U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–580 PDF 2012

HOW TO IMPROVE OPERATIONS AND IMPLEMENT 

EFFICIENCIES FOR THE 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

(112–48) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 26, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..... 3 

PANEL TWO

Bamford, Holly, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Administrator for the National 

Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................ 6 

Currier, Vice Admiral John, Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, 

United States Coast Guard ................................................................................. 6 

Salerno, Vice Admiral Brian, Deputy Commandant for Operations, United 

States Coast Guard .............................................................................................. 6 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bamford, Holly, Ph.D. ............................................................................................. 25 

Currier, Vice Admiral John, and Salerno, Vice Admiral Brian, joint statement ...................................................................................................................... 32 

Farr, Hon. Sam ........................................................................................................ 34 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

H.R. 1171, a Bill to reauthorize and amend the Marine Debris Research, 

Prevention, and Reduction Act ........................................................................... 37 

Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

submission of 26 letters of support for H.R. 1171 ............................................. 46 

United States Coast Guard, additional information to the response to question 

from Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington, regarding the status of the Davy Crockett cleanup ..................... 21 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 67580.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 67580.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 67580.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 67580.004
(1) 

HOW TO IMPROVE OPERATIONS 

AND IMPLEMENT EFFICIENCIES FOR 

THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND

MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank LoBiondo 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

order. The subcommittee is meeting today to review various ways 

to improve operations and implement efficiencies at the Coast 

Guard, as we look to draft legislation to reauthorize the Service. 

The Coast Guard’s current authorization expires at the end of this 

fiscal year. As such, it is time to review the issues before us, and 

open the discussion on the legislation. 

Today’s hearing will do just that, as we will highlight those 

issues we wish to address, and discuss the best way forward among 

ourselves, and with the Service’s senior leadership. Admirals 

Currier and Salerno are appearing before us to provide an opportunity for that discussion. I look forward to hearing their perspective on how we continue to move the Service in the right direction. 

The crux of any good legislation is a strong foundation. Our subcommittee has held nine hearings over the first 7 months of this 

Congress, and we have identified several issues that need to be addressed. Today is an opportunity to revisit our most important priorities and ensure that we are well informed before we begin to legislate. 

As you all know, I am especially interested in issues including 

Servicemember parity, challenges and delays in the Coast Guard’s 

acquisition program, and ways to make operations more effective. 

I also want to ensure we are spending taxpayer dollars efficiently. 

Specifically, as I have raised before, I am very concerned that we have spent over $3 billion to build National Security Cutters over 

the last decade, when the GAO recently found that they provide little additional capability over the 40-year-old vessels they are replacing. This is really hard to believe, but something we are certainly going to have to get into. 

I am also concerned that taxpayer is going to have to spend tens 

of millions more each year to support a new headquarters building 

2 

for the Coast Guard. It appears this is being done just to satisfy 

the Secretary’s desire to consolidate DHS agencies at the old mental hospital in Anacostia. Now we understand these costs may rise 

farther, as the appropriators have decided not to provide funding 

to move any additional agencies. These issues, among others, will 

be addressed in the next authorization. 

However, it is important that we address them in ways that actually correct problems, and make the Coast Guard a stronger organization. The men and women protecting our Nation deserve the 

very best. It is incumbent upon us to provide them a strong reauthorization. 

Today we will also examine a marine debris program which is 

due for reauthorization this year. As such, it is important we understand exactly how NOAA administers this program, and how 

they envision doing so in the near future. Dr. Bamford of the National Ocean Service is here today to provide us with that insight. 

And our colleague, Mr. Farr, has taken a special interest in marine debris, and has introduced a reauthorization bill. We will have 

a chance to hear the finer points of his proposal and explore solutions as we move towards reauthorization. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. And with 

that, I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen for his statement. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this morning’s hearing concerning the operations and programs of the U.S. Coast Guard. We welcome this opportunity, as 

we jointly begin the process of developing authorization legislation 

for the Service. 

The Coast Guard is a multimission agency responsible for a 

broad range of activities, including mariner licensing, emergency 

oil spill response, vessel inspections, and search and rescue operations. These and many other activities of the Service are indispensable, and ensure that our coasts and ocean resources are protected, that our ocean, great lakes, and inland waterway commerce 

remain safe and efficient, and that our maritime industries continue to be vibrant sources of jobs and economic opportunity for the 

American people. 

Despite the vital importance of the Coast Guard, the albatross 

that has hung around the Service’s neck for years is that rarely, 

if ever, has it been given the resources sufficient to meet its responsibilities, even as Congress has expanded those responsibilities. At our budget oversight hearing on March 1st, we heard a lot 

about the Coast Guard doing more with less. However, I believe we 

have also established that the more likely outcome of fewer resources is that our U.S. Coast Guard will be doing less with less. 

I have seen no new information since then to alter this view. The 

fiscal year 2011 budget resolution approved in April largely spared 

the Coast Guard from Draconian cuts many other agencies faced. 

This is cold comfort, however, considering the massive cuts in discretionary spending across all Federal programs that are being proposed, portending even less funding than what is presently available to address the Coast Guard’s many needs and its efficiencies. 

We are past time when we can discuss budget cuts in the absent, 

or we can blithely toss out bromides and expect the Coast Guard 

to secure ports, maintain aids in navigation, or respond to natural 

3 

or human caused disasters with diminished resources. With this 

thought in mind I urge this morning that we not simply replow 

ground we have visited before, but that we look forward. 

Certainly we need to examine the Coast Guard’s operations and 

programs to ensure they are mission driven, cost effective, and accountable. But that is not enough. We also need to constructively 

engage the Service in developing a sound, balanced path forward 

that realigns our expectation with a level of performance that we 

can reasonably expect the Coast Guard to deliver, and we will need 

to do this within the tight budgets the Service likely will receive 

in the foreseeable future. 

As part of this engagement, we should examine joint programs, 

of which the Coast Guard is a partner, to see how we might improve their implementation to better leverage Federal investments. 

Partnership programs such as activities implemented by the Coast 

Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

under the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act 

can offer a tested and effective business model to expand the capabilities of Federal agencies, while also building effective working 

relationships with non-Federal stakeholders. 

I look forward to hearing the views of our colleague from California, Representative Sam Farr, on the marine debris programs 

implemented by the Coast Guard and NOAA, and I look forward 

to working with him and Chairman LoBiondo in moving his legislation that would reauthorize a marine debris act through the committee. 

I also urge, Mr. Chairman, that as we move ahead with the 

Coast Guard reauthorization bill, that we not lose track of several 

good ideas to increase economic opportunity and enhance jobs that 

were raised during the June 14th hearing concerning the marine 

transportation system. Job creation remains my highest priority. 

And if there is an opportunity to move legislation in this Congress 

that can jumpstart job growth in the maritime sector and put people back to work on the docks and at sea, I stand ready and willing 

to work with you, shoulder to shoulder, to reach a successful outcome. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. Master Chief Coble, do 

you have an opening statement? 

Mr. COBLE. No statement, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you for being here. Our first witness 

today is the Honorable Sam Farr, representing California’s 17th 

District. Sam, thank you for appearing here today, and we look forward to hearing your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As a legislator 

with a Coast Guard station in my district, I really appreciate you 

doing this oversight hearing, and look forward to working with you. 

But I am here also to thank you for holding the hearing on the 

bill H.R. 1171. This is a bill that Don Young and myself have introduced, along with other Members, and we are very appreciative of 

the opportunity to have this hearing. 

4 

Our oceans are in trouble. And we have exclusive jurisdiction— 

ownership, essentially—out to 200 miles around the continental 

United States. And much of it is full of debris and garbage, both 

domestic and foreign, that has come from other parts of the world. 

Fourteen billion pounds of trash end up on our beaches and in the 

ocean every year, and they are the dumping ground for everything 

we don’t want on land. When you think about it, our sewage outfall 

goes in there, garbage goes in there. We’ve even had nuclear waste 

stored in the oceans off San Francisco. The list goes on and on. 

