appointed by the President from qualified personnel of Federal, State, and local agencies. 

(B) Each Area Committee, under the direction of the 

Federal On-Scene Coordinator for its area, shall— 

(i) prepare for its area the Area Contingency Plan 

required under subparagraph (C); 

(ii) work with State and local officials to enhance the 

contingency planning of those officials and to assure 

preplanning of joint response efforts, including appropriate procedures for mechanical recovery, dispersal, 

shoreline cleanup, protection of sensitive environmental areas, and protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife; and 

(iii) work with State and local officials to expedite 

decisions for the use of dispersants and other mitigating substances and devices. 

(C) Each Area Committee shall prepare and submit to 

the President for approval an Area Contingency Plan for 

its area. The Area Contingency Plan shall— 

(i) when implemented in conjunction with the National Contingency Plan, be adequate to remove a 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

worst case discharge, and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge, from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility operating in or near 

the area; 

(ii) describe the area covered by the plan, including 

the areas of special economic or environmental importance that might be damaged by a discharge; 

(iii) describe in detail the responsibilities of an 

owner or operator and of Federal, State, and local 

agencies in removing a discharge, and in mitigating or 

preventing a substantial threat of a discharge; 

(iv) list the equipment (including firefighting equipment), dispersants or other mitigating substances and 

devices, and personnel available to an owner or operator and Federal, State, and local agencies, to ensure 

an effective and immediate removal of a discharge, 

and to ensure mitigation or prevention of a substantial 

threat of a discharge; 

(v) compile a list of local scientists, both inside and 

outside Federal Government service, with expertise in 

the environmental effects of spills of the types of oil 

typically transported in the area, who may be contacted to provide information or, where appropriate, 

participate in meetings of the scientific support team 

convened in response to a spill, and describe the procedures to be followed for obtaining an expedited decision regarding the use of dispersants; 

(vi) describe in detail how the plan is integrated into 

other Area Contingency Plans and vessel, offshore facility, and onshore facility response plans approved 

under this subsectionø, and into operating procedures 

of the National Response Unit¿; 

(vii) include any other information the President requires; and 

(viii) be updated periodically by the Area Committee. 

(D) The President shall— 

(i) review and approve Area Contingency Plans 

under this paragraph; and 

(ii) periodically review Area Contingency Plans so 

approved. 

(5) TANK VESSEL, NONTANK VESSEL, AND FACILITY RESPONSE

PLANS.— 

(A) (i) The President shall issue regulations which require an owner or operator of a tank vessel or facility described in subparagraph (C) to prepare and submit to the 

President a plan for responding, to the maximum extent 

practicable, to a worst case discharge, and to a substantial 

threat of such a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance. 

(ii) The President shall also issue regulations which 

require an owner or operator of a nontank vessel to 

prepare and submit to the President a plan for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

worst case discharge, and to a substantial threat of 

such a discharge, of oil. 

(B) The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast 

Guard is operating may issue regulations which require an 

owner or operator of a tank vessel, a nontank vessel, or a 

facility described in subparagraph (C) that transfers noxious liquid substances in bulk to or from a vessel to prepare and submit to the Secretary a plan for responding, to 

the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of 

a noxious liquid substance that is not designated as a hazardous substance or regulated as oil in any other law or 

regulation. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘‘noxious liquid substance’’ has the same meaning when that 

term is used in the MARPOL Protocol described in section 

2(a)(3) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 

U.S.C. 1901(a)(3)). 

(C) The tank vessels, nontank vessels, and facilities referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) are the following: 

(i) A tank vessel, as defined under section 2101 of 

title 46, United States Code. 

(ii) A nontank vessel. 

(iii) An offshore facility. 

(iv) An onshore facility that, because of its location, 

could reasonably be expected to cause substantial 

harm to the environment by discharging into or on the 

navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone. 

(D) A response plan required under this paragraph 

shall— 

(i) be consistent with the requirements of the National Contingency Plan and Area Contingency Plans; 

(ii) identify the qualified individual having full authority to implement removal actions, and require immediate communications between that individual and 

the appropriate Federal official and the persons providing personnel and equipment pursuant to clause 

(iii); 

(iii) identify, and ensure by contract or other means 

approved by the President the availability of, private 

personnel and equipment necessary to remove to the 

maximum extent practicable a worst case discharge 

(including a discharge resulting from fire or explosion), 

and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such 

a discharge; 

(iv) describe the training, equipment testing, periodic unannounced drills, and response actions of persons on the vessel or at the facility, to be carried out 

under the plan to ensure the safety of the vessel or facility and to mitigate or prevent the discharge, or the 

substantial threat of a discharge; 

(v) be updated periodically; and 

(vi) be resubmitted for approval of each significant 

change. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

(E) With respect to any response plan submitted under 

this paragraph for an onshore facility that, because of its 

location, could reasonably be expected to cause significant 

and substantial harm to the environment by discharging 

into or on the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or 

the exclusive economic zone, and with respect to each response plan submitted under this paragraph for a tank 

vessel, nontank vessel, or offshore facility, the President 

shall— 

(i) promptly review such response plan; 

(ii) require amendments to any plan that does not 

meet the requirements of this paragraph; 

(iii) approve any plan that meets the requirements 

of this paragraph; 

(iv) review each plan periodically thereafter; and 

(v) in the case of a plan for a nontank vessel, consider any applicable State-mandated response plan in 

effect on the date of the enactment of the Coast Guard 

and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 and ensure 

consistency to the extent practicable. 