When we wanted to dump the old Bay Bridge, we dumped it in the 

ocean offshore, and fishermen get their nets stuck in that huge 

mess of an industrial dumping site. 

We have over 270 species that are impacted by ocean trash, and 

many of those species are commercial fisheries. And up to 100,000 

marine mammals die each year from marine debris. 

In addition to these environmental impacts, the economic impacts of marine debris can be devastating. Every year, over 77.8 

million Americans from all over the country visit a beach. Most of 

our constituents, no matter where you are in the United States, 

take time to go to the beaches, making large contributions to the 

local tourism economy. What would happen if you were visiting a 

beach and it looked like this picture up here on the wall? Imagine 

the impact of trash to the businesses that are trying to survive off 

of the tourism caused by the attraction of the beach, and then to 

encounter that kind of trash? 

So, Mr. Chairman, it is—as you know, in New Jersey, where in 

1988 the State woke up the world with the announcement of all the 

medical waste that had washed ashore. I remember our former colleague, Jim Saxon, just becoming a big convert on cleaning up the 

oceans because of that incident that hit both New Jersey and New 

York. This incident in 1988 cost $3.6 billion in lost tourism revenues. 

Our country has come a long way since then, but keeping our 

beaches clean still requires significant resources. For example, the 

city of Long Beach in California spends a whopping $17 million 

each year keeping its beaches trash free. 

In 2006, Congress recognized this problem by passing, and without a single negative vote, the original Marine Debris Act, which 

this bill reauthorizes. The law established programs within NOAA 

and the Coast Guard to address the problem of marine debris. 

Additionally, the law laid the foundation for partnerships between Coast Guard, NOAA, and other Federal agencies with the 

creation of an interagency marine debris coordinating committee. 

Since enacted, this multi-agency approach has allowed NOAA and 

the Coast Guard to coordinate research priorities, monitoring techniques, education programs, and regulatory actions. Ultimately, 

these Federal partnerships let NOAA and the Coast Guard to more 

with limited resources. 

NOAA and the Coast Guard have also formed public-private 

partnerships with local communities, academic institutions, and 

the private sector and the fishing industry. These public-private 

partnerships leverage private funds, resulting in more resourceful 

and successful Federal programs. These partnerships have been 

5 

particularly effective in addressing derelict fishing gear. Derelict 

gear can devastate the value of marine fisheries. For example, over $250 million of marketable lobster is lost every 

year in the U.S. to derelict gear, a process called ghost fishing— 

the gear is lost, and it just keeps floating around, and gets 

snagged—and things get snagged into it and never get recovered. 

In a time where our fishermen are already facing economic challenges, losses of this magnitude are simply unacceptable. 

In response to this, we have a program called Fishing for Energy, 

a partnership formed between the Coast Guard, NOAA and 

Covanta Energy and Schnitzer Steel. In this partnership, NOAA 

and the Coast Guard remove derelict gear from the marine environment. Then Covanta Energy and Schnitzer Steel recycle the 

gear, and produce electricity. 

In the northwest Hawaiian Islands, over 1.4 million pounds of 

derelict gear have been removed and recycled to produce enough 

electricity to power 260 homes for an entire year. 

In addition, the Fishing for Energy partnership has installed recycling bins at 25 ports across the country, where fishermen can 

dispose of their old gear at no cost. This provides the fisherman an 

alternative to costly landfill disposal, as well as an incentive to retrieve any derelict gear that they might find in the water. These 

bins have already accumulated over a million pounds of gear. In 

just Cape May, New Jersey, the bins have collected over 48 tons— 

I believe that’s in your district. 

In addition to partnerships that increase efficiency, Federal resources are further amplified by granting matching requirements of 

at least 50 percent. In 2005 through 2009, this law has funded 86 

projects with only $6.3 million. And these funds leveraged an additional $7.9 million in non-Federal funds. 

One project in particular that is funded through the law is the 

International Coastal Cleanup. In 2010 the United States had over 

240,000 volunteers who cleaned up 4.5 million pounds of trash. 

This vast participation indicates that the public support for marine 

debris cleanup is widespread. 

I have over 25 letters of support from a variety of stakeholders 

including fishermen, mapping companies, science organizations, 

local non-profits, and I ask that these letters be submitted to the 

record. 

In sum, both interagency and public-private partnerships have 

leveraged the resources and capacity of the Coast Guard. We must 

act now to ensure that these partnerships are not only maintained, 

but are strengthened. It is through these partnerships that our 

country can most effectively and efficiently address the impacts of 

ocean trash on marine ecosystems, coastal economies, and navigation safety. With reauthorization, a steady stream of funding, the 

Coast Guard will continue to make significant strides in tackling 

the problem of marine debris. 

So, I ask this committee to reauthorize this bill. There is a companion bill in the Senate introduced by Senator Inouye, and we 

hope that both of those bills will be moving. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK, Sam, thank you for your testimony today, for 

your leadership on this issue. Do we have any Members that wish 

to comment on Mr. Farr’s? 

6 

[No response.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. thank you, Sam, we will be in touch. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. We will now be prepared for the second panel of 

witnesses, that will include Coast Guard Vice Admiral John 

Currier, the deputy commandant for mission support; Vice Admiral 

Brian Salerno, the deputy commandant for operations, and Dr. 

Holly Bamford, deputy assistant administrator at the National 

Ocean Service. I welcome our guests here today. 

Let me start off by thanking the Coast Guard for the response 

that they provided us that—in a letter that we sent to Secretary 

Napolitano concerning the delivery of the Coast Guard’s fleet mix 

analysis. I appreciate that. 

Admiral Currier, the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN CURRIER, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR MISSION SUPPORT, UNITED STATES COAST 

GUARD; VICE ADMIRAL BRIAN SALERNO, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES COAST 

GUARD; AND HOLLY BAMFORD, PH.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Admiral CURRIER. Thank you, sir. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking 

Member Larsen, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss Coast Guard mission support activities as 

part of the subcommittee’s efforts to develop a 2011 authorization 

bill for the Coast Guard. 

As the deputy commandant for mission support, I have primary 

responsibility to ensure that Coast Guard has the people, platforms, systems, and logistics necessary to meet our mission demands. This could not be accomplished without the resources and 

authorities that are provided to us and the Service by Congress 

and the administration. 

I want to take this opportunity to note the role of this subcommittee, including language in the Coast Guard Authorization 

Act of 2010 that further strengthens the capabilities of our acquisition program, and enhances housing and child care benefits to 

Coast Guardsmen on a par with those available to the armed services. I look forward to working with the subcommittee to continue 

these efforts, as you continue the development of authorizing legislation. 

Since the creation of a centralized acquisition directorate in 2007, 

and continuing with the establishment of mission support enterprise, the Coast Guard as made significant changes that are resulting in improved performance and management over acquisition 

programs. This includes enhanced governance through compliance 

with requirements under our major systems acquisitions manual, 

or MSAM, and expanded roles for Coast Guard technical authorities in the Department of Homeland Security. We are better positioned now to execute all aspects of the acquisition lifecycle, including follow-on logistics, and to consider tough trade-offs when necessary. 

Our recapitalized assets are in the field today, sir, providing enhanced safety and security for the American public. We have acVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Feb 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\CG\7-26-1~1\67580.TXT JEAN
7 

cepted delivery of two National Security Cutters, and they are demonstrating capabilities beyond our legacy fleet, and challenging conditions in the Bering Sea and the eastern Pacific. The third cutter, 

Stratton, has just completed successful builder’s trials. In May, the 

first steel was cut for the fourth hull, and we anticipate awarding 

a production contract for the fifth NSC later this summer. 

The commandant has frequently stated that we need eight NSCs, 

and we are on our way to acquiring these critical assets for the 

Coast Guard with stable requirements, predictable costs, and preidentified risk. At the same time, the first seven hulls of the Fast 

Response Cutter are under production, and we are conducting preacquisition activities for the Offshore Patrol Cutter fleet. Together 

with our recapitalized aviation fleet, small boats, and C4ISR assets, these cutters will bring enhanced capabilities across the Coast 

Guard’s mission set. 

The commandant has made the recapitalization one of our Service’s highest priorities, and I know that this subcommittee shares 

our interest in replacing these old ships and aircraft as quickly as 

possible at the best value to the American taxpayer. 

These initiatives would not come to fruition without the men and 

women who formed the very core of our organization. Much of the 

Coast Guard’s work is done under extremely challenging conditions. But we continue to attract and retain a highly skilled workforce. 

As you are aware, we are moving forward with construction of 

the new Coast Guard headquarters at St. Elizabeths campus, 

which is also the result—which will result in a more efficient Coast 

Guard at the programmatic level. With several headquarters elements in one location, I am confident that we will benefit from increased collaboration and efficiency, not only within our organization, but also through partnership with the subsequent DHS agency collocations, or relocations to that site. 

However, we anticipate our St. Elizabeths lease cost to exceed 

that we are currently spending on leases. The projected recurrent 

lease cost for the Coast Guard’s portion of St. Elizabeths is approximately $95 million per year, over $42 million more than we are 

currently paying for the two buildings that we occupy. We are currently working closely with the Department to close that gap and 

move forward with this important transition. 

Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to discuss the efforts of the 

mission support organization. And I will be glad to answer any 

questions that you might have. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral Salerno, you are recognized. 

Admiral SALERNO. Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking 

Member Larsen, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Very happy to be here to testify, together with my good friend, Vice 

Admiral Currier, and update you on how we are improving operations and implementing efficiencies within the Coast Guard. 

The Coast Guard has used the authority provided by the 2010 

authorization act to finalize our leadership structure. Specifically, 

we have created a three-star deputy commandant for mission support and a three-star deputy commandant for operations. This 

move helps provide clarity to the entire Service. It underscores that 

8 

every function performed by our workforce is tied either to mission 

execution or to mission support, and it reinforces the mutually dependent nature of these two broad categories of work. 

As the deputy commandant for operations, my responsibilities include developing the operational requirements necessary to accomplish Coast Guard missions. This includes the establishment of performance plans, and then tracking performance to ensure we are 

meeting our objectives. It also includes identifying the right characteristics for the ships, aircraft boats, communications, and sensor 

systems needed to operate effectively. 

And equally important, it involves looking to the professionalism 

of our workforce, by making sure that we have the proper policies 

and guidance in place for our people to have a clear understanding 

of how to operate, how to conduct their mission safely and efficiently, and with a proper focus on our national maritime interest 

and the public we serve. 

The majority of the 137 provisions of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 represent action items for which I am responsible. 

To comment on just a few aspects of the act, we have identified 29 

provisions of the act which require promulgation of regulations; 16 

of these are being incorporated into existing rulemaking projects in 

order to expedite their implementation. We are, of course, also actively working on the other 13 projects. 

The act also requires 54 new congressional reports, of which 9 

have already been delivered to Congress, and the remaining are either in progress or under review. 

In May the Coast Guard briefed the subcommittee staff on our 

progress achieving the action items under the authorization act. 

Since that time, we have satisfied some additional requirements, 

and I am pleased to note that the Coast Guard completed its review of the rules for the use of force by U.S. merchant vessels in 

defense against piracy, and we have provided guidance to the industry. 

Also, the high-latitude study was provided to Congress on July 

20th, as you mentioned, and the notice of proposed rulemaking for 

towing vessels has been sent to the Federal Register. 

Recently the Coast Guard also testified on our regulatory program, and we highlighted the many improvements we have been 

able to put in place, thanks to the investments made by Congress 

in 2008 and 2009. These investments have allowed us to reduce the 

average time required to produce regulations, and reduce the backlog of regulatory projects. Although the downward trend has been 

somewhat offset by the new projects added by the 2010 authorization act, we expect that the internal efficiencies will continue to result in reduced regulatory backlog over time. 

I want to assure the committee that we take very seriously the 

direction provided by Congress. In organizing our regulatory workload we ascribe the highest priority to rulemaking projects which 

are mandated by legislation. In addition, we make every effort to 

ensure that the regulations we promulgate are practical, effective, 

and are pursued by the full appreciation of the economic burden on 

those who must comply with them. Thank you, and I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Admiral. 

9 

Dr. Bamford, you are recognized. 

Ms. BAMFORD. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 

1171, the Marine Debris Act Reauthorization Amendment of 2011. 

Previous to my current position, I served as director of NOAA’s 

marine debris program, and was involved in the inception in 2005. 

I look forward to contributing my experience on marine debris at 

today’s hearing. To that end, I would like to share with you a story. 

It was August 29, 2005, a day he will never forget. Returning 

from the Coast Guard office in New Orleans to his home in Baton 

Rouge, Charlie Henry, from NOAA’s office of response and restoration, knew something big was coming. But he had no idea how just 

terrible the force would be. Born in Louisiana, and working for 

NOAA as a regional scientific support coordinator, Charlie knew 

from experience, and the reports coming through the weather service, that it was going to be a devastating storm. He feared the incredible crushing blow that would turn out to be the most destructive hurricane to hit the United States, Hurricane Katrina. 

That part of the story might sound familiar to you. The part that 

may not know is the addition to the devastating injury to life on 

land, Hurricane Katrina also destroyed marine infrastructure on a 

wide scale, depositing enormous amounts of debris into the water, 

both on and off shore. This posed an even further—and many times 

unseen—threat to people, boats, navigation, and commercial activities. 

Fishing is a major way of life in the Gulf Coast, where commercial fishing alone accounted for an estimated value of $700 million 

a year. As the Gulf began to rebuild their lives in the wake of the 

hurricane, they encounter dangerous debris in channels and offshore Gulf waters. 

Following the storm, the Coast Guard, the Army Corps, and 

NOAA worked together to survey and clear debris from major navigational waterways, as mandated by existing requirements. Near 

shore areas outside of navigable waterways, however, were not required to be cleared. Yet many areas contain large amounts of debris in the fishing regions. 

To help restore the area’s fishing grounds and reduce the risk to 

public safety, in 2006 and 2007 Congress authorized supplemental 

funding to NOAA for surveying and mapping these areas that were 

impacted by Hurricane Katrina along the coast of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. It was because of the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, which established a formal 

NOAA program in NOAA, that my team were able to fulfill the request of Congress for NOAA to carry out these tasks. 

The opportunity to provide real assistance to the storm ravaged 

community meant a tremendous amount to my team, to my friend 

and colleague, Charlie Henry, and to me, as a fellow American. 

Working with Charlie and NOAA’s office of coast survey, we surveyed over 1,570 square nautical miles, and identified over 7,000 

marine debris hazards that were plotted on 137 marine debris 

maps. Some of the areas have not been surveyed since the 1940s, 

so NOAA was able to use these data to update nautical charts covering the regions, including over 200 dangerous to navigation. 

10 

The debris information was provided to the Coast Guard, to 

FEMA, States, in order to assist in debris assessments and removal 

projects. We also developed a public Web site that grew exponentially with visits from boaters and fishermen who downloaded the 

debris maps to avoid debris that could damage their boats and 

snag their gear. 

In the end, NOAA provided a much-needed service to the Gulf 

Coast community in support of recovery, and this experience helped 

shape NOAA’s marine debris efforts and subsequent disasters, such 

as response to tsunami in American Samoa in September of 2009, 

and the recent tsunami in Japan. 

The story I recounted today is on an acute incident addressed by 

the marine debris program in NOAA. But it’s those chronic debris 

issues that NOAA deals with on a regular basis that accounts for 

the majority of our efforts. The Marine Debris Act of 2005 authorized NOAA to establish a program to reduce and prevent the impacts of marine debris on the marine environment. The Reauthorization Amendment of 2011 provides a much stronger authority 

and clearer guidance to NOAA to address the impacts of various 

types of debris on a local, regional, national, and international 

scale. 