(F) A tank vessel, nontank vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility required to prepare a response plan under 

this subsection may not handle, store, or transport oil unless— 

(i) in the case of a tank vessel, nontank vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility for which a response 

plan is reviewed by the President under subparagraph 

(E), the plan has been approved by the President; and 

(ii) the vessel or facility is operating in compliance 

with the plan. 

(G) Notwithstanding subparagraph (E), the President 

may authorize a tank vessel, nontank vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility to operate without a response plan 

approved under this paragraph, until not later than 2 

years after the date of the submission to the President of 

a plan for the tank vessel, nontank vessel, or facility, if the 

owner or operator certifies that the owner or operator has 

ensured by contract or other means approved by the President the availability of private personnel and equipment 

necessary to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, 

to a worst case discharge or a substantial threat of such 

a discharge. 

(H) The owner or operator of a tank vessel, nontank vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility may not claim as 

a defense to liability under title I of the Oil Pollution Act 

of 1990 that the owner or operator was acting in accordance with an approved response plan. 

(I) The Secretary shall maintain, in the Vessel Identification System established under chapter 125 of title 46, 

United States Code, the dates of approval and review of a 

response plan under this paragraph for each tank vessel 

and nontank vessel that is a vessel of the United States. 

(6) EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND INSPECTION.—The President may require— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

(A) periodic inspection of containment booms, skimmers, 

vessels, and other major equipment used to remove discharges; and 

(B) vessels operating on navigable waters and carrying 

oil or a hazardous substance in bulk as cargo, and nontank 

vessels carrying oil of any kind as fuel for main propulsion, 

to carry appropriate removal equipment that employs the 

best technology economically feasible and that is compatible with the safe operation of the vessel. 

(7) AREA DRILLS.—The President shall periodically conduct 

drills of removal capability, without prior notice, in areas for 

which Area Contingency Plans are required under this subsection and under relevant tank vessel, nontank vessel, and facility response plans. The drills may include participation by 

Federal, State, and local agencies, the owners and operators of 

vessels and facilities in the area, and private industry. The 

President may publish annual reports on these drills, including 

assessments of the effectiveness of the plans and a list of 

amendments made to improve plans. 

(8) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NOT LIABLE.—The United 

States Government is not liable for any damages arising from 

its actions or omissions relating to any response plan required 

by this section. 

OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1012. USES OF THE FUND. 

[33 U.S.C. 2712] 

(a) USES GENERALLY.—The Fund shall be available to the President for— 

(1) the payment of removal costs, including the costs of monitoring removal actions, determined by the President to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan— 

(A) by Federal authorities; or 

(B) by a Governor or designated State official under subsection (d); 

(2) the payment of costs incurred by Federal, State, or Indian 

tribe trustees in carrying out their functions under section 

1006 for assessing natural resource damages and for developing and implementing plans for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of damaged 

resources determined by the President to be consistent with 

the National Contingency Plan; 

(3) the payment of removal costs determined by the President to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan as a 

result of, and damages resulting from, a discharge, or a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil from a foreign offshore 

unit; 

(4) the payment of claims in accordance with section 1013 for 

uncompensated removal costs determined by the President to 

be consistent with the National Contingency Plan or uncompensated ødamages¿ damages, including the cost of commercial 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

claims processing, expert services, training, technical services, 

and other administrative and personnel costs to process claims; 

(5) the payment of Federal administrative, operational, and 

personnel costs and expenses reasonably necessary for and incidental to the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this Act (including, but not limited to, sections 

1004(d)(2), 1006(e), 4107, 4110, 4111, 4112, 4117, 5006, 8103, 

and title VII) and subsections (b), (c), (d), (j), and (l) of section 

311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

1321), as amended by this Act, with respect to prevention, removal, and enforcement related to oil discharges, provided 

that— 

(A) not more than $25,000,000 in each fiscal year shall 

be available to the Secretary for operating expenses incurred by the Coast Guard; (B) not more than $15,000,000 in each fiscal year shall 

be available to the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere for expenses incurred by, and activities related to, response and damage assessment capabilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 

(C) not more than $30,000,000 each year through the 

end of fiscal year 1992 shall be available to establish the 

National Response System under section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by this Act, 

including the purchase and prepositioning of oil spill removal equipment; and (D) not more than $27,250,000 in each fiscal year shall 

be available to carry out title VII of this Act; and 

(6) the making of loans pursuant to the program established 

under section 1013(f). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4202. NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESPONSE SYSTEM. 

[33 U.S.C. 1321 note] 

* * * * * * * 

(b) IMPLEMENTATION.— 

(1) AREA COMMITTEES AND CONTINGENCY PLANS.— 

(A) Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall designate the areas 

for which Area Committees are established under section 

311(j)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended by this Act. In designating such areas, the President shall ensure that all navigable waters, adjoining 

shorelines, and waters of the exclusive economic zone are 

subject to an Area Contingency Plan under that section. 

(B) Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, each Area Committee established under 

that section shall submit to the President the Area Contingency Plan required under that section. 

(C) Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall— 

(i) promptly review each plan; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

(ii) require amendments to any plan that does not 

meet the requirements of section 311(j)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and 

(iii) approve each plan that meets the requirements 

of that section. 

ø(2) NATIONAL RESPONSE UNIT.—Not later than one year 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 

department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall establish a National Response Unit in accordance with section 

311(j)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by this Act.¿ 

ø(3)¿ (2) COAST GUARD DISTRICT RESPONSE GROUPS.—Not 

later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 

operating shall establish Coast Guard District Response 

Groups in accordance with section 311(j)(3) of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by this Act. 

ø(4)¿ (3) TANK VESSEL AND FACILITY RESPONSE PLANS; TRANSITION PROVISION; EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROHIBITION.— 

(A) Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue regulations for 

tank vessel and facility response plans under section 

311(j)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended by this Act. 

(B) During the period beginning 30 months after the 

date of the enactment of this paragraph and ending 36 

months after that date of enactment, a tank vessel or facility for which a response plan is required to be prepared 

under section 311(j)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by this Act, may not handle, store, 

or transport oil unless the owner or operator thereof has 

submitted such a plan to the President. 

(C) Subparagraph (E) of section 311(j)(5) of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by this Act, shall 

take effect 36 months after the date of the enactment of 

this Act. 

* * * * * * * 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 

2006 

øSEC. 210. ICEBREAKERS. 

[14 U.S.C. 93 note] 

ø(a) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN.—Not later than 90 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 

department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation of the Senate a plan— 

ø(1) for operation and maintenance after fiscal year 2006 of 

the Coast Guard polar icebreakers POLAR STAR, POLAR 

SEA, and HEALY, that does not rely on the transfer of funds 

to the Coast Guard by any other Federal agency; and 

ø(2) for the long-term recapitalization of these assets. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

ø(b) NECESSARY MEASURES.—The Secretary shall take all necessary measures to ensure that the Coast Guard maintains, at a 

minimum, its current vessel capacity for carrying out ice breaking 

in the Arctic and Antarctic, Great Lakes, and New England regions, including the necessary funding for operation and maintenance of such vessels, until it has implemented the long-term recapitalization of the Coast Guard polar icebreakers POLAR STAR, 

POLAR SEA, and HEALY in accordance with the plan submitted 

under subsection (a). 

ø(c) REIMBURSEMENT.—Nothing in this section shall preclude the 

Secretary from seeking reimbursement for operation and maintenance costs of such polar icebreakers from other Federal agencies 

and entities, including foreign countries, that benefit from the use 

of the icebreakers. 

ø(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated for fiscal year 2006 to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating $100,000,000 to carry 

out this section with respect to the polar icebreakers referred to in 

subsection (a).¿ 

TITLE 14. COAST GUARD 

PART I. REGULAR COAST GUARD

CHAPTER 5. FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

§ 87. Provision of icebreaking services 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as provided in subsection (b), the Coast Guard shall be the sole 

supplier of icebreaking services, on an advancement or reimbursable 

basis, to each Federal agency that requires icebreaking services. 

(b) EXCEPTION.—In the event that a Federal agency requires 

icebreaking services and the Coast Guard is unable to provide the 

services, the Federal agency may acquire icebreaking services from 

another entity. 

TITLE 14. COAST GUARD 

PART I. REGULAR COAST GUARD

CHAPTER 5. FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

§ 93. Commandant; general powers 

* * * * * * * 

(e) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF COAST GUARD ASSETS AND

FACILITIES.—All authority, including programmatic budget authority, for the operation and maintenance of Coast Guard vessels, aircraft, systems, aides to navigation, infrastructure, and any other 

Coast Guard assets or facilities, shall be allocated to and vested in 

the Coast Guard and the department in which the Coast Guard is 

operating. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

TITLE 14. COAST GUARD 

PART I. REGULAR COAST GUARD

CHAPTER 9. COAST GUARD ACADEMY

§ 195. Admission of foreign nationals for instruction; restrictions; conditions 

(a) A foreign national may not receive instruction at the Academy except as authorized by this section. 

(b) The President may designate not more than 36 foreign nationals whom the Secretary may permit to receive instruction at 

the Academy. 