The reauthorization amendment calls out NOAA’s role in national regional coordination to assist the States, Indian tribes, and 

regional organizations to address marine debris that are particular 

to their areas. This strengthens the role of our regional coordination station around the country, including Hawaii, Alaska, the 

west, the east, the Gulf Coast, and the Great Lakes. 

It also provides NOAA the authority to develop and implement 

strategies to promote international action to reduce the incidence 

of marine debris, such as supporting our efforts to assess debris 

generated from the Japanese tsunami. 

Furthermore, the reauthorization directs NOAA to develop the 

needed tools and products to improve efforts to address marine debris, and make these available to researchers, the marine debris 

community, and the general public. 

NOAA is committed to the goal of reducing the impacts of marine 

debris on our coasts and oceans, and I look forward to working 

with the subcommittee to achieve this outcome. 

Thank you again for the invitation for me to discuss H.R. 1171, 

and the benefits of reauthorizing this NOAA program. I am happy 

to address any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much. Admiral Currier and/or 

Salerno, these next couple of questions will be for you. 

On the asset recapitalization programs, in spite of a series of acquisition reforms undertaken by the Coast Guard, there are still 

significant capability gaps and delays in acquisition projects. The 

Coast Guard has spent 10 years and more than $3.5 billion to acquire five National Security Cutters. 

Congress agreed to the purchase of these vessels, based on a 

greatly enhanced geographic area the cutters could cover with two 

new classes of cutter boats, aerial unmanned vehicles, and a greater number of days at sea the cutters could achieve. GAO has recently found that the NSC provide no additional capabilities over 

the existing 40-year-plus-old cutters. The two new classes of cutters 

11 

have not been acquired, nor is there a plan to provide unmanned 

aerial vehicles. The NSC’s vessels operate away from port only half 

of the year. 

Why does the Service continue to face delays in selecting and acquiring cutter boats for the National Security Cutter, and when 

will these boats be acquired? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, if you will permit us, we will maybe take 

different parts of that question and answer it. I would like to talk 

upfront just about the difference between the NSC and the 378, the 

High Endurance Cutters. 

There is a substantial difference between the two vessels, sir. 

This program was designed to provide additional capability. That 

is why we only have 8 NSCs at the program of record, versus the 

12 HECs. But just to give you a flavor, the National Security Cutter has the ability to land an H60 helicopter; the 378 does not. The 

NSC can accommodate 2 H65 helicopters; the 378 can only accommodate 1. NSC will have two Over-The-Horizon cutter boats versus 

one on the High Endurance Cutter. And it also has the skiff capabilities for classified material, which is not resident in the 378. 

What we have noticed and observed in the deployment of 

Bertholf, the first operational NSC, she has been extremely effective, both in her counterdrug deployments—involved in two drug 

interdictions, highly effective in that role, using her cutter boats 

that are equipped with the vessel currently. And we also had experience in Alaska, where Bertholf was able to launch and recover 

aircraft in 20-foot seas, which is substantially greater than what 

is—the capabilities of the High Endurance Cutter, which is closer 

to 8-foot seas. So, we are seeing a dramatic increase in capability 

with this ship, by design. 

Now, the cutter boats, as you point out, the ones that are on 

board right now will not be the ultimate boats that will be on 

board. There is a cutter boat OTH–IV, the operational requirements are being worked now. But we will replace the existing OTH 

boats with that OTH–IV, as well as a long-range interceptor. So, 

some of the boat issues are still playing out as separate acquisitions, but companion acquisitions to the ship acquisition. 

Unmanned aerial systems, likewise. We continue to work very 

closely with the U.S. Navy on shipboard systems. I think you are 

aware we have been working with them on the fire scout. But we 

are also looking at other options, such as scanned eagle. And on 

land-based UAS, of course, we are working with CBP. 

And then let me ask my colleague, Admiral Currier, to talk about 

some of the acquisition-specific aspects of your question. 

Admiral CURRIER. Thank you, Admiral Salerno. Sir, we are in 

the middle of acquiring a complex system, based on the National 

Security Cutter, but it is a system. It’s a system that encompasses 

fast response boats that prosecute the missions, meet the threats; 

a MDA package including unmanned aerial vehicles, eventually; 

manned helicopters, supplemented by manned and unmanned 

longer range, higher altitude surveillance, capped by a C4I system 

that actually allows us to not only capture the data, but prosecute 

the data to mission effect. 

This is a complex acquisition, and we have had our issues beginning the National Security Cutter acquisitions, but I believe we’re 

12 

on track, sir. As I said in my opening statement, we have one in 

service, the second one is about to go into service. The third one 

is about to be accepted by the Coast Guard. We are cutting steel 

on four, and we are about to award the contract on five. 

We are now in an era of stable requirements, fixed-price contracts, where risks are identified and quantified and known upfront. We have a mature department whose acquisition oversight is 

enhancing our ability to acquire. And with the interest that—I 

thank you again for the interest of this committee—the input and 

support of this committee has also enhanced our ability to acquire 

these systems. 

This complex acquisition can’t be brought together in total harmony. There are design issues, there are schedule issues that we 

hit. However, as we bring the National Security Cutter on board, 

we are progressing unmanned aerial vehicles. We have integrated 

our manned helicopters with them. 

We are in an aggressive program to buy two types of boats. And 

what we discovered, sir, is that, rather than buy an individual 

small boat for each class of cutter that we’re buying, we now will 

buy only two types of small boats, a 7-meter fast prosecutor, and 

an 11-meter, longer range interceptor. The first one that was—the 

first long-range interceptor that was delivered could not do the job. 

The requirements were such that the state-of-the-art boat building 

did not get us there. Caused us some delays. We are back out with 

design on that boat now. 

The shorter range, faster boat is—we are—we have awarded a 

contract to four companies to design prototypes, and we will downselect one and roll right into production next year. So I think we 

are on track here. 

As far as the unmanned aerial vehicle goes, I was part of the 

group that made the decision to extract us from our original foray 

into that—the science of unmanned aerial vehicles. The Coast 

Guard is a midsized Federal agency with some distinct capabilities, 

but also some limitations. We do not have the ability to do the 

science required for integration of a rotary wing unmanned aerial 

vehicle. So we partnered with the Navy, and we are closely 

partnering with them today as they develop their solutions. They 

are integrating our requirements into them. 

So, sir, I think this is a success story. It is not perfect, by a long 

shot. But we are on track today, as I said before, to a cost control 

environment where risks are predicted, and schedules are adhered 

to. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, you should by now know that this subcommittee are some of your biggest cheerleaders. But if a Member 

of Congress picks up this GAO report—if you put yourself in their 

shoes—this is not a good story. 

And as we get into tighter and tighter and tighter appropriations 

and budget cycles, the stories that don’t read well are the ones that 

become the easiest targets. I don’t think I need to explain that further, of what’s at stake here. A lot of us have worked long and hard 

to pump up the acquisition dollars and get us there. 

So I have got some additional questions, but I want to now split 

it up a little bit and turn to Mr. Larsen. 

13 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regards to the 

headquarters relocation, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act 

for fiscal year 2012 didn’t include funding for agencies within the 

Department, except the Coast Guard, to relocate to the new campus. And of course, we’ve got some issues with the lease. Can you 

cover for us what you are doing to try to decrease the difference 

in the lease cost between what your current lease costs are, and 

what your lease cost will be at St. Elizabeths? 

Admiral CURRIER. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. 

First of all, let me back it up just a second, if I could, and just 

say I have walked the ground over there. We have looked very 

closely at the design. We have collaborated with both the Department of Homeland Security and the General Services Administration on the design of the campus. I think I can say with a pretty 

solid level of confidence that we will be better off there, in a consolidated environment. 