(c) A øperson¿ foreign national receiving instruction under this 

section is entitled to the same øpay and allowances¿ pay, allowances, and emoluments, to be paid from the same appropriations, 

as a cadet appointed pursuant to section 182 of this title. A øperson¿ foreign national may receive instruction under this section 

only if his country agrees in advance to reimburse the United 

States, at a rate determined by the Secretary, for the cost of providing such instruction, including øpay and allowances¿ pay, allowances, and emoluments, unless a waiver therefrom has been granted to that country by the Secretary. Funds received by the Secretary for this purpose shall be credited to the appropriations bearing the cost thereof, and may be apportioned between fiscal years. 

(d) A øperson¿ foreign national receiving instruction under this 

section is— 

(1) not entitled to any appointment in the Coast Guard by 

reason of his graduation from the Academy; and 

(2) subject to those regulations applicable to the Academy 

governing admission, attendance, discipline, resignation, discharge, dismissal, and graduation, except as may otherwise be 

prescribed by the Secretary. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 200. Policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence 

(a) REQUIRED POLICY.—The Commandant shall direct the Superintendent of the Academy to prescribe a policy on sexual harassment 

and sexual violence. The policy shall apply to each member of the 

Coast Guard Academy personnel. For purposes of this section, the 

term ‘‘Coast Guard Academy personnel’’ includes cadets. 

(b) POLICY SPECIFICATIONS.—The policy under subsection (a) 

shall include— 

(1) programs to promote awareness of the incidence of rape, 

acquaintance rape, and other sexual offenses of a criminal nature on and off the Academy reservation; 

(2) the procedure that a victim of sexual harassment or sexual 

violence on or off the Academy reservation shall follow if the 

victim chooses to report the sexual harassment or sexual violence, including— 

(A) how to report the alleged sexual harassment or sexual 

violence, including— 

(i) the name and contact information of each person 

that the victim must contact; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

(ii) an option for confidential reporting; 

(B) the name and contact information of each person that 

the victim can contact for assistance; and 

(C) how to preserve evidence; 

(3) the procedure for disciplinary action against a member of 

the Coast Guard Academy personnel who commits sexual harassment or sexual violence; 

(4) any other authorized sanctions against a member of the 

Coast Guard Academy personnel who commits sexual harassment or sexual violence; and 

(5) required training on the policy for each member of the 

Coast Guard Academy personnel, including a specific training 

requirement for each member of the Coast Guard Academy personnel who process allegations of sexual harassment or sexual 

violence. 

(c) ASSESSMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commandant shall direct the Superintendent of the Academy to conduct an assessment during each 

Academy program year to determine the effectiveness of the policy under subsection (a). 

(2) BIENNIAL SURVEY.—Each assessment under paragraph (1) 

that is conducted during an odd-numbered program year shall 

include a survey of Coast Guard Academy personnel. The survey shall— 

(A) measure— 

(i) the incidence, during that program year, of sexual 

harassment and sexual violence, on or off the Academy 

reservation, that were reported under subsection (b)(2); 

and 

(ii) the incidence, during that program year, of sexual harassment and sexual violence, on or off the Academy reservation, that were not reported under subsection (b)(2); and 

(B) assess the perceptions of Coast Guard Academy personnel regarding— 

(i) the policy, training, and procedures on sexual 

harassment and sexual violence; 

(ii) the enforcement of the policy; 

(iii) the incidence of sexual harassment and sexual 

violence involving Coast Guard Academy personnel; 

and 

(iv) any other issues relating to sexual harassment 

and sexual violence involving Coast Guard Academy 

personnel, that the Superintendent of the Academy considers relevant. 

(d) REPORT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commandant shall direct the Superintendent of the Academy to submit a report to the Commandant each Academy program year on sexual harassment 

and sexual violence involving a member of the Coast Guard 

Academy personnel that year. 

(2) REPORT SPECIFICATIONS.—A report under paragraph (1) 

shall include— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

(A) the number of reported incidents of sexual violence, 

on or off the Academy reservation, involving a member of 

the Coast Guard Academy, categorized by the type of offence, such as rape and sexual assault; 

(B) the number of reported incidents under subparagraph 

(A) that were substantiated; 

(C) any updates to the policy, training, or procedures on 

sexual harassment and sexual violence under this section 

during the Academy program year; and 

(D) a plan detailing the action that will be taken during 

the subsequent Academy program year to respond to and 

prevent sexual harassment and sexual violence, on or off 

the Academy reservation, involving a member of the Coast 

Guard Academy. 

(3) BIENNIAL SURVEY.—Each report under paragraph (1) that 

is submitted during an odd-numbered program year shall include the results of the survey under subsection (c)(2). 

(4) TRANSMISSION OF REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after 

the date of receipt of a report under paragraph (1), the Commandant shall transmit a copy of the report and the Commandant’s comments on the report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives. 

TITLE 14. COAST GUARD 

PART I. REGULAR COAST GUARD

CHAPTER 11. PERSONNEL

OFFICERS

A. APPOINTMENTS

§ 211. Original appointment of permanent commissioned officers 

(a) (1) The President may appoint permanent commissioned officers in the Regular Coast Guard in grades appropriate to their 

qualification, experience, and length of service, as the needs of the 

Coast Guard may require, from among the following categories: 

(A) Graduates of the Coast Guard Academy. 

(B) Commissioned warrant officers, warrant officers, and 

enlisted members of the Regular Coast Guard. 

(C) Members of the Coast Guard Reserve who have 

served at least 2 years as such. 

(D) Licensed officers of the United States merchant marine who have served 2 or more years aboard a vessel of 

the United States in the capacity of a licensed officer. 

(2) Original appointments under this section in the grades of 

lieutenant commander and above shall be made by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

(3) Original appointments under this section in the grades of 

ensign through lieutenant shall be made by the President 

alone. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

(b) No person shall be appointed a commissioned officer under 

this section until his mental, moral, physical, and professional fitness to perform the duties of a commissioned officer has been established under such regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe. 

(c) Appointees under this section shall take precedence in the 

grade to which appointed in accordance with the dates of their 

commissions as commissioned officers in such grade. Appointees 

whose dates of commission are the same shall take precedence with 

each other as the Secretary shall determine. 

(d) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘original’’ with respect 

to the appointment of a member of the Coast Guard refers to the 

member’s most recent appointment in the Coast Guard that is neither a promotion nor a demotion. 

TITLE 14. COAST GUARD 

PART I. REGULAR COAST GUARD

CHAPTER 11. PERSONNEL

OFFICERS

B. SELECTION FOR PROMOTION

§ 259. Officers to be recommended for promotion 

* * * * * * * 

(c) (1) øAfter selecting¿ In selecting the officers to be recommended for promotion, a selection board may recommend officers of particular merit, from among those officers chosen for promotion, to be placed at the top of the list of selectees promulgated 

by the Secretary under section 271(a) of this title. The number of 

officers that a board may recommend to be placed at the top of the 

list of selectees may not exceed the percentages set forth in subsection (b) unless such a percentage is a number less than one, in 

which case the board may recommend one officer for such placement. No officer may be recommended to be placed at the top of 

the list of selectees unless he or she receives the recommendation 

of at least a majority of the members of a board composed of five 

members, or at least two-thirds of the members of a board composed of more than five members. 

(2) The Secretary shall conduct a survey of the Coast Guard 

officer corps to determine if implementation of this subsection 

will improve Coast Guard officer retention. A selection board 

may not make any recommendation under this subsection before the date on which the Secretary publishes a finding, based 

upon the results of the survey, that implementation of this 

subsection will improve Coast Guard officer retention. 

(3) The Secretary shall submit any finding made by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (2) to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

of the Senate. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

TITLE 14. COAST GUARD 

PART I. REGULAR COAST GUARD

CHAPTER 11. PERSONNEL

OFFICERS

D. DISCHARGES; RETIREMENTS; REVOCATION OF COMMISSIONS

§ 290. Rear admirals and real admirals (lower half); continuation on active duty; involuntary retirement 

(a) The Secretary shall from time to time convene boards to recommend for continuation on active duty the most senior officers on 

the active duty promotion list serving in the grade of rear admiral 

(lower half) or rear admiral who have not previously been considered for continuation in that grade. Officers, other than the Commandant, serving for the time being or who have served øin the 

grade of vice admiral¿ in or above the grade of vice admiral are not 

subject to consideration for continuation under this subsection, and 

as to all other provisions of this section shall be considered as having been continued at the grade of rear admiral. A board shall consist of at least five officers serving in the grade of vice admiral or 

as rear admirals previously continued. Boards shall be convened 

frequently enough to assure that each officer serving in the grade 

of rear admiral (lower half) or rear admiral is subject to consideration for continuation during a promotion year in which that officer 

completes not less than four or more than five years combined service in the grades of rear admiral (lower half) and rear admiral. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 14. COAST GUARD 

PART II. COAST GUARD RESERVE AND AUXILIARY

CHAPTER 21. COAST GUARD RESERVE

SUBCHAPTER B. COMMISSIONED OFFICERS

§ 740. Failure of selection and removal from an active status 

* * * * * * * 

(d) For the purpose of this section, the total commissioned service 

of an officer who has served continuously in the Reserve following 

appointment in the grade of ensign shall be computed from the 

date on which øthat appointment¿ that Reserve appointment was 

accepted. A Reserve officer initially appointed in a grade above ensign is considered to have the actual total commissioned service 

performed in a grade above commissioned warrant officer or the 

same total commissioned service as an officer of the Regular Coast 

Guard who has served continuously from an original appointment 

as ensign, who has not lost numbers or precedence, and who is, or 

was, junior to the Reserve officer, whichever is greater. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

TITLE 14. COAST GUARD 

PART II. COAST GUARD RESERVE AND AUXILIARY

CHAPTER 23. COAST GUARD AUXILIARY

ø§ 823. Eligibility, enrollments 

øThe Auxiliary shall be composed of citizens of the United States 

and its territories and possessions, who are owners, sole or part, 

of motorboats, yachts, aircraft, or radio stations or who by reason 

of their special training or experience are deemed by the Commandant to be qualified for duty in the Auxiliary, and who may be 

enrolled therein pursuant to applicable regulations.¿ 

§ 823. Eligibility, enrollments 

The Auxiliary shall be composed of citizens of the United States 

and its territories and possessions, and of aliens lawfully admitted 

for permanent residence, as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))— 

(1) who are owners, sole or part, of motorboats, yachts, aircraft, or radio stations; or 

(2) who by reason of their special training or experience are 

deemed by the Commandant to be qualified for duty in the Auxiliary, and who may be enrolled therein pursuant to applicable 

regulations. 