There are deltas, there are gaps in the lease of what we are paying now to what we will be paying over there, and we are working 

closely with the Department, as we work our budget in 2013 and 

2014 in the outyears to ensure that no Coast Guard operational capabilities are degraded because of the lease cost in moving to St. 

Elizabeths. So—— 

Mr. LARSEN. But how are you going to do that? I understand you’re going to try to do that, but you’re talking about a $42 million 

difference, is that right, per year? 

Admiral CURRIER. Well, our projection at this point for fiscal year 

2013, because we will have a shared GSA lease cost on the existing 

facility, and also accepting some level of occupancy at St. E’s, plus 

the move costs, are about a $54 million tag over what we are paying now for steady-state occupancy of the two buildings we are in. 

We are, as I said, working closely with the Department to find 

out where that fits in the Coast Guard top line, where that fits in 

the Department’s top line. But they have—in close collaboration 

with the under secretary for management, with whom I work on 

a near-daily basis, we are looking for those solutions. I cannot give 

you the details of the solutions, it is still projected in the 2013 

budget, which is under—being worked at this time. It is fully recognized, and our goal is that we will have no compromise in Coast 

Guard operations due to any increased lease cost for the new facility. 

Mr. LARSEN. Dr. Bamford, with regards to the 1171, in your testimony you noted there is one additional change you suggested in 

your written statement, that Congress should revise the definition 

of the term ‘‘marine debris’’ to adopt the definition developed jointly between NOAA and the Coast Guard. 

Are there any other changes you are suggesting to the bill? To 

the—through reauthorization are you suggesting other changes, beyond that one? 

Ms. BAMFORD. No. 

Mr. LARSEN. So that—so the main change would be the definition 

of ‘‘marine debris’’? 

Ms. BAMFORD. That is correct. We have—in the previous bill of 

2005 we worked directly with the Coast Guard in developing a definition that has now been put into law. We had out for public comVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Feb 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\CG\7-26-1~1\67580.TXT JEAN
14 

ment, so we support that previous definition that was worked in 

joint with the Coast Guard. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. NOAA awarded $4.6 million under the Recovery Act to the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Foundation. 

And that enabled the Foundation to remove over 3,900 derelict 

fishing nets. In fact, I was out a few weeks back on Alden Bank 

with some of the folks between Point Roberts and Lummi Island, 

pulling up gear. I was not personally pulling up gear. I have no intention of becoming a certified diver and going 50 feet down into 

the cold waters of Puget Sound. That’s why you have people doing 

that. 

But have all those funds been awarded under the grant, been obligated? 

Ms. BAMFORD. Yes, sir. All the funds have been awarded, and it 

was an 18-month project. They put about—an estimated 20 fulltime jobs were created through that project. It was—not everybody 

was a full-time employee, so about 50 individuals actually were 

brought into that, including divers, biologists, people working 

through and sieving through those nets. A number of different species—I think over 130,000 different species were captured in those 

nets, and they were fully removed, as you mentioned, from Puget 

Sound. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, and were actually pulled up—unfortunately, 

pulled up dead female rock crab and female Dungeness crab that 

obviously were not able to go on and produce little baby crabs. 

Ms. BAMFORD. Yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. But some of the result of that is they seem to be 

thinking a growing abalone population up near Point Roberts, 

there is a benefit of it. 

Back to the Coast Guard, if I might—Representative Young, do 

you have a comment on that? 

Mr. YOUNG. I just couldn’t understand what you were saying 

about a little crab, but—— 

Mr. LARSEN. You couldn’t understand what I was saying? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LARSEN. Admiral Currier, are there other parity issues that 

are high priority for the Coast Guard, other than the parity issues 

with regards to the armed services? 

Admiral CURRIER. Yes, sir. Parity issues—I would say one of our 

prime parity issues would be the Title 10, Title 14 utilization reserve, and to ensure that they are treated with parity, as far as 

paid benefits, and all the things that come with active duty service. 

To give you an example, we had people sitting next to each other 

in Deepwater Horizon who were active under Title 10, other people 

activated under Title 14, and they were not receiving the same 

benefit package. So we really need to work on that, and we are 

looking for the committee’s support in that. 

Other areas of parity, we have made great strides in housing, but 

we have more progress that could be made in that area. Those are 

probably two main thrusts that we could look toward in the future. 

Of course our paid benefits for active duty are aligned with the defense authorization bill, appropriations bill, so that is pretty well 

taken care of. But there are some second-, third-tier, fourth-tier efVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:24 Feb 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\CG\7-26-1~1\67580.TXT JEAN
15 

fects in medical, in housing, and those type areas that we would 

look for the committee’s support in. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. Does the Coast Guard need some type of enhanced leasing authority, and has the Service looked into this 

issue? 

Admiral CURRIER. I am sorry, sir, I didn’t hear that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, it is my understanding that some Federal 

agencies have authority to enter into long-term leases of properties 

under their control in order to generate income that could be used 

to supplement appropriations. Does the Coast Guard need some 

type of enhanced leasing authority like that, and has the Service 

looked into that issue? 

Admiral CURRIER. Yes, sir. I think we could use—we would like 

to achieve parity with the Department of Defense, as far as terms 

of a lease go for excess Coast Guard property, or property that is 

not actively being used. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Admiral CURRIER. I think that the terms of lease that we are 

constrained under are 5-year, which allows the commandant to 

lease for 5 years. But that is not viable with many commercial entities that would want to engage the Coast Guard in that type of 

lease. 

I believe, sir, that the Department of Defense has authority for 

20-year leases, and I think we would like to achieve that parity. 

It would put us in a better position. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Young, would you like to be recognized? 

Mr. YOUNG. I would like to be recognized, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the Coast Guard, appreciate you having the hearings. 

Vice Admiral, the budget justifications suggest the United States 

will take one of our polar ice breakers out of service, and return 

to contracting with other nations for ice breaking operations. This 

is problematic for me, for two reasons. First, we would be sending 

United States taxpayer money to pay a foreign entity for a job we 

would be capable of accomplishing if we would properly maintain 

our own ice-breaking fleet, and second is that we have tried this 

before only to find that foreign ice breakers were not reliable, and 

our own ice breakers were called out of moth balls to action. 

Are there other basic service or activities in which the Coast 

Guard regularly contracts a foreign entity? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, in that context, the only other example 

would be the break-out of Thule, Greenland, the DOD facility 

there, which is a Coast Guard responsibility, and we do have an 

agreement with the Canadian Government for that break-out. So 

they are, in fact, doing that on our behalf. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, let’s go back to the ice breakers. Do you—who 

do we contract with the ice breakers, and do they have conflicting 

interests in the Arctic with the United States of America? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, the Coast Guard does not directly contract with any foreign ice breakers. Foreign ice breakers have been 

used for the break-out of McMurdo Station in Antarctica. That contracting has been arranged through the National Science Foundation. In recent years they have used a Swedish ice breaker named 

16 

Oden for that purpose, with U.S. Coast Guard ice breakers on 

standby, you know, should there be a problem. 

As you point out, sir, we currently have only one ice breaker that 

is fully operational. That is the cutter Healey. She is a medium ice 

breaker used predominantly for science activity in the Arctic. The 

two ‘‘Polars’’ are currently not operational. One is slated to be decommissioned, that’s Polar Sea. And Polar Star is being refurbished to be put back into service in 2013, which will give her an 

extended life of about an additional 7 years. 

That is the Nation’s ice breaking capacity, sir. We are the only 

entity in the U.S. Government that operates ice breakers. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, see, this is my question. You are way behind 

in ice breaking. I happen to fund those three ice breakers we have, 

and they’re old. They weren’t maintained. You tried your best. I 

think we are re-engineering one of them, but by decommissioning— 

what’s the budget cost to decommission the Polar Star? 