TITLE 46. SHIPPING 

SUBTITLE II. VESSELS AND SEAMEN

PART B. INSPECTION AND REGULATION OF VESSELS

CHAPTER 33. INSPECTION GENERALLY

§ 3316. Classification societies 

(a) Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United 

States Government shall recognize the American Bureau of Shipping as its agent in classifying vessels owned by the Government 

and in matters related to classification, as long as the American 

Bureau of Shipping is maintained as an organization having no 

capital stock and paying no dividends. The Secretary and the Secretary of Transportation each shall appoint one representative (except when the Secretary is the Secretary of Transportation, in 

which case the Secretary shall appoint both representatives) who 

shall represent the Government on the executive committee of the 

American Bureau of Shipping. The American Bureau of Shipping 

shall agree that the representatives shall be accepted by it as active members of the committee. The representatives shall serve 

without compensation, except for necessary traveling expenses. 

(b) (1) The Secretary may delegate to the American Bureau of 

Shipping or another classification society recognized by the Secretary as meeting acceptable standards for such a society, for a vessel documented or to be documented under chapter 121 of this title, 

the authority to— 

(A) review and approve plans required for issuing a certificate of inspection required by this part; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

(B) conduct inspections and examinations; and 

(C) issue a certificate of inspection required by this part 

and other related documents. 

(2) The Secretary may make a delegation under paragraph 

(1) to a foreign classification society only— 

(A) to the extent that the government of the foreign 

country in which the society is headquartered delegates 

authority and provides access to the American Bureau of 

Shipping to inspect, certify, and provide related services to 

vessels documented in that country; øand¿ 

(B) if the foreign classification society has offices and 

maintains records in the United Statesø.¿ ; and 

(C) if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign 

classification society does not provide comparable services 

in or for the government of a country designated by the Secretary of State as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. 

(3) When an inspection or examination has been delegated 

under this subsection, the Secretary’s delegate— 

(A) shall maintain in the United States complete files of 

all information derived from or necessarily connected with 

the inspection or examination for at least 2 years after the 

vessel ceases to be certified; and 

(B) shall permit access to those files at all reasonable 

times to any officer, employee, or member of the Coast 

Guard designated— 

(i) as a marine inspector and serving in a position 

as a marine inspector; or 

(ii) in writing by the Secretary to have access to 

those files. 

(c) (1) A classification society (including an employee or agent of 

that society) may not review, examine, survey, or certify the construction, repair, or alteration of a vessel in the United States unless the society has applied for approval under this subsection and 

the Secretary has reviewed and approved that society with respect 

to the conduct of that society under paragraph (2). 

(2) The Secretary may approve a person for purposes of paragraph (1) only if the Secretary determines that— 

(A) the vessels surveyed by the person while acting as 

a classification society have an adequate safety record; and 

(B) the person has an adequate program to— 

(i) develop and implement safety standards for vessels surveyed by the person; 

(ii) make the safety records of the person available 

to the Secretary in an electronic format; 

(iii) provide the safety records of a vessel surveyed 

by the person to any other classification society that 

requests those records for the purpose of conducting a 

survey of the vessel; and 

(iv) request the safety records of a vessel the person 

will survey from any classification society that previously surveyed the vessel. 

(d) (1) The Secretary may delegate to the American Bureau of 

Shipping or another classification society recognized by the SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:01 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR135.XXX SR135

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

retary as meeting acceptable standards for such a society, for a 

United States offshore facility, the authority to— 

(A) review and approve plans required for issuing a certificate of inspection, a certificate of compliance, or any 

other certification and related documents issued by the 

Coast Guard pursuant to regulations issued under section 

30 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 

1356); øand¿ 

(B) conduct inspections and examinationsø.¿ ; and 

(C) if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign 

classification society does not provide comparable services 

in or for the government of a country designated by the Secretary of State as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. 

(2) The Secretary may make a delegation under paragraph 

(1) to a foreign classification society only if— 

(A) the foreign society has offices and maintains records 

in the United States; and 

(B) (i) the government of the foreign country in which 

the foreign society is headquartered delegates that authority to the American Bureau of Shipping; or 

(ii) the Secretary has entered into an agreement 

with the government of the foreign country in which 

the foreign society is headquartered that— 

(I) ensures the government of the foreign country will accept plan review, inspections, or examinations conducted by the American Bureau of 

Shipping and provide equivalent access to inspect, 

certify, and provide related services to offshore facilities located in that country or operating under 

the authority of that country; and 

(II) is in full accord with principles of reciprocity 

in regards to any delegation contemplated by the 

Secretary under paragraph (1). 

(3) If an inspection or examination is conducted under authority delegated under this subsection, the person to which 

the authority was delegated— 

(A) shall maintain in the United States complete files of 

all information derived from or necessarily connected with 

the inspection or examination for at least 2 years after the 

United States offshore facility ceases to be certified; and 

(B) shall permit access to those files at all reasonable 

times to any officer, employee, or member of the Coast 

Guard designated— 

(i) as a marine inspector and serving in a position 

as a marine inspector; or 

(ii) in writing by the Secretary to have access to 

those files. 

(4) For purposes of this subsection— 

(A) the term ‘‘offshore facility’’ means any installation, 

structure, or other device (including any vessel not documented under chapter 121 of this title or the laws of another country), fixed or floating, that dynamically holds position or is temporarily or permanently attached to the 

seabed or subsoil under the sea; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

(B) the term ‘‘United States offshore facility’’ means any 

offshore facility, fixed or floating, that dynamically holds 

position or is temporarily or permanently attached to the 

seabed or subsoil under the territorial sea of the United 

States or the outer Continental Shelf (as that term is defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

(43 U.S.C. 1331)), including any vessel, rig, platform, or 

other vehicle or structure subject to regulation under section 30 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 

U.S.C. 1356). 

(e) The Secretary shall revoke an existing delegation made to a 

foreign classification society under subsection (b) or (d) if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign classification society provides comparable services in or for the government of a country designated by the Secretary of State as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. 

TITLE 46. SHIPPING 

SUBTITLE II. VESSELS AND SEAMEN

PART G. MERCHANT SEAMEN PROTECTION AND RELIEF

CHAPTER 111. PROTECTION AND RELIEF

§ 11113. Protection and fair treatment of seafarers 

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section shall be to ensure the 

protection and fair treatment of seafarers. 

(b) SPECIAL FUND.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Treasury a 

special fund known as the ‘‘Support of Seafarers Fund’’. 

(2) USE OF AMOUNTS IN FUND.—The amounts deposited into 

the Fund shall be available to the Secretary, without fiscal year 

limitation, to— 

(A) pay necessary support under subsection (c)(1); and 

(B) reimburse a shipowner for necessary support under 

subsection (c)(2). 

(3) AMOUNTS CREDITED TO FUND.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, the Fund may receive— 

(A) any moneys ordered to be paid to the Fund in the 

form of community service under section 8B1.3 of the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual or to the extent permitted under paragraph (4); and 

(B) amounts reimbursed or recovered under subsection 

(e). 

(4) PREREQUISITE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE CREDITS.—The 

Fund may receive credits under paragraph (3)(A) if the unobligated balance of the Fund is less than $5,000,000. 

(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated, from the Fund, for each fiscal year such 

sums as may be necessary for the purposes set forth in paragraph (2). 

(6) REPORT REQUIRED.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall submit to Congress, concurrent with the President’s budget submission 

for a given fiscal year, a report that describes— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

(i) the amounts credited to the Fund under paragraph (3) for the preceding fiscal year; 

(ii) in detail, the activities for which amounts were 

charged; and 

(iii) the projected level of expenditures from the Fund 

for the upcoming fiscal year, based on— 

(I) on-going activities; and 

(II) new cases, derived from historic data. 

(B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to obligations during the first fiscal year during which amounts 

are credited to the Fund. 

(7) FUND MANAGER.—The Secretary shall designate a Fund 

manager. The Fund manager shall— 

(A) ensure the visibility and accountability of transactions utilizing the Fund; 

(B) prepare the report under paragraph (6); 

(C) monitor the unobligated balance of the Fund; and 

(D) provide notice to the Secretary and the Attorney General whenever the unobligated balance of the Fund is less 

than $5,000,000. 

(c) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary may— 

(1) pay, from amounts appropriated from the Fund, necessary 

support of— 

(A) a seafarer that— 

(i) enters, remains, or is paroled into the United 

States; and 

(ii) is involved in an investigation, reporting, documentation, or adjudication of any matter that is related to the administration or enforcement of any treaty, law, or regulation by the Coast Guard; and 

(B) a seafarer that the Secretary determines was abandoned in the United States; and 

(2) reimburse, from amounts appropriated from the Fund, a 

shipowner that has provided necessary support of a seafarer 

who has been paroled into the United States to facilitate an investigation, reporting, documentation, or adjudication of any 

matter that is related to the administration or enforcement of 

any treaty, law, or regulation by the Coast Guard, for the costs 

of necessary support if the Secretary determines that reimbursement is necessary to avoid serious injustice. 

(d) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed— 

(1) to create a right, benefit, or entitlement to necessary support; or 

(2) to compel the Secretary to pay or reimburse the cost of necessary support. 