Admiral CURRIER. Sir, we are going to decommission Polar Star 

and use some of the—— 

Mr. YOUNG. I said cost. 

Admiral CURRIER. We’re looking at—$5 million, sir, is the figure 

I have for decommissioning. 

Mr. YOUNG. If you keep it in commission, what does it cost? 

Admiral CURRIER. Well, sir, these ships, as you pointed out, are 

very difficult to maintain, and the service that they render is very 

hard on ships. We looked at a $62 million refurbishment of Polar 

Star to get her in a condition approaching what it needs to be for 

return to service. So that is currently what we have spent on Polar 

Star. Mr. YOUNG. And that brings up my point of this whole questioning. You know, I have been in these hearings every time, and 

asked you why you don’t lease some American ship builder to build 

a ship. Why do you have to own a breaker, when it costs you so 

much? And even when we recommission those ships, repair to any 

one of—they’re very small ships. 

Admiral CURRIER. Sir, the—— 

Mr. YOUNG. And we have a big responsibility in the Arctic. And 

I have got the numbers about leasing a vessel, the maintenance 

taken by the builder, and crewing of and manning of. And I do believe, if you want to look at the money—because you’re not going 

to get the money to building a new Coast Guard cutter—I mean ice 

breaker for the Coast Guard, not on this present climate. And we 

need to be up there, because you know what’s happening. All 

their—Iceland, Greenland, Canada, they’re all being involved in 

the Arctic, and we are sitting on our thumbs. 

So what is wrong with leasing a vessel? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, if I could just take a stab at that—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Other than being—we have to own our own vessels, 

just like NOAA, which I never understood. Extremely expensive. 

Now, we’re in a real crunch, money-wise. So we better wake up, because you ain’t going to get them. And then the United States is 

behind us. 

So, look at how the bottom dollar—go ahead, Admiral. 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. Just a quick answer to your question. 

We have made a business case analysis of lease versus own in the 

17 

past that was done, I think, about 15 years ago. We are redoing 

that now. I don’t have the answer for you yet. But I think that is 

an option that we need to consider as we go forward, and define 

what our needs are in the Arctic, given the changing conditions 

there. 

Part of the high-latitude study is looking at our missions. We are 

taking that study, converting it into a mission analysis report, 

which will give greater definition to that, which will trigger another study called a mission needs study, which will look at various 

options as to how we accomplish those missions. 

So, we didn’t want to jump to the answer before we do the analysis. We know we will need new capability to operate in the arctic, 

as those conditions change, and there is more human activity 

there. As far as the solutions for how we achieve that, that is the 

subject of this ongoing study. 

Mr. YOUNG. All I ask you—Mr. Chairman, if I may—all I ask you 

is keep an open mind and look at the bottom dollar, as far as maintenance. Having to put them back in recommission after 35 years, 

you turn them back, you’re through with them, you’ve done your 

duty. 

And thank you, by the way, for the high-latitude study, finally. 

I hope this next study doesn’t take as long. So get back to us as 

soon as you can, because this is very, very important. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Young. Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

United States Coast Guard for all the men and women and all the 

sacrifices that you do on a daily basis that none of us really know 

about. So thank you to the sailors and airmen of the Coast Guard. 

Admiral Currier, if you don’t mind, sir, in regards to Coast 

Guard Authorization Act, you stated in your testimony that the 

Coast Guard initiated action of all 137 provisions of the act which 

service is responsible. 

Prior to 2010 the authorization act of all licensed mariners would 

require a TWIC card. And section 809 of the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act now requires that only mariners who are allowed 

in secure spaces, unescorted access to secure area of a vessel, to obtain a TWIC. And thank you very much for that; that was great 

foresight. 

Has section 809 been fully implemented? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, it is not fully implemented, but we are 

working as rapidly as possible to fully implement that. We clearly 

understand the intent of the law. We are trying to work with our 

department on some harmonization of capturing biometric information, which we need for the license—not necessarily for the security 

background check, but for safety and suitability, which is a separate requirement for the license. 

Previously, the TWIC satisfied that function. So we have to separate that out somehow. So we have a plan ahead which we are 

working the details with the Department on how to do that, and 

make it as simple and as painless as possible for the individual 

mariner. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Appreciate that. And as Chairman LoBiondo 

said, you have great friends here, and we want to help you, assist 

18 

you in your mission. So we will help you any way we can in that 

aspect, and also give—the needs of our individual districts met as 

well. 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Admiral, also, since we’re on this same page 

here, being a naval aviator, one of the things I am concerned about 

since 2008 we have had 15 operational casualties in the Coast 

Guard. Many of those were due to aviation accidents. And sir, I see 

you have a set of wings on your chest there, so I’m sure it is near 

and dear to your heart, as well. 

What do you believe is the cause for this unusually high number 

of casualties over the past 2 years? And what are you doing to address the problem? I have a feeling I know the answer, but I just 

want to make sure. 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, we will both take a stab at that, because 

we both own part of that problem. 

Sir, that was of great concern to the Coast Guard, to the commandant personally, and to all of the senior leadership of the Coast 

Guard. And Admiral Currier and I, in our respective roles, chartered a study to examine the reasons why. We call it the Aviation 

Safety Assessment Study. And it was a multifaceted look not only 

going—questioning our own workforce, but also benchmarking 

against external organizations on their safety programs. 

And what we found is there was a—some issues with rate of 

change—cockpit configuration changes in a fairly short period of 

time, the addition of new missions, the expectation that pilots had 

to know more than maybe had been the case in the past. And, 

quite honestly, some complacency. 

This was a joint effort between our two organizations. But as you 

point out, Admiral Currier is a senior aviator in the Coast Guard. 

So I would like to maybe ask him to comment on this, as well. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. What did you fly, sir? I’m sorry, I don’t have a 

background on you. 

Admiral CURRIER. Oh, I have—everything we have, except for C– 

130s. Unfortunately, now I’m flying a desk. But I do keep the—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I feel your pain, sir. 

Admiral CURRIER. Sir, thanks for that question. When we looked 

at 7 class A mishaps that—unfortunately, we lost 14 people in 

about a 30-month period, we looked at—we have a very sophisticated system of analysis, mishap analysis, as you, as a naval aviator, are well familiar. 

What cooks out of an analysis like that are causal or contributing 

factors. Those are the two things we look for. When we scrubbed 

these seven mishaps, we found no intersection. So, statistically, one 

could say it is not enough of an anomaly to say it’s significant, but 

we certainly thought it was significant, losing 14 people. 

What we were able to do is put together a multidimensional 

study, of which we took personal ownership, and we surveyed our 

entire workforce, and we came up with about five environmental 

factors that contributed to a degradation in the safety posture of 

the Coast Guard aviation. I personally have visited about half of 

the air stations and another senior aviator has visited the other 

half, to have a sit-down, across-the-table, eyeball-to-eyeball talk 

with our aviators. And I think it has been very successful, to date. 

19 

We have looked introspectively, identified some areas we need to 

improve, and aggressively gotten after them. I think this is a success story, as well, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you very much, once again, what you do. 

And, Chairman, there will be a second round, sir? OK. Thank you 

very much, sir, and I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. We will now turn to the gentleman from coastal 

Louisiana—— 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. What do we say, Loosiana, here? 

Mr. LANDRY. Loosiana. I’m sure you will help them if they can’t 

understand me. Do a little interpretation for me. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. We will have the translator. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LANDRY. Admirals, you know, I’ve got to tell you. The Coast 

Guard is one of the agencies in this Federal Government that I 

think operates the way agencies should. However, I am getting concerned that some of the other rotten apples in the bunch are starting to spoil you all. So I am going to be a little curt when it comes 

to these ice breakers that Congressman Young was speaking about. 

It frustrates me when we have 8 of our 10 largest ports in this 

country under restrictions because we’re not maintaining them, 

and we are $14 trillion in debt, and we spent all this money on 

stimulus that was supposed to stimulate jobs. 

And it also frustrates me when we have equipment up in the 

Arctic which is—which I consider another frontier kind of like 

space. We have already shuttled the shuttle program. And we need 

access to that area. 

Now, when I was in business—because I come from the business 

sector; I was never elected before I held this seat—I leased things. 

And I didn’t have to study something to determine if I needed to 

lease it. It was simply a matter of discussing with the stakeholders—with either the ship builders, or those that would be interested in leasing it—and running the numbers to determine 

whether or not the leasing is more affordable than the purchasing. 

And I can tell you that, when it comes to the Federal Government, I don’t know anything that it can own that the private market can’t provide more efficiently and more cost effective. So please 

look into this. I think it is something that we certainly need to do 

up there. 

The second point which I came to discuss was the notice of arrival. You know, we discussed this several times with you all. We 

have exchanged a series of letters. We still—I think we are at an 

impasse now. I would like you to tell me—or one of you all to tell 

me—what you think that we could insert into this—into the Coast 

Guard reauthorization bill, which will help to break that impasse? 

I mean why do we have to treat vessels that are leaving an 

American port, just traveling out to the OCS and coming back to 

an American port, the same way we treat a vessel coming from a 

foreign port, you know, crossing the OCS, and coming into the Gulf 

of Mexico? How can I help you so we can help the industry? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, as far as the impasse goes, we actually do 

have a chartered effort undertaken with OMSA, the Offshore Marine Services Association, to look at the best way forward with this. 

20 

In the interim, that provision in the regulations is not being enforced. So currently, nobody is being harmed by this. Absolutely 

understand the concerns that you have raised in this and in other 

hearings, and in consultation with you, you know, just a staff-tostaff basis. 

So, we will continue to work with OMSA, and we would like to 

develop recommendations through that effort. And then, sir, we 

would love to convey those recommendations to you, and—— 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, and I appreciate it. Thank you all for recognizing that, and thank you all for putting, basically, a moratorium 

on the regulation right now. 

My concern is what happens when you guys leave, and maybe 

someone who is not as bright as you all takes your place, and decides to start enforcing it? And so, what I would like to do—again, 

I guess it’s my business sense—when I see something that is broke, 

I just want to fix it. You know, is there something that we can do 

which helps give you—I guess to, I guess, clarify the issue, whether 

it be classified—because I know OMSA greatly appreciates your position currently, but they still believe that there is some sort of impasse in moving forward. 

Admiral SALERNO. Well, sir, I think we need to stay in contact 

on this issue. I don’t have the specific solution today, but I do offer 

myself to be available to you as we work through this problem. 

Mr. LANDRY. Great. That will work. Just something that we can 

do. I just want to help. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Harris? Nothing? Mr. Larsen, do you have 

another round? 

Mr. LARSEN. Dr. Bamford, you raised a concern in your statement that several States are finding abandoned vessels, bringing 

serious marine debris problems to the economic downturn, an issue 

that has been highlighted, in fact, in my district. 

Do derelict vessels fall under the operational definition of ‘‘marine debris’’? 

Ms. BAMFORD. Yes, sir, they do. 

Mr. LARSEN. They do? 

Ms. BAMFORD. They do fall under that definition that currently 

is in promulgation. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. So then who is legally responsible for removing 

derelict vessels, once they become inoperable or an environmental 

threat? 

Ms. BAMFORD. Usually it falls on the State. We recently had a— 

well, in 2009, due to continued questions and concerns about derelict vessels, due to the economic downturn, we saw an increase, or 

the States reported an increase. 

We held a workshop with the Federal agencies, as well as invited 

the 30 coastal States, as well as the Great Lakes—Minnesota was 

there, as well—and we basically came to the resolution, based on 

laws and regulations, that most of the programs fall within the 

State requirements. So, States have programs that either are funded through State authorizations, or they develop programs to help 

in removal funds. 

Where we come in is in helping multi-agency issues. For example, one State wants to develop a program, and they are looking for 

21 

information. We tried to provide the best available information for 

them to establish those programs. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. On a related topic, then, for Admiral Salerno, 

the Coast Guard is presently undertaking environmental remediation and cleanup activities to remove the derelict barge Davy 

Crockett from the Columbia River. Can you give us the status of 

that cleanup effort? And will the Coast Guard be pursuing reimbursement from the vessel’s owner for these expenses? 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. That is progressing. I know it is 

nearing completion, but I don’t have the exact status. I can get that 

for you, for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Currently, $19.55 million has been committed to the case. 

The Davy Crockett response continues with effort principally surrounding the removal and cleaning of steel from 

the barge tanks. A Web site is being maintained by the 

Unified Command tracking the current progress of the removal, the site is available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/spills/incidents/DavyCrockett/DavyCrockett.html. 

Consistent with the Oil Pollution Act’s ‘‘polluter pays’’ 

principle, the Coast Guard’s National Pollution Fund Center recovers oil removal costs and damages from liable polluters and any guarantors to the greatest extent permitted 

by law. We have no comment on how liability for oil removal costs and damages may ultimately be enforced with 

respect to the Davy Crockett incident. These are matters 

within the enforcement discretion of the United States and 

pending further investigation and close coordination 

among affected agencies, including the Department of Justice. 

But related to the broader question, this is an example where an 

abandoned vessel also poses an environmental threat. And when 

we have those types of situations, we can access the oil spill liability trust fund, open a Federal project to remove the pollution 

threat. In some cases, such as the Davy Crockett case, to remove 

the threat you really need to remove the vessel. So that is, functionally, what is happening there. 

In all cases where we open up a Federal project under the fund, 

we do seek recovery of the costs, Federal costs, from the owner. 

That is fairly standard. And, of course, that always is somewhat 

dependent on the owner’s ability to pay, but we do seek to recover. 

Mr. LARSEN. So you are seeking cost recovery because this is a 

fund issue, oil spill fund—— 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes. All of the Federal expenditures—and 

also, if—I don’t know all the details of the funding structure for 

this case—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Right, right. 

Admiral SALERNO [continuing]. But we can hire State officials, as 

well, under the fund. Whatever expenditures are charged against 

the fund we do seek to recover from the responsible party. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK, thank you. Admiral Salerno, with regard to 

fishing vessel examinations, the Coast Guard has estimated it will 

22 

need to hire no fewer than 60 full or part-time inspectors to conduct examinations of roughly 30,000 fishing vessels by the statutory deadline of October 2012. 

How do you intend to address this requirement if the budget provides less funding for rulemaking? And does the Coast Guard intend to shift funds from other accounts in order to maintain its 

rulemaking program? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, it will be challenging to complete all of 

the fishing vessel examinations with our existing active duty workforce. We would look to leverage some other opportunities to help 

accomplish the requirements for the examinations—for example, 

using our Coast Guard auxiliary, and also leveraging some thirdparty capability. 

If there are—if that does not satisfy the requirement, if the 

workload is simply too great, then we would need to seek additional resources. But we are not at that stage yet. We do not plan 

to shift accounts, you know, specifically for that purpose. Essentially, the burden would fall on our cadre of marine inspectors that 

are currently in our workforce also performing other vessel inspection activities. 

Mr. LARSEN. Would auxiliary or a third party have authority to 

ultimately sign off on the examination? 

Admiral SALERNO. The—some of those details, sir, have to be 

worked out. We did have a legal matter which is being resolved regarding the use of the auxiliary, for example. As you know, they 

are not allowed to engage in law enforcement activity. So pending 

is a decision whether we can use them to sign off, or just simply 

as an assistant for a Coast Guard officer or petty officer. 

But we—they at least provide a force that can be used to help 

streamline the inspection when we do that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Should we expect that the Coast Guard is going to 

ask for a push back of the October 2012 timeline? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, I don’t know if we have asked for that. 

I would have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bamford, I have 

had the great opportunity, as a Reservist, to be attached to a command that was attached to Midway Island. And I have walked 

Midway Island’s beaches. And I know that this is just—debris is 

not just a United States problem, it is a global problem, and it gets 

washed up on the beaches. 

Can you tell me, in your analysis of the—I’m assuming you did 

an analysis of the debris that was on our beaches—how much is— 

you know, comes from the United States versus other countries? 

Ms. BAMFORD. That’s a great question, and one that is extremely 

hard to answer. 

It depends. When you look at Midway, you’re absolutely right. A 

lot of that debris is mixed, it’s from international origin, as well as 

from U.S. The majority of what we see there is international in origin. It’s a lot of fishing gear. We have actually found debris out 

there from World War II, material that we find from an old sailor’s 

vest. And so you see that this stuff actually exists out in the ocean 

23 

for decades. It gets caught up in the convergence zones and then 

deposits itself on Midway. 

When you actually look at around our coast here on the East 

Coast and West Coast, you see a lot more debris coming from the 

United States, obviously. It’s a lot of waste, commercial waste, 

plastic debris, bags, things like that, that come from the U.S. And 

we see that after storms, coming out of storm drains. It is basically 

a waste management issue that we see here. 

So, in order to tackle both of those, we have to look at marine 

debris as a ubiquitous problem. It knows no international or State 

boundaries. So we try to develop programs that address both domestic, as well as foreign, debris. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Ma’am, could you tell me, are the other international communities involved with this, as well? I mean is it just 

the United States bearing the brunt of all this? 

Ms. BAMFORD. Yes, sir, they are. We just had an international 

conference. The Fifth International Marine Debris Conference was 

recently held in Hawaii. We had over—close to 400 participants 

from 30 international countries. And we just started those conversations again, because the previous international marine debris 

conference was a decade ago, 10 years ago, and NOAA, with 

UNEP, cosponsored this one we just had, and it really started 

those conversations in developing strategies on an international 

forum. 

So, those engagements have been re-energized, and the outcome 

from that particular conference is continuing on today through 

strategies and programs that are being developed. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. Thank you, ma’am. The—according—my understanding is the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act authorized—was it $2 million—through fiscal year 2010 

for the Coast Guard to enforce requirements which prohibits at-sea 

discharge of plastic trash and vessels. Of the $2 million authorized, how much has been spent on this 

program? I don’t know if the Coast Guard would answer that, or 

you would answer that, ma’am. 

Ms. BAMFORD. I will defer to the Coast Guard. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, ma’am. 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, there was no money specifically appropriated to the Coast Guard for that. However, we have been working in very close partnership with NOAA on the marine debris program. And that has taken a number of different forms. 

Probably the most dominant is our—we have blended in enforcement of the MARPOL Annex V into our normal ports that control 

examinations, so that 9,000 or so international vessels that call at 

the United States every year are examined by the Coast Guard for 

a number of things, including compliance with the international 

treaties on—to prevent discharge of garbage at sea. 

We also make sure that any facility that receives an international vessel or domestic vessel has the capability to receive garbage, so that there is a place for it to go, other than into the ocean. 

We have used our own ships as available. You know, for some 

of the activities that were mentioned by Congressman Farr—for example, out in the Pacific doing cleanups, working with NOAA, with 

the Army, recovering abandoned nets and so forth, and bringing 

24 

quite a bit of it back—and also we have engaged with our sea partners program, with the public, with school children, with recreational boaters, again, just sensitizing them to the need to put 

trash in its proper place. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. 

Dr. Bamford, again, we have talked a little bit about the West 

Coast, we have talked about the Gulf. But near and dear to my 

heart is Great Lakes. Can you just comment a little bit about the 

Great Lakes? 

Ms. BAMFORD. Yes, sir. The program recently expanded our regional coordinator into the Great Lakes. The majority of what we 

see up there in terms of a problem is a lot of the plastic debris, 

and the papers and the bags. 

The ocean conservancy, we partner with them in the International Coastal Cleanup, and they have a very strong and a very 

good presence up in the Great Lakes. 

The—also the issue of abandoned vessels is a problem outside 

navigable waterways, and we see that and we try to work with that 

in developing programs with the States. But we have, as a program, just recently—that was our latest coordinator, due to the 

need in the Great Lakes for a Federal presence to support the 

States in marine debris reduction efforts. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Doctor. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you. You still good, Andy? OK. 

Thank you very much. Just one kind of last thing. Admiral 

Salerno, you noted that you had become the DCO and Admiral 

Currier has become the DCMS. Congratulations to both of you. 

Good luck. 

The question is, will the Atlantic and Pacific area commanders 

remain in those positions, or are they slated to become deputy commandants or commanders of operation for the command and for 

force of command? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, they will remain as Atlantic area and Pacific area, respectively. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Admiral Currier, Admiral Salerno, Dr. 

Bamford, thank you very much for your testimony. 

The committee meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

25 


Insert offset folio 5 here 67580.005
26 


Insert offset folio 6 here 67580.006
27 


Insert offset folio 7 here 67580.007
28 


Insert offset folio 8 here 67580.008
29 


Insert offset folio 9 here 67580.009
30 


Insert offset folio 10 here 67580.010
31 


Insert offset folio 11 here 67580.011
32 


Insert offset folio 12 here 67580.012
33 


Insert offset folio 13 here 67580.013
34 


Insert offset folio 14 here 67580.014
35 


Insert offset folio 15 here 67580.015
36 


Insert offset folio 16 here 67580.016
37 


Insert offset folio 17 here 67580.017
38 


Insert offset folio 18 here 67580.018
39 


Insert offset folio 19 here 67580.019
40 


Insert offset folio 20 here 67580.020
41 


Insert offset folio 21 here 67580.021
42 


Insert offset folio 22 here 67580.022
43 


Insert offset folio 23 here 67580.023
44 


Insert offset folio 24 here 67580.024
45 


Insert offset folio 25 here 67580.025
46 


Insert offset folio 26 here 67580.026
47 


Insert offset folio 27 here 67580.027
48 


Insert offset folio 28 here 67580.028
49 


Insert offset folio 29 here 67580.029
50 


Insert offset folio 30 here 67580.030
51 


Insert offset folio 31 here 67580.031
52 


Insert offset folio 32 here 67580.032
53 


Insert offset folio 33 here 67580.033
54 


Insert offset folio 34 here 67580.034
55 


Insert offset folio 35 here 67580.035
56 


Insert offset folio 36 here 67580.036
57 


Insert offset folio 37 here 67580.037
58 


Insert offset folio 38 here 67580.038
59 


Insert offset folio 39 here 67580.039
60 


Insert offset folio 40 here 67580.040
61 


Insert offset folio 41 here 67580.041
62 


Insert offset folio 42 here 67580.042
63 


Insert offset folio 43 here 67580.043
64 


Insert offset folio 44 here 67580.044
65 


Insert offset folio 45 here 67580.045
66 


Insert offset folio 46 here 67580.046
67 


Insert offset folio 47 here 67580.047
68 


Insert offset folio 48 here 67580.048
69 


Insert offset folio 49 here 67580.049
70 


Insert offset folio 50 here 67580.050
71 


Insert offset folio 51 here 67580.051
72 


Insert offset folio 52 here 67580.052
73 


Insert offset folio 53 here 67580.053
74 


Insert offset folio 54 here 67580.054
75 


Insert offset folio 55 here 67580.055
76 


Insert offset folio 56 here 67580.056
77 


Insert offset folio 57 here 67580.057
78 


Insert offset folio 58 here 67580.058
79 


Insert offset folio 59 here 67580.059
80 


Insert offset folio 60 here 67580.060
81 


Insert offset folio 61 here 67580.061
82 


Insert offset folio 62 here 67580.062
83 


Insert offset folio 63 here 67580.063
84 


Insert offset folio 64 here 67580.064
85 


Insert offset folio 65 here 67580.065
86 


Insert offset folio 66 here 67580.066
87 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 67 here 67580.067