(e) REIMBURSEMENT; RECOVERY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A shipowner shall reimburse the Fund an 

amount equal to the total amount paid from the Fund for necessary support of a seafarer plus a surcharge of 25 percent of 

the total amount if— 

(A) the shipowner— 

(i) during the course of an investigation, reporting, 

documentation, or adjudication of any matter that the 

Coast Guard referred to a United States Attorney or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

the Attorney General, fails to provide necessary support 

of a seafarer who was paroled into the United States 

to facilitate the investigation, reporting, documentation, or adjudication; and 

(ii) subsequently receives a criminal penalty; or 

(B) the shipowner, under any circumstance, abandons a 

seafarer in the United States, as determined by the Secretary. 

(2) ENFORCEMENT.—If a shipowner fails to reimburse the 

Fund under paragraph (1), the Secretary may— 

(A) proceed in rem against any vessel of the shipowner in 

the Federal district court for the district in which the vessel 

is found; and 

(B) withhold or revoke the clearance required under section 60105 of any vessel of the shipowner wherever the vessel is found. 

(3) REMEDY.—A vessel may obtain clearance from the Secretary after it is withheld or revoked under paragraph (2)(B) if 

the shipowner reimburses the Fund the amount required under 

paragraph (1). 

(f) BOND AND SURETY.— 

(1) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary may require a bond or a surety satisfactory as an alternative to withholding or revoking 

clearance under subsection (e) if, in the opinion of the Secretary, 

the bond or surety satisfactory is necessary to facilitate an investigation, reporting, documentation, or adjudication of any 

matter that is related to the administration or enforcement of 

any treaty, law, or regulation by the Coast Guard. 

(2) SURETY CORPORATIONS.—A surety corporation may provide a bond or surety satisfactory under paragraph (1) if the 

surety corporation is authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 9305 of title 31 to provide surety bonds under 

section 9304 of title 31. 

(3) APPLICATION.—The authority to require a bond or surety 

satisfactory or to request the withholding or revocation of the 

clearance under subsection (e) applies to any investigation, reporting, documentation, or adjudication of any matter that is 

related to the administration or enforcement of any treaty, law, 

or regulation by the Coast Guard. 

(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) ABANDONS; ABANDONED.—The term ‘‘abandons’’ or ‘‘abandoned’’ means— 

(A) a shipowner’s unilateral severance of ties with a seafarer; or 

(B) a shipowner’s failure to provide necessary support of 

a seafarer. 

(2) BOND OR SURETY SATISFACTORY.—The term ‘‘bond or surety satisfactory’’ means a negotiated instrument, the terms of 

which may, at the discretion of the Secretary, include provisions 

that require a shipowner to— 

(A) provide necessary support of a seafarer who has or 

may have information pertinent to an investigation, reporting, documentation, or adjudication of any matter that is 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

related to the administration or enforcement of any treaty, 

law, or regulation by the Coast Guard; 

(B) facilitate an investigation, reporting, documentation, 

or adjudication of any matter that is related to the administration or enforcement of any treaty, law, or regulation by 

the Coast Guard; 

(C) stipulate to certain incontrovertible facts, including 

the ownership or operation of the vessel, or the authenticity 

of documents and things from the vessel; 

(D) facilitate service of correspondence and legal papers; 

(E) enter an appearance in United States district court; 

(F) comply with directions regarding payment of funds; 

(G) name an agent in the United States for service of 

process; 

(H) stipulate in United States district court as to the authenticity of certain documents; 

(I) provide assurances that no discriminatory or retaliatory measures will be taken against a seafarer involved in 

an investigation, reporting, documentation, or adjudication 

of any matter that is related to the administration or enforcement of any treaty, law, or regulation by the Coast 

Guard; 

(J) provide financial security in the form of cash, bond, 

or other means acceptable to the Secretary; and 

(K) provide for any other appropriate measures as the 

Secretary considers necessary to ensure the Government is 

not prejudiced by granting the clearance required under 

section 60105 of title 46. 

(3) FUND.—The term ‘‘Fund’’ means the Support of Seafarers 

Fund established under this section. 

(4) NECESSARY SUPPORT.—The term ‘‘necessary support’’ 

means normal wages, lodging, subsistence, clothing, medical 

care (including hospitalization), repatriation, and any other expense the Secretary considers appropriate. 

(5) SEAFARER.—The term ‘‘seafarer’’ means an alien crewman 

who is employed or engaged in any capacity on board a vessel 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

(6) SHIPOWNER.—The term ‘‘shipowner’’ means an individual 

or entity that owns, has an ownership interest in, or operates 

a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

(7) VESSEL SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED

STATES.—The term ‘‘vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States’’ has the meaning given the term in section 

70502(c), except that it excludes— 

(A) a vessel— 

(i) that is owned by the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or a foreign nation; and 

(ii) that is not engaged in commerce; and 

(B) a bareboat— 

(i) that is chartered and operated by the United 

States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or a foreign nation; and 

(ii) that is not engaged in commerce. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

(h) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary may prescribe regulations to 

implement this section. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING