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

72–563 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–233 

THE U.S. COAST GUARD BUDGET AND OVERSIGHT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, 

FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 23, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST 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 L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

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 L. DONESKI, Chief of Staff 

JAMES REID, Deputy Chief of Staff 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

TODD BERTOSON, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST 

GUARD 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 23, 2011 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Snowe ................................................................................... 25 

WITNESSES

Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard ........................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr. by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 43 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 47 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 49 

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 51 

Hon. Roger F. Wicker ....................................................................................... 53 

(1) 

THE U.S. COAST GUARD BUDGET AND 

OVERSIGHT 

THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Senator Begich, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Good morning, we will have a couple members 

joining us momentarily. They are running a little late. But, as 

ships have to run on time, so should committees. So, thank you 

very much. 

I’ll make a few comments, and depending on who makes it here 

on time, they will have an opportunity to say some comments, too. 

Again, good morning, and I welcome Admiral Robert Papp, the 

Commander, Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, and thank him 

for testifying before the Committee today. 

Since the very earliest days of our nation, the U.S. Coast Guard 

has safeguarded our maritime interests, and our ports, at sea, and 

our interior waterways, and on the Great Lakes, and around the 

globe. They protect the Nation’s maritime economy and environment, defend our maritime borders, and save those in peril on our 

waters. They’re Americans’ maritime guardian, who is Semper 

Paratus—‘‘always ready’’ for the hazards and threats. 

Today the U.S. Coast Guard has nearly 42,000 men and women 

on active duty, and constitutes a unique multi-mission military 

maritime which carries out an array of civil and military responsibility, and touches almost every facet of the U.S. maritime environment. 

Last year the Coast Guard responded to more than 22,000 search 

and rescue cases, and saved more than 4,000 lives; inspected over 

250,000 vessels. The Coast Guard saved millions of dollars in property; seized hundreds of tons of cocaine; stopped thousands of undocumented migrants for illegally entering the country; identified 

61 individuals associated with terrorism; and deployed forces overseas in support of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The Coast Guard conducted humanitarian missions in Haiti, led 

the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and investigated 

2 

thousands of other pollution incidences. Last year in Alaska alone, 

the Coast Guard in Alaska responded to 646 search and rescue 

cases, saved 138 lives, and aided 932 persons in distress. 

In my state, we are proud to be the home of the nation’s largest 

Coast Guard based in Kodiak. And with the cutters, air stations, 

and small boat stations throughout the state, we think of the Coast 

Guard as Alaska’s navy. 

We should honor the every day service and sacrifice of its men 

and women by ensuring they have the tools they need to do all we 

ask of them, to make sure they’re mission-ready. Last year, Congress took an important step toward this when it, in a bipartisan 

fashion—thanks in large part to the leadership of Chairman Rockefeller, our immediate past Chair of this subcommittee, Senator 

Cantwell, and all our full and subcommittee Ranking Members, 

Senators Hutchison and Snowe—we finally enacted updated authorizing legislation for the service. 

The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 provide the Coast 

Guard with important statutory authorities they’ve needed for 

some time. The provisions will allow the service to modernize its 

command structure, improve its acquisition practices and financial 

management, and make a number of improvements to the lives of 

Coast Guard personnel and their families, all of which are integral 

to the 21st century Coast Guard. 

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, I’m looking forward to introducing and 

working on a new authorization bill that continues this progress toward a modern, more efficient, and highly agile Coast Guard. 

But there’s more to the mission’s readiness than modernization 

command structures and updated statutory authorities, and that’s 

one of the reasons why I’ve called for this budget and oversight 

hearing. The President’s request for Coast Guard’s Fiscal Year 

2012 budget represents a modest increase in funding of 1 percent. 

In a time when budgets are shrinking, and we are finding ways to 

tackle the nation’s deficit, this is a victory. 

However, many issues remain unaddressed about how to sustain 

the Coast Guard’s core capabilities at a time when we continually 

ask more of them. Case in point: I’m very concerned about the 

Coast Guard’s mission readiness when we don’t properly equip 

them. This is particularly true when we look at the Nation’s icebreaker fleet. With one of its two heavy icebreakers slated for decommission this year, and the others not coming out of the shipyard and back into service until at least 2013, the Coast Guard 

finds itself in a serious operational gap. Having no heavy icebreaker capability for 2 years or more limits our ability to safeguard our sovereignty and our interest in the polar regions—and 

that’s putting it mildly. 

How can we expect the Coast Guard to conduct their varied maritime safety, security and stewardship roles in a remote area like 

the North Slope, when they lack the operational assets and the infrastructure to do so? 

Some have also expressed concerns that the Coast Guard is slowly losing some of the autonomy and latitude it needs to operate as 

a flexible, agile, and responsive multi-mission agency. The Department of Homeland Security, in which the Coast Guard currently 

3 

operates, seems in recent years to have developed an expectation 

that the Coast Guard can and should operate just like any other 

department’s subordinate agencies. I’m concerned that this reduced 

autonomy will impact the service’s ability to operate effectively and 

deliver all that we have to come to expect. 

Admiral Papp, I look forward to hearing your testimony. I want 

to, before we start with your opening statement, I’m going to go 

ahead and ask the members here if they have any opening comments they’d like to make. 

Senator Rockefeller. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I’m particularly 

happy to be with you, Admiral, and to be with you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just, whenever you’re chairing a hearing, I just like to sort of 

being around to watch you operate. 

Senator BEGICH. That makes me nervous. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re very good. You’re calm, very thoughtful, 

very good. 

And I feel exactly the same way you did, or, do—what you said. 

I mean, it’s this constant, this constant pull between needs, and 

how much attention is the Congress paying? And that goes back 

many, many years. And we, I think Chairman Begich and I would 

both feel that what we’re trying to do is to upgrade—and we have 

done—is upgrade the attention that was just paid to the Coast 

Guard, make people more aware of what it’s done. I mean, save 

4,300 lives, seize more than 90 metric tons of cocaine, interdicted 

more than 2,000 undocumented migrants. You’re called on to do all 

things at all times, and people expect you will be there. You’re kind 

of a safety net—a psychological and physical and actual safety net. 

And yet, we don’t fund you properly. You’re not a stark enough 

part of our vocabulary, of our subconscience. You are—of those of 

us in here, Kelly Ayotte, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Begich and 

myself—but, it’s discouraging. And now we’re going into this period 

of downturn on budgets, and that’s even more discouraging, because you’ve got a couple of 45-year-old ships doing what they really can’t do any longer—although global warming seems, I guess, is 

melting the ice a little bit, so, but I’m not sure that helps enough. 

So, I want to say two things. One is, I’m tremendously proud of 

your predecessor, I’m tremendously proud of you. Everything in a 

situation like that, where people feel at risk, or they feel unattended to financially and psychologically and otherwise by the 

funding body, depends on leadership. And you clearly have it, just 

like your predecessor had it. And so, I’m very grateful for you. 

I also want to profoundly apologize to the Chairman, who may 

or may not forgive me, because we’re having in the Finance Committee, which started 10 minutes ago, we’re going to decide what 

to do about entitlements on, in health care. And that is a viciously 

nasty and important subject. So, I will have to leave. But I didn’t 

want to come over to the Hill without stopping in to pay my respects to you, to the work that your people do—you have 200 people tucked away in Huntington, West Virginia who are working all 

4 

the time—and, you know, the difference that you make to Senator 

Begich’s part of the world is just indescribable. 

So, I pay you my respects. I, we’ll do our very, very best to get 

every single dime that we can for you, because the Coast Guard deserves it. Your men and women deserve it. You deserve it. And 

we’re not in the habit of doing what we ought to be in the habit 

of doing. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks, and thank 

you for your chairmanship. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

Good morning. As one of our Nation’s primary first responders, the Coast Guard 

is vital to our national security, economic security, public safety, and environment. 

When I turn on the television or read the paper, I often see the courageous acts 

of our Coast Guard men and women. Just last year they: 

• saved more than 4,300 lives, 

• seized more than 90 metric tons of cocaine bound for our streets, and 

• interdicted more than 2,000 undocumented migrants on the high seas attempting to illegally cross our borders, 

• in addition to countless other acts protecting and defending our homeland. 

They did all of this last year, while leading the Federal response to the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill, one of the worst environmental disasters in our Nation’s history. 

Following the devastating earthquake in Haiti, the Coast Guard was the first on 

the scene- immediately provided rescue and relief, and again reinforced its motto 

of Semper Paratus, or ‘‘Always Ready.’’ These are truly remarkable accomplishments 

that underscore responsiveness, flexibility, and professionalism-all cornerstones of 

the U.S. Coast Guard. 

As a nation, we depend on the Coast Guard to keep us safe and secure, but their 

ability to do that rests on their access to resources and other support necessary to 

perform their missions. 

They can’t do things like respond to the biggest oil spill in U.S. history and a massive earthquake in Haiti; conduct search and rescue operations, and countless other 

things—all on a shoestring budget. 

I am concerned that the Coast Guard does not have the necessary funding to do 

everything we expect them to do. An aging fleet of ships and aircraft need to be 

replaced, numerous shore units, including boat houses, are crumbling and the Coast 

Guard does not have the money to fix it. 

I share Chairman Begich’s concerns that the Coast Guard’s limited resources are 

affecting its operations in our polar regions, which are vital to our national security 

and its traditional search and rescue operations. 

I am concerned that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), which is under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, is also underfunded and 

unable to fulfill its obligations to monitor our polar regions, especially weather. This 

will not only affect Alaska, but every community in our country because we all depend on accurate weather data. 

The potential reorganization of the Department of Commerce has me deeply concerned that an agency as critical as NOAA will get lost in the shuffle and be placed 

in another department where it must compete for limited resources. Further, it will 

affect its ability to fulfill its vital mission. 

The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, enacted this past October, provided 

the Coast Guard the essential tools to successfully carry out its missions by improving its organizational flexibility, updating its command structure, and reforming its 

acquisition practices. I am proud of this legislation. And I look forward to working 

across the aisle and sponsoring another Coast Guard Authorization bill that will 

give the Coast Guard the crucial resources it needs to carry out its missions successfully. 

Today, we welcome Admiral Robert Papp, Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Thank you for your exceptional leadership in these challenging times. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Senator Rockefeller. 

5 

And, Senator Ayotte, do you have any opening that you would 

like to give? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator AYOTTE. I would just say thank you, Chairman Begich, 

for holding this hearing. 

And, thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Lautenberg. 

Admiral, I certainly just want to express my appreciation for 

your leadership, and our thanks to all the men and women who 

serve underneath you. And certainly, you have an important role 

to play in New Hampshire on our coastal waters, and with respect 

to our overall safety and national defense. So, thank you very much 

for coming before the Committee today, and I look forward to your 

testimony. And, thank you again for your service. 

Senator BEGICH. Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks, Admiral Papp, for your service, and all of your colleagues in the Coast Guard. 

The motto of the Coast Guard, we need to be reminded, is Semper Paratus. It translates to ‘‘Always Ready.’’ And in this agency, 

one of five branches of the American armed services, lives up to its 

motto each day. Very often I will see it from the window of my 

apartment, which is on the Hudson River in the town of Cliffside 

Park, and it would be a long way to wave, but I always salute them 

when I see them passing by. 

Simply put, the men and women of the Coast Guard are America’s eyes and ears on the seas, and the American people remain 

safe because of them. 

It goes beyond, way beyond that. I mean, the fact that we have 

the kind of marine system that permits private access to the 

waters, that protects them. They’re there for rescue. They’re there 

for every, each and every cause. And they play a critical role in 

protecting our shores, especially in my home state of New Jersey, 

which remains a tempting—said by the FBI, the most tempting— 

target for terrorist attack in our country. So, we’re concerned about 

the ability of the Coast Guard to continue to do the things that it’s 

capable of as, we make the resource less complete. 

So, it’s not just that we’re protecting the people there, the lives 

of the families. We have chemical plants. We’ve got all of these 

things. But, it also protects our economy. The Port of New York 

and New Jersey, the largest on the East Coast, handled more than 

$140 billion in cargo last year. So, make no mistake—the brave 

men and the women of the Coast Guard are always there when we 

need them, and they never let us down. 

Last year when a massive earthquake struck Haiti, the Coast 

Guard was there evacuating the injured, delivering supplies, and 

offering hope to victims. And when oil was gushing into the Gulf, 

the Coast Guard was there, working around the clock to contain 

the spill, clean up the mess, and save those communities. 

6 

President Obama recognizes the value of the Coast Guard, and 

his proposed budget takes positive steps to maintain the Coast 

Guard’s readiness, including funding to modernize its aging fleet 

and bolster its ability to respond to disasters. 

And I’m also pleased that the budget includes funding to rebuild 

the dilapidated Pier 4 at the Coast Guard’s training center in Cape 

May, New Jersey. Now, this facility supports the patrol boats that 

protect our coastline, trains our Coast Guard recruits, and I hope 

that we can provide the resources the training center needs and deserves. 

The fact is, the Coast Guard is constantly put at the back of the 

line for resources, constantly forced to do more with less. There are 

always new assignments coming out—whether it’s manifests, 

whether it’s channel identities, whether it’s there and searching for 

contraband, or trying to stem the tide of refugees trying to gain our 

shores—it doesn’t matter. The Coast Guard’s always there. 

And now what’s happening, the House Republicans are trying to 

compound the problem by giving the Coast Guard even fewer resources. And I’d like to ask those in the House who represent districts in coastal states whether they’d like to individually see State 

X, Y, or Z with fewer Coast Guard personnel there. Well, I don’t 

think it would pass the taste test. 

And we need to help the Coast Guard replace its aging fleet, the 

program that funds port security grants. We’ve got to fight as hard 

as we can to defeat those cuts. And I look forward to hearing from 

our distinguished Admiral, Admiral Papp, on these cuts that would 

affect the Coast Guard’s ability to be Always Ready when we need 

it. 

And I wouldn’t hold back if I was you, Admiral Papp. Thank you 

very much for your service. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Admiral Papp, thank you very much, again, for joining us today, 

and having this opportunity to talk about your budget, and oversight on some of the needs that you have. Your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR., 

COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Chairman Begich. It’s always good to 

see you again. 

Senator Lautenberg, always a pleasure. 

I’m very honored that Senator Rockefeller came in to make a 

statement. 

And, Senator Ayotte, welcome to you, and I’ll look forward to seeing Senator Snowe when she arrives. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and for 

your unwavering support of our United States Coast Guard—especially for our hardworking Coast Guard men and women. It continues to be my highest honor and privilege to lead these men and 

women, and represent them. 

It has been just over a year since I assumed my watch as the 

Commandant, so even though my appearance before the Subcommittee today is labeled as a budget hearing, I also want to use 

this opportunity to tell you what we’ve accomplished, what our 

challenges are, and to do my most important job, which is to tell 

7 

you what the Coast Guard needs to continue performing all our 

challenging maritime missions. 

So, first, what we’ve accomplished: we’ve performed our most important service to the country by sustaining front line operations. 

Our citizens witnessed the Coast Guard in action like never before 

this year, responding to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and explosion. While we were conducting that unprecedented response, thousands of other Coast Guardsmen were performing all our other persistent missions, just like they’re doing today. 

The National Security Cutter Bertholf just completed her first 

Alaska patrol, a service which is vital to ensuring the sustainment 

of the Alaska commercial fishing industry, protection of its fishermen, and of our fishery stocks. 

As I speak, the medium icebreaker HEALY has loaded a NASA 

science team at Dutch Harbor, and is sailing on Thursday for a 6- 

month patrol to study the impact of the changing conditions in the 

Arctic. 

In the Arabian Gulf, 700 Coast Guardsmen, including six patrol 

boats and a Port Security Unit, are protecting the oil platforms 

that provide nearly all of the revenue of the country of Iraq. 

And throughout the flood-ravaged Midwest, Coast Guardsmen 

are assisting to protect our citizens and their properties. 

Now, shifting gear from operations to authorizations, we’ve used 

the authority that you so generously provided us in the 2010 Coast 

Guard Authorization Act to move forward with organizational realignment, acquisition reform, and mariner safety enhancement. 

We’re continuing to steady the service by improving the way we deliver mission support to our operational forces; we’ve realigned 

headquarters directorates; we’ve established new logistics and service centers and base commands. These efforts will provide our operational forces with one-stop shopping for all their mission support 

needs. 

Our acquisition program has also made great strides. We have 

a well-trained workforce who now has taken on the responsibility 

of systems integrator for all our acquisition projects. And we continue to implement our Marine Safety Performance Plan. We’re 

building capacity and competency by providing direct officer commissions to Maritime Academy graduates. In fact, on Monday we 

commissioned 13 new Kings Point graduates as Coast Guard officers. 

But there are challenges out there. As a prudent sailor, I have 

always kept a weather eye on the horizon, and today I see storm 

clouds forming. I’m well aware of our Nation’s current economic 

and budget challenges, but our Coast Guard is also facing significant challenges. 

Our most pressing challenge is recapitalizing our major cutter 

fleet—the high endurance and medium endurance cutters. Ships 

that were designed to last a quarter century are now approaching 

a half century of service life—50 years of waves, wind, and salt 

spray; 50 years of performing concentrated, punishing at-sea operations has taken its toll. We’re losing hundreds of patrol days each 

year due to constant breakdowns. 

When these legacy cutters are on patrol, they’re less effective because they lack state-of-the-art systems. And, as a long-time ship 

8 

captain, it greatly concerns me that we’re asking our Coast Guard 

men and women to sail aboard ships that were basically World 

War II-era designs. They deserve better. 

Now, we’ve addressed block obsolescence of Coast Guard cutters 

before. Nearly 50 years ago, during a speech to a joint session of 

Congress, just a few hundred yards from where we sit today, President John F. Kennedy challenged our Nation to send an American 

to the moon. At the same time, Coast Guard naval engineers were 

busy designing the venerable 210-foot medium endurance cutters. 

The first of that class, the cutter Reliance, was commissioned just 

3 years later. 

In March 1969, just 4 months before the heroes of Apollo 11 

landed on the moon, the Coast Guard commissioned the cutter 

Morgenthau—the eighth of our Hamilton Class high endurance 

cutters. Morgenthau’s crew deployed a short time later to Vietnam. 

Forty-two years later, Morgenthau is still in service. But she struggles to serve our critical national security interests. 

The newest of our Hamilton Class cutters, Midgett, which is 40 

years old, recently entered a routine dock-side maintenance period. 

Excessive hull deterioration was discovered, so we’re cropping out 

and replacing wasted steel throughout her hull just so she can be 

safe enough to sail. That’s why we need at least eight National Security Cutters. 

But, because of your support, I have some good news to report. 

We’re making steady progress in replacing our 12 Hamilton Class 

cutters with eight National Security Cutters. Two of the planned 

eight NSCs—Bertholf and Waeshe—have been delivered. Builder’s 

trials have started on the third—the cutter Stratton. And this Monday, the shipyard started cutting steel on the cutter number 4, the 

new Coast Guard Cutter Hamilton. And I expect to award the contract for the fifth NSC this summer. 

But our fleet of existing medium endurance cutters—those 210s 

that I talked about, designed 50 years ago—by the time they’re replaced, they’re going to be 60 years old. This is why the Offshore 

Patrol Cutter is such an important project for our service. We’re 

working to finalize the specifications on the Offshore Patrol Cutter 

and put out a request for preliminary design and construction proposals. 

This momentum must continue. Gaps in funding recapitalization 

are costly; they jeopardize our ability to protect the nation’s high 

seas and sovereignty. That’s why I’m requesting over $1.4 billion 

to continue our recapitalization effort, including funding for major 

cutters, fast response cutters, response boats, maritime patrol aircraft, and sustainment of our aging ships and aircraft. 

The ice diminishing Arctic also presents a major challenge. An 

entire new ocean is emerging, prompting an increase in human activity, including commercial vessel traffic, eco-tourism, and exploration activities. We’re in the process of conducting a High Latitude 

Study to inform our future needs, but we need to ensure we are 

preparing to meet our responsibilities in this fifth ocean the same 

way we’ve done and met them in the other four. 

As I said in the beginning, my most important job is to tell you 

what I need. And today, I’m telling you that the Fiscal Year 2012 

budget is the baseline budget for we need. We need every dollar, 

9 

every ship, every plane, every shore station that it funds. I’ve made 

some tough tradeoffs in this budget. I’ve directed management efficiencies and administrative reductions totaling over $100 million. 

But I cannot afford to cut any more without jeopardizing our most 

valuable service to the nation—front line operations. 

So, thank you for this opportunity to come up here and tell you 

about our needs and our challenges, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Papp follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR., 

COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD

Introduction 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for the continuing support you have shown to the men and women of 

the United States Coast Guard. 

I am here today to discuss the Coast Guard’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Budget Request. I would also like to take this opportunity to discuss the Coast Guard’s value 

and role, some of our recent operations, including our response to the BP Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill, and the current budget environment. 

For more than 220 years, the U.S. Coast Guard has safeguarded the Nation’s 

maritime interests and natural resources in our rivers and ports, along our coasts, 

and upon the high seas throughout the world. Over the past year, Coast Guard men 

and women—active duty, reserve, civilian and auxiliarists alike—continued to deliver premier service to the public. They saved over four thousand lives, protected 

our borders by stopping the flow of drugs and illegal migrants, and performed admirably in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

The Coast Guard is an adaptable, responsive, military force of maritime professionals whose expansive legal authorities, geographic diversity, and robust partnerships enable it to perform a broad range of challenging maritime missions. 

The Coast Guard’s value and role: 

• We protect those on the sea: leading responses to maritime disasters and 

threats, ensuring a safe and secure maritime transportation system, preventing 

incidents, and rescuing those in distress. 

• We protect America from threats delivered by sea: enforcing laws and treaties, 

securing our ocean resources, and ensuring the integrity of our maritime domain 

from illegal activity. 

• We protect the sea itself: regulating hazardous cargo transportation, holding responsible parties accountable for environmental damage and cleanup, and protecting living marine and natural resources. 

The Coast Guard, working through DHS, led the Administration’s response to the 

BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the first-ever Spill of National Significance. On the 

night Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Deepwater Horizon exploded, it was 

the Coast Guard who was first on scene, searching for those in distress and providing a Federal presence. Days later, when the oil began to gush from the damaged 

wellhead, the Coast Guard surged over 7,000 people, including members of the 

Coast Guard Reserve and Auxiliary, to combat the spill. Coast Guard members 

served in cutters and boats, in fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, and in the shore-side 

incident command system. The Coast Guard also leveraged its many partnerships 

to support the response. The Coast Guard’s adaptive operational model allowed for 

the: 

• Rapid establishment of a response organization to combat the spill, resulting in 

the recovery of 34.7 million gallons of oil-water mix, and in-situ burning of 11 

million gallons of oil. These efforts assisted in the protection of the shoreline 

and wildlife. 

• Deployment of 46 cutters and 22 aircraft. Surface assets included Medium Endurance Cutters (210-ft and 270-ft), Sea-going and Coastal Buoy Tenders (225- 

ft and 175-ft), Ice Breaking Tugs (140-ft) and Patrol Boats (179-ft, 110-ft and 

87-ft). Air assets included Long and Medium-range Surveillance Aircraft (HC– 

130 and HC–144A) and Short and Medium Range helicopters (HH–60 and HH– 

65). 

10 

While 2010 was another exceptional ‘‘operational year’’ by any standard, these operations further stressed existing aged and obsolete cutters, boats, aircraft and support infrastructure. Moreover, these extended surge operations strained workforce 

readiness due to increased op-tempo and deferred training. It is therefore imperative—even in the current fiscal environment—that we continue to invest in recapitalizing our fleet and enhancing support to our families. 

FY 2012 Request 

In Fiscal Year 2012, the Coast Guard will focus resources to advance strategic priorities. Through tough decisions and resource trade-offs, the Coast Guard’s FY 2012 

budget leverages savings generated through management efficiencies and offsets, 

and allocates funding toward higher order needs that support front-line operations. 

These offsets and reductions will support implementation of the following FY 2012 

budget priorities: 

• Rebuild the Coast Guard 

• Sustain Front-line Operations 

• Enhance Maritime Incident Prevention and Response 

• Support Military Families 

Highlights from our request are included in Appendix I. 

Rebuild the Coast Guard 

The Coast Guard’s FY 2012 budget requests $1.4 billion to continue recapitalization of cutters; boats; aircraft; Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems; and infrastructure to 

improve mission readiness by replacing aged, obsolete, and unreliable assets. The 

FY 2012 budget requests funding for 40 Response Boats and six Fast Response Cutters, as well as a sizable investment in the renovation and restoration of shore facilities. This budget also provides resources to ensure that the Coast Guard’s aviation fleet is mission-ready through the acquisition of two Maritime Patrol Aircraft, 

one HH–60 helicopter, and conversion and sustainment projects of multiple aircraft. 

Investment in Coast Guard recapitalization is essential to mission execution. 


623PAPP1.eps
11 

Sustain Front-line Operations 

To ensure the Coast Guard is able to meet the needs of the Nation, the FY 2012 

budget balances resources between investments in capital assets, initiatives to sustain front-line operations, and measures to enhance mission execution. The FY 2012 

budget requests $67.7 million to operate new assets delivered through recapitalization programs and provides funding to support personnel and in-service assets. 

Moreover, funding is included to operate CGC HEALY and support the operational 

reactivation of CGC POLAR STAR. The Coast Guard plans to decommission CGC 

POLAR SEA in FY 2011 and transition her crew to CGC POLAR STAR, enabling 

orderly transition to CGC POLAR STAR and facilitating her return to operations 

in FY 2013. 

Enhance Maritime Incident Prevention and Response 

Coast Guard Marine Safety and Environmental Response personnel promote safe 

and efficient travel, facilitate the flow of commerce in the maritime domain, and 

protect our natural resources. The FY 2012 budget requests $22.2 million to advance implementation of the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Performance Plan and 

Marine Environmental Response Mission Performance Plan. 

During the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Coast Guard incident responders established and executed the Incident Command System to lead an effective, unified effort. The Coast Guard will enhance these core competencies in FY 

2012 to keep pace with an ever-growing and evolving maritime industry and ensure 

continued proactive leadership to prevent disasters on the Nation’s waters and remain ready to respond if they occur. Additionally, funding requested in the FY 2012 

budget will assist in meeting Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 requirements 

regarding dockside examinations by adding examiners to improve fishing vessel 

safety. 

Support Military Families 

The Administration is committed to improving the quality of life for military 

members and their families. The health and welfare of families is the heart of operational readiness. The FY 2012 budget includes $29.3 million to address critical 

housing shortfalls and improve access to affordable, quality childcare. These initiaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

623PAPP2.eps
12 

tives will ensure Coast Guard members are Semper Paratus for all hazards and all 

threats. 

Conclusion 

The demands on the Coast Guard remain high. As we have for over 220 years, 

we remain ready to meet the Nation’s many maritime needs supported by the FY 

2012 request. We will always fulfill our duties and obligations to the American people, true to our motto ‘‘Semper Paratus, Always Ready.’’ I request your full support 

for the President’s FY 2012 request. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before you today. I am pleased to answer your questions. 

APPENDIX I—FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST

Rebuild the Coast Guard 

Surface Assets 

$642M (0 FTE) 

The budget provides $642 million for surface asset recapitalization and 

sustainment initiatives, including: 

• National Security Cutter (NSC)—The NSC is replacing the High Endurance 

Cutter class. 

• Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)—Sustains initial acquisition work and design of 

the OPC. The OPC will replace the Medium Endurance Cutter class to conduct 

missions on the high seas and coastal approaches. 

• Fast Response Cutter (FRC)—Provides production funding for six FRCs to replace the 110-ft Island Class Patrol Boat. 

• Response-Boat Medium (RB–M)—Provides production funding for 40 boats. 

• Medium Endurance Cutter (MEC)—Provides for operational enhancement of 

five MECs at the Coast Guard Yard through the Mission Effectiveness Program. 

Air Assets 

$289.9M (0 FTE) 

The budget provides $289.9 million for the following air asset recapitalization or 

enhancement initiatives, including: 

• MH–60T—Replaces one Jayhawk lost in an operational crash in 2010. 

• HC–144—Funds production of two Maritime Patrol Aircraft and procurement of 

up to five Mission System Pallets and associated spare parts to complete outfitting of the fleet. 

• HH–60—Funds service life extension and component upgrades for eight aircraft. 

• HH–65—Funds sustainment of key components. 

• HC–130H—Funds Avionics Upgrade and Center Wing Box (CWB) replacements. 

Asset Recapitalization—Other 

$166.1M (0 FTE) 

The budget provides $166.1 million for the following equipment and services: 

• Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (C4ISR)—Deploys standardized C4ISR capability to newly fielded NSCs and MPAs, and develops C4ISR capability for the OPC. Interoperable 

and integrated C4ISR is essential to the efficient and effective operation of 

these assets. 

• CG-Logistics Information Management System (CG–LIMS)—Continues development and prototype deployment to Coast Guard operational assets and support 

facilities. 

• Rescue 21—Completes deployment at Sectors Lake Michigan, San Juan, PR, 

Honolulu, HI, Guam; and continues replacement of legacy VHF systems in the 

Western Rivers. 

• Interagency Operations Center (IOC)—Deploys Watchkeeper Information Sharing capability to three IOC locations. Commences deployment of the sensor 

management capability; resulting in improved capability to see, understand, 

and share tactical information critical to security and interagency coordination 

in vulnerable ports and coastal areas. 

13 

Shore Units and Aids to Navigation (ATON) 

$193.7M (0 FTE) 

The budget provides $193.7 million to recapitalize shore infrastructure for safe, 

functional and modern shore facilities that effectively support Coast Guard assets 

and personnel: 

• Cape May, NJ—Replaces a condemned pier critical to execution of patrol boat 

missions. 

• Corpus Christi, TX—Implements Sector/Air Station Corpus Christi consolidation in order to properly hangar, maintain, and operate MPA and an enhance 

mission effectiveness. 

• Chase Hall Barracks, New London, CT—Continues renovations at the Coast 

Guard Academy by modernizing cadet barracks. 

• Commences construction of the #3–6 FRC homeports, C4ISR training facility, 

and continues modifications to Air Station Miami to accommodate new MPA. 

• Station Memensha Boathouse, Chilmark, MA—Replaces the boathouse destroyed by a fire in July 2010 essential to supporting coastal law enforcement, 

security and safety operations. 

• TRACEN Petaluma, CA Wastewater Treatment Plant—Recapitalizes and expands the capability of the Wastewater Treatment Plant to ensure compliance 

with environmental regulations. 

• Station Fairport, Ohio—Recapitalizes multi-mission boat station, originally constructed in 1918, to facilitate current-day operations. 

• ATON Infrastructure -Improves short-range aids and infrastructure to promote 

the safety of maritime transportation. 

Personnel and Management 

$110.2M (794 FTE) 

The budget provides $110.2 million to provide pay and benefits for the Coast 

Guard’s acquisition workforce. The budget includes additional resources to support 

the government-wide Acquisition Workforce Initiative to bolster the professional development and capacity of the acquisition workforce. 

Sustain Front-line Operations 

Pay & Allowances 

$66.1M (0 FTE) 

The budget provides $66.1 million to maintain parity of military pay, allowances, 

and health care with the Department of Defense (DOD). As a branch of the Armed 

Forces of the United States, the Coast Guard is subject to the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes pay and personnel benefits for the military workforce. 

Annualization of Fiscal Year 2011 

$53.9M (194 FTE) 

The budget provides $53.9 million to continue new initiatives begun in the prior 

year, including increased counternarcotics enforcement through enhanced Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) capacity and follow-on funding for new assets (e.g., 

NSC, FRC, MPA, etc.). 

Surface and Air Asset Follow-on 

$50.8M (220 FTE) 

The budget provides a total of $50.8 million to fund operations and maintenance 

of cutters, boats, aircraft, and associated subsystems delivered through major cutter, 

aircraft, and associated C4ISR acquisition efforts. Funding is requested for the following assets: 

• RB–M—Funding for maintenance, repair and operational costs. 

• FRC—Operating and maintenance funding for FRCs #6–8 and funding for crews 

#9–10. These assets will be homeported in Miami and Key West, FL. Funding 

is also requested for shore-side maintenance personnel needed to support FRCs. 

• NSC—Signals Intelligence Capability follow-on and Crew Rotational Concept 

implementation for three NSCs located in Alameda, CA. 

• HC–144A MPA—Operating and maintenance funding for aircraft #14; support 

and maintenance of Mission System Pallets 1–12. 

14 

• C4ISR Follow-on—Funding to maintain more than 200 C4ISR systems deployed 

and delivered by the Coast Guard C4ISR Program. 

• Helicopter Systems—Funding to operate and maintain communications and 

sensor systems for HH–60 and HH–65 helicopters. 

• Asset Training System Engineering Personnel—Funding to support NSC and 

FRC training requirements at Training Center Yorktown. 

Polar Icebreaking Program 

$39M (180 FTE) 

The budget requests $39 million in polar icebreaking budget authority. Funding 

will support the operation and maintenance of CGC HEALY and prepare for the 

operational reactivation of CGC POLAR STAR. The Coast Guard plans to decommission CGC POLAR SEA in FY 2011 and transition her crew to CGC POLAR 

STAR, enabling efficient transition to CGC POLAR STAR and facilitating her return 

to operations in FY 2013. 

Critical Depot Level Maintenance 

$28.7M (0 FTE) 

The budget provides $28.7 million for critical depot level maintenance and asset 

sustainment for vessels, aircraft, and shore infrastructure. Funding will increase 

support levels for the 140-, 175-, and 225-foot classes of cutters, restore aircraft 

spare parts and provide sustainment for aging shore infrastructure. 

Distress Alerting Satellite System (DASS) 

$6.3M (1 FTE) 

The budget provides $6.3 million to begin replacement of the Search and Rescue 

Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT) system with the Distress Alerting Satellite System (DASS). This multi-agency partnership also includes the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Air Force (USAF). Recapitalization of the SARSAT system 

beginning in FY 2012 is critical to ensure no loss of coverage in distress notification 

and life saving response during the planned deactivation of the legacy SARSAT system. 

Coast Guard Network Security 

$8.6M (0 FTE) 

The budget provides funding for the Coast Guard to transition from its commercially provided Internet Access Points (IAPs) to DOD IAPs via the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to ensure security of vital networks and meet cyber security requirements. 

Enhance Maritime Incident Prevention and Response 

Marine Safety Enhancement 

$10.7M (53 FTE) 

The budget provides $10.7 million and 105 personnel to implement the next segment of the Marine Safety Performance Plan by investing in Marine Safety Inspectors, Investigators, and Fishing Vessel Safety Examiners at Coast Guard Sectors. 

This initiative furthers the Coast Guard’s efforts to achieve an appropriate mix of 

military and civilian personnel with the necessary skill-sets and experience to perform Marine Safety inspections and investigations. 

Marine Environmental Response Enhancement 

$11.5M (44 FTE) 

The budget provides $11.5 million and 87 personnel to enhance Marine Environmental Response (MER) capacity. This initiative supports the Marine Environmental Protection Mission by providing funding for an MER Incident Management 

and Assist Team (IMAT) and increasing technical expertise and strengthening MER 

career paths at Coast Guard Sectors and Strike Teams. The request is the initial 

investment in the Coast Guard’s initiative to improve mission performance in accordance with the MER Mission Performance Plan. 

15 

Support Military Families 

Child Development Services 

$9.3M (6 FTE) 

The budget provides $9.3 million to increase access to child care services for Coast 

Guard families with dependents under the age of 12, better aligning the Coast 

Guard with the Department of Defense (DOD) child care standards. Additionally, 

this request funds 12 new positions critical to ensuring continued accreditation of 

the Coast Guard’s nine child development centers by the National Association for 

the Education of Young Children. 

Military Housing 

$20.0M (0 FTE) 

The budget provides $20.0 million to build family housing units at Sector Columbia River and recapitalize the Air Station Cape Cod Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing, the highest priority housing projects, critical to the well-being of military 

personnel and their families assigned to these geographic regions. 

Decommissionings, Efficiencies, and Savings 

High Endurance Cutter Decommissioning 

–$6.7M (–92 FTE) 

As part of its long-term recapitalization plan, the Coast Guard is decommissioning 

HECs as NSCs are delivered and made operational. The average age of the HEC 

fleet is 43 years and these assets are failing at an increased rate resulting in lost 

operational days and increased maintenance costs. The Coast Guard will decommission one High Endurance Cutter (HEC) in FY 2012. 

PC–179 Patrol Coastal Decommissioning 

–$16.4M (–108 FTE) 

The three remaining 179-foot Patrol Coastal (PC) vessels will be decommissioned 

per a January, 2007 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U.S. Navy. These 

vessels will be returned to the U.S. Navy in FY 2012. 

Standard Workstation Help Desk consolidation 

–$6.9M (0 FTE) 

Consolidates computer workstation support into two regional centers, eliminating 

56 contractors. 

Program Support Reduction 

–$13.6M (0 FTE) 

Reduction in programmatic support across the Coast Guard including support reductions for: small boat replacement, reservist and contract support for audit remediation, innovation program funding, recruiting, and training opportunities. 

Administrative Savings Initiatives 

In FY 2012 the Coast Guard will seek efficiencies and make targeted reductions 

in order to sustain front-line operational capacity and invest in critical recapitalization initiatives. 

Management Efficiencies 

–$61.1M (0 FTE) 

Consistent with the Secretary of Homeland Security’s Efficiency Review and 

building upon efforts in previous Fiscal Years, efficiencies will be generated by 

leveraging centralized purchasing and software licensing agreements, reductions in 

printing and publications, reductions in shipping and the transportation of things, 

reductions in advisory and assistance contracts, minimizing purchases of supplies 

and materials, office equipment consolidation, implementing automation and energy 

conservation/savings measures, and limiting government usage of commercial facilities. 

Professional Services Reduction 

–$15.2M (0 FTE) 

A reduction in professional services contracts for enterprise-wide mission support 

and operational support activities. 

16 

Non-Operational Travel Reduction 

–$10.0M (0 FTE) 

A 25 percent reduction in Coast Guard-wide non-operational travel, including 

travel for training, professional development, conferences, and international engagement. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Admiral Papp. 

What we’ll do on this first round of questioning is do about 5 

minutes each. And we’ll, if I can start with a couple. 

And, I guess the first is the broader question—First, just a side 

note on, because I didn’t have this in any of my notes, and you 

made me think of something here. Can you tell me again, the mission in Iraq, what the Coast Guard has there? Just so I understand 

that mission. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. The initial mission was to provide coastal 

patrol boats to guard the Iraqi oil platforms. 

There are two platforms that sit very close to the border with 

Iran. They are, they have been—in fact, we lost one Coast Guard 

member in an attack on those oil platforms. The oil platforms provide about 90 percent of the revenue for the country of Iraq, so 

they can’t afford to lose them. 

Iraq, after the war, did not have the capacity to protect them, so 

we’ve been in the process of providing patrol boats, and the Navy 

and the Marine Corps were providing people on the platforms 

themselves. The Iraqis are transitioning to taking over the protection of the oil platforms, and Navy Central Command has asked us 

to continue to provide the patrol boats. 

We’ve received overseas contingency funding for that through the 

Navy, to sustain that. And we intend at this point to continue 

meeting the Navy’s needs over there, because they don’t have the 

capacity, or the types of boats that are necessary for this. 

Senator BEGICH. You, your second part of that answer was exactly where I was headed, was—and it sounds like the Navy’s contingency money is utilized to help offset your costs. Is that right? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. And it has been transferred to us two different ways. It has come either directly from the Navy—last year 

it was actually put in our budget. The OCO funding was put in our 

appropriation. 

Senator BEGICH. Good. Let me ask you some general questions, 

if I can. First, I understand, and, on the POLAR SEA, which will 

be decommissioned this year, and the POLAR STAR won’t come 

out until 2013, is there any advantage in putting the POLAR SEA 

in kind of a warm status while we’re in this process of trying to 

get to 2013? 

Admiral PAPP. Mr. Chairman, the entire budget is a balancing 

act, trying to sustain capabilities, trying to recapitalize. There’s 

good news and bad news about this icebreaker situation. The bad 

news has been, the Coast Guard didn’t have the money in our 

budget to sustain the icebreakers, and I think that’s part of the 

reason we find ourselves where we are. 

The good news is, we’re getting the money back in our budget, 

but the President’s proposed budget only gives us money to sustain 

POLAR STAR—the one that’s in reactivation right now—and 

HEALY, our medium icebreaker, which is fully active. We had to 

make some very tough decisions within the limited amount of 

17 

money we have, and in my judgment, the best thing is to decommission POLAR SEA, and devote all our resources into POLAR 

STAR, so that we can get another, hopefully, 10 years at least out 

of POLAR STAR until we come up with a long-term solution to our 

Nation’s icebreaker solution. 

Senator BEGICH. If you had the resources, would there be a value 

with the POLAR SEA, to put it in a warm status, or at least have 

a capacity? 

Admiral PAPP. I—— 

Senator BEGICH. Or, is it just too far gone that it’s not—— 

Admiral PAPP. Oh, no, sir. POLAR SEA is in a sound condition 

right now, with the exception of her engines. There was a major 

engine overhaul that was done which failed. So right now, rather 

than invest in Polar Sea to restore all those engines, we’re transferring that money and funding over to POLAR STAR because we 

think—I think that’s the best investment at this time. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Admiral PAPP. In an unconstrained resource environment, I’d 

love to have the money to keep POLAR SEA going as well. The hull 

is sound. The engines need to be overhauled, and I think, at a minimum, I believe at a minimum—this is my personal opinion—the 

country needs at least two heavy icebreakers. Studies show us, 

varying numbers, that the Nation should have. If I had all the 

money I wanted to have, I would certainly keep POLAR SEA going. 

But I’m faced to make some tough decisions in this budget. 

Senator BEGICH. Could you at some point—not right now, but 

maybe get me an analysis of what that would take, to take the, 

next, as for engines? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Approximately $14–15 million non-recurring funding to complete the necessary 

Hull, Mechanical & Electrical (HM&E) work and an additional $30 million annual 

recurring funding for crewing and asset Operations & Maintenance (O&M) are required to return POLAR SEA to operational status. Operational status is defined 

as the ability of the cutter to deploy for a polar mission. Based on the most recent 

long lead time parts delivery dates, it is estimated that this work would approximately 24 months to complete from the receipt of funding. 

Required HM&E work to return POLAR SEA to operational status would entail: 

• Main Diesel Engine Repairs: $4.5 million 

• Machinery Control And Monitoring System Upgrade: $1.0 million 

• Central Hydraulic System Removal and Cargo Crane Renewal: $4.0 million 

• Miranda Davit Install: $1.5 million 

• Open Loop CPP System Conversion: $3.16 million 

Bringing POLAR SEA to operational status would also have significant impacts 

to the current POLAR STAR reactivation project due to limited supply of critical 

parts and long production timelines for diesel engine parts that would have to be 

allocated across both assets. Additionally, the specialized workforce necessary to reconfigure the engines would also have to be balanced across both assets. The required work listed above would return POLAR SEA to operational status but would 

not significantly enhance reliability. POLAR SEA’s projected end of service life 

would remain at the end of 2014, which means escalation of reliability concerns and 

maintenance costs would continue unless a Service Life Extension Project (SLEP) 

was performed. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Also, you have done, or, you, the Coast 

Guard has done a High Latitude Study, basic, for Alaska. Can you 

tell me the status and where that’s at? I know there’s great debate, 

18 

and I know you’ve done surveying and so forth, and some testing 

up in the north. Can you tell us what the status of that is, and 

when we might see that report? 

Admiral PAPP. We’re—— 

Senator BEGICH. Or, will we see that report? Let me ask you 

that. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. Good. 

Admiral PAPP. I’m very optimistic right now. If you’d asked me 

a couple months ago, perhaps not as optimistic. But, right now, 

we’re working with the administration, developing a cover letter 

that will go on all three volumes. And I expect that that will be 

released sometime before the fall so that we can fully analyze it. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me end there with my questions. I have 

some more, so maybe on the second round. But, I want to let you 

know, in the state legislature in Alaska, they’ve allocated I think 

just shy of $2 million. We’ll see if the Governor vetoes it or not. 

But, if it stays it, it is to start examining deepwater ports up in 

the northern region, which I think could be complementary to the 

efforts that you want to do, and maybe some local dollars to assist. 

So, I just want to flag that. I told them the same thing. Based on 

the study, we may want to explore some opportunities with their 

resource, too. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. I’d love to talk more about Arctic infrastructure. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. Excellent. That’s my second round comment, so 

don’t worry. 

Senator AYOTTE. Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, I had a brief follow-up on the mission that you’re conducting in Iraq right now, of providing security for the oil platforms 

that are critical to the Iraq economy. 

I also serve on the Armed Services Committee, and from the testimony we’ve had before that committee from our military leaders 

over the last several months, there has been concern expressed 

about the withdrawal date at the end of December for our military. 

Do you know, would you be included in that withdrawal date in 

terms of Coast Guard operations of guarding those platforms? 

Admiral PAPP. We would not be included. That doesn’t include all 

military. Central Command—and I’ve talked to General Mattis 

about this. They have an ongoing need for our niche capabilities. 

The Iraqis—there are two levels of defense. There’s the people on 

the platforms themselves; then there are the patrol boats that, they 

guard the perimeter. And while the Iraqis have bought patrol 

boats, their crews have not been trained to the level where they’re 

able to take it over right now. So, the Central Command has sustained their request, or, kept their request going for us to keep our 

patrol boats over there to fill that niche. And I expect that that 

funding will keep, continue coming. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, you would anticipate, Admiral, that the important security function that the Coast Guard is performing would 

actually go. Because, as you know, the agreement we have with the 

Iraqi government, which, I think there have been some discussions 

about perhaps extending, because we’ve heard on several fronts 

19 

that they’re—not just in this area, but in other areas, they’re just 

not quite ready in some instances to take over their own security. 

So, in your opinion, your mission would extend, regardless of those 

agreements? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. That’s true. The Central Command, 

even though we’re pulling forces out of Iraq, the Central Command, 

of course, has ongoing missions there in the Arabian Gulf region—— 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. Thank you very much, Admiral. I appreciate that. 

And then, the other follow-up I had is, I appreciate that the 

Coast Guard falls underneath the Department of Homeland Security, as opposed to the Department of Defense. The President announced not too long ago that he was going to ask Secretary Gates, 

and now Secretary Panetta, to look at—as you know, Secretary 

Gates undertook an efficiency initiative, just as you’ve described 

that you’ve done in the Coast Guard budget—that he would be 

looking at, perhaps, as much as $400 billion of additional cuts. 

Has there been discussion of whether the Coast Guard would be 

part of that analysis? Or would you be separate? I didn’t know if 

you had already been asked to look at that. Because it’s obviously 

a pretty significant level of cuts to our Defense over the 10-year period. 

Admiral PAPP. Senator, that’s a great question. And this is where 

people like you, that maintain these relationships between Armed 

Services and our authorization committee are very important. Because a lot of people don’t understand that the National Defense 

Authorization Act, which governs military pay, benefits, et cetera, 

applies to the Coast Guard as well. And sometimes people forget 

that as we go along. So, there are impacts on the Coast Guard 

budget that are determined by decisions made by the Armed Services Committee. 

The good thing is that—and this is one of the beautiful things 

about the Coast Guard—is, we provide a bridge between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. I 

sit in on all the Joint Staff meetings. I was over there on Tuesday 

sitting in with all the service chiefs, Chairman Mullen, and the 

combatant commanders, and addressing these efficiencies that are 

being developed, and analyzing the impacts on the Coast Guard as 

well—and also being mindful of what the Department of Defense 

may not be able to provide back to Homeland Security in the future, as we go through these budget reductions over the next dozen 

years or so. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I do appreciate that you are being included in those discussions, because you obviously perform a very 

important defense function for our nation as well. And thank you 

for providing that insight on the relationship between what we are 

doing in the NDAA and the Coast Guard. 

One of the things I look forward to hearing from you going forward, serving on both committees, is, I also am the Ranking Member on the Readiness Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee. I just want to make sure that we don’t get in a position 

that we have been in, in prior times in our Nation’s history, where, 

when we are drawing down, for example, from Iraq and AfghaniVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
20 

stan, that we don’t hollow out the forces in a way that jeopardizes 

our readiness for protecting our country. 

So, these are issues that I look forward to continuing to talk with 

you about. I’m very glad that you’re being included in those discussions. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, and Admiral, if I can stop 

the coughing, I’ll finish my questioning. But if I don’t, I’ll ask you 

to respond to my questions via the communications—— 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—list and respond that way. 

It’s peculiar for me to be talking about the aging ships that are 

only 40 years old. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And we had the privilege of inaugurating 

the services of the, I think one of the last cutters built in Rhode 

Island at the very famous yard there. My daughter and I gave a 

present to the Seaman of the Year that is on a constant basis. But, 

anyway, I’ve got the Semper, but I’m not sure I’ve got the Paratus 

today. 

So, House Republicans dangerously slashed funding that would 

support port securities by 55 percent below this year’s level. According to the FBI, New Jersey, as I mentioned, is most at-risk, the 

most at-risk area for a terrorist attack in the United States. 

What kind of an impact would cuts to port security grants have 

on security efforts at high risk ports, like the Port of New York and 

New Jersey? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, as you know, Senator, I don’t control the 

money for the port security grants. That ultimately ends up with 

FEMA. But, we do have a chance to comment on those at our Captain of the Port level. As the ports prepare their proposals for funding through the grants, our Captain of the Ports add comments to 

that, and sort of rank order them as they go along. 

I know there’s some concern, particularly in the Port of New 

York—I just got a letter from Commissioner Kelly that I’m responding to right now. He has some concerns about the shortfalls 

there. 

What I can say is that, I think, part of the strength is that we 

are all working together. We all are communicating together. Our 

Captain of the Port up there meets with the Area Maritime Security Committee, brings all those people together. And increasingly, 

as we go along in these constrained budget times, we’re going to 

have to rely upon our partnerships to be force multipliers up there. 

And I think the Port of New York, in particular, has a very strong 

partnership. And I’m comfortable where we’re at in terms of the resources for providing security there. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. All right. I just don’t want cuts to impair 

the vigilance that’s required there. 

So, we noted that reports discovered at Osama bin Laden’s compound reveal that al-Qa’ida discussed plans to attack oil tankers 

bound for U.S. ports. Now, what does the Coast Guard do to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
21 

spond with additional measures to secure our ports in light of these 

new threats? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, sir, we use a layered security effort. It starts 

overseas. We have—the three layers are basically, regulatory, and 

cooperation with other countries internationally, and placing inspectors from the Coast Guard that inspect the security efforts’ 

compliance with an international ship and port security code in the 

ports if they are going to trade with our country. That’s our first 

layer of defense—making sure that other countries are applying 

the right security efforts overseas. 

Then you have an intermediate layer, which are our major cutters—the high endurance, medium endurance cutters that I was 

talking about—that can range out to the limits of our exclusive economic zone, intercept ships coming in, and provide escorts or 

boardings for security before the ships arrive at our ports. 

And then finally, the last layer is our coastal patrol boats, our 

stations, our deployable specialized forces that we can move around 

from port to port, that provide the security within the ports themselves. 

The first and third layer I’m comfortable, confident with, and we 

have, I think, resourced properly. The challenge we face are those 

ships that should be out there with a persistent presence that are 

now approaching 40 years old. And I understand your comment, 

sir. And oftentimes we throw this thing about them being 40 years 

old or 50 years old out there, and most Americans, they don’t have 

a context for understanding there. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Absolutely. 

Admiral PAPP. And what they need to know is that engineeringwise, these ships were designed to go about a quarter century, and 

we’ve far exceeded that. The example I like to use is, my home, 

which I bought 20 years ago, and I’m replacing heating systems, 

I’m replacing air conditioners, I’m replacing wiring, and other 

things that—and a roof, because of 20 years of use. Well, these 

ships have had 40 years of hard use in a very unforgiving environment, doing some very challenging things, and now we’re losing effectiveness, efficiency. They’re falling apart. And we need better 

tools for our people to provide that intermediate layer of security. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Are you prepared, if asked, to give specifics, situations, that would really cause an impairment in your 

ability to provide the services that are requested? There are always 

new things, whether it’s oil spills, trash dumping—so many things 

that they, get—Mr. Chairman, that the Coast Guard is asked to do. 

And they do it courageously, they do it skillfully. And it’s just a 

question of how much juice you can squeeze out of a melon, without 

it, not having anything left. 

And I want your people to understand one thing: They carry 

enormous pride for our country, though not as visible as some of 

the other services. But the fact that you are really Semper Paratus, 

that you’re there, always ready. And it amazes me that, whatever 

the crisis is, somehow or other the Coast Guard finds a way to get 

there. And I salute you, and I ask, tell your people that, keep up 

the good work, and let’s us try and do what we can to provide you 

with the resources that are necessary. 

Thank you very much for being here. 

22 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg. 

I’m going to ask just a couple quick questions, and then I’m going 

to turn it over to the Ranking Member for her opening statement 

and questions that she may have. 

So, Admiral Papp, I have one—I’m sitting here as you were commenting to Senator Ayotte, you know, I sit on Homeland Security, 

I’m here in Commerce, and Department of Defense Armed Services. 

So, it’s kind of an interesting—you’re right. You are a kind of a 

bridge between all this. And it’s interesting to see that. 

Let me, you know, Homeland Security in their budget—and I’m 

not going to, I don’t want to put you too much in a box here—but, 

if feel uncomfortable answering, just tell me. But, they’ve asked for 

another $5 million in their 2012 budget to study icebreakers, the 

need of icebreakers. 

You know, what I’ve learned about the Federal Government—we 

study a lot of stuff, and then we usually, 5 years later, we study 

it again, because we got, the study is old, and we didn’t implement 

it. So, my gut tells me it’s not worth the money; we should put that 

into what we know. We know we need a minimum, as you stated— 

and I think you’re right on, I think minimum is the right word— 

at least two operational, large-scale icebreakers, at minimum. 

Is it wise to put, to do another study on what our need is? I understand—and I don’t want to, you know, I don’t want to get you 

in any trouble here with Homeland Security, but I’m just, it just 

seems like, there’s $5 million sitting there to—I know it’s not a lot 

in the big picture, but $5 million to the Coast Guard is a lot of hard 

cash you could put to operational resources. 

Admiral PAPP. Well, Senator, I think when you see the High 

Latitude Study, it’s going to offer a range of options. And oftentimes when you array the range of options, particularly within a 

constrained budget time, it causes a lot of people to choke. I mean, 

I’ve never seen any study over the course of my career, which now 

spans about four decades, that does not call for more Coast Guard. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP. So, let’s just accept the fact, or, I accept the fact 

that we don’t have enough Coast Guard to do everything that we 

do. But, on the other hand, we have to be good stewards of our 

country’s money, as well. And it’s tough to live within the constraints that we have. 

Having said that, I think the High Latitude Study will show a 

need for a range of icebreakers. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Admiral PAPP. Now you’ve got to decide—OK, what can the country afford, what do we want to build, and who’s going to operate 

them? And so, I think the $5 million is probably well spent if there 

is a focus for where that report would go. And—— 

Senator BEGICH. So would—if I can interrupt you for a second. 

Very good. That’s why you’re the Commandant. And, let me say, 

the Latitude Study, which is in process now, and just really about 

to be released, can I say this, from what you’ve just stated—that 

once we see that, it will draw multiple conclusions and pathways, 

some small, some medium, some large, where policymakers need to 

make a determination. Then the question is, utilizing that $5 milVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
23 

lion to get it going, whatever that pathway is, is really of a high 

value. 

Now, I’m not going to use the word ‘‘study’’ here, because what 

I am hearing you carefully say is that the High Latitude Study will 

tell us a lot about icebreaker needs. At varying pathways. The 

question is, then, in these limited dollars we have, how do we utilize it? And our job here—and I’ll just say, is that 5 million worth 

an additional study to got one step further? Or is it to say, this is 

the pathway, let’s start putting some money toward it and go down 

the track? 

Admiral PAPP. I think the—— 

Senator BEGICH. Is that a fair—— 

Admiral PAPP. I think you’re exactly right, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Admiral PAPP. Clearly delineating where that money would go, 

and what the end result should be, which is a clear and definitive 

answer, what this Nation wants to do in terms of recapitalizing its 

icebreaker fleet, or a decision that we’re not going to do it. But—— 

Senator BEGICH. Understood. 

Admiral PAPP.—we’re behind the power curve right now in 

terms—— 

Senator BEGICH. Absolutely. 

Admiral PAPP.—of taking action. 

Senator BEGICH. And I know you’ve done this for my staff. It’s— 

or, one of your folks, some time ago. And I’m wondering if you 

could do this for the Committee. And my bet is, I’m a sure a committee staff will lean over and say, ‘‘We have that already.’’ But, 

just in case, I’ll just echo it again. As you’ve talked about all the 

different ship needs you have, is there a simple spreadsheet, you 

know, an Excel spreadsheet, or some sort of spreadsheet that says, 

here’s what we have, here’s what’s going to replace, and here’s 

what we need, which is going to show a gap, is my bet. And if that 

hasn’t been produced, maybe that’s a later discussion. But, at least 

those first two columns by class, and then how long it takes. Because I know on one of them there is a lay of the land of how it 

looks long-term. But, the real question is that next column. And I 

know that’s one that, knowing—I’ve worked in the administration 

before, not the Presidential here, but in the mayor’s office when I 

was mayor, we always do that last column. It doesn’t necessarily 

show up in the legislative body process, because OMB takes it off 

and says, don’t talk about that. So, can you do at least those two? 

And maybe the third we could have a discussion on at some point? 

Admiral PAPP. Oh, absolutely. And I think—— 

Senator BEGICH. You understand what I’m asking for. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. I certainly do. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Admiral PAPP. And, column 1 and column 2 are very easy to 

come up with. Column 1—column 2 is going to be less than what 

column 1 is. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Admiral PAPP. And certainly, column 3 would be much more. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP. And, I think that’s the challenge. We’ve done, in 

fact, we’re in the midst right now, the Department has asked us 

24 

to do a cutter study to sort of refocus the balance of ships that 

we’re building right now. And it’s one of those things, and once 

again, even if you give it to a third party, the numbers that you 

come up with to have the Coast Guard do all of its jobs all the 

time—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP.—are something to choke on. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. I—— 

Admiral PAPP. And I think that’s why we have a hard time gaining traction, getting these reports forward. They always come back 

showing we need more. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP. So, the challenge I’m faced with is, I’ve got a top 

line at the end of the day that I’ve got to fall within, and we’re 

doing our best top meet that. And that’s why we need sustained 

funding in our acquisitions. 

Senator BEGICH. Well, if you could do that, I’d love the third column. And then, if OMB harasses you or whatever, you can say we 

asked for it. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. Because I really, I think that’s, for us it’s important to see that. Now, it may not mean we ever get there. But if 

we don’t know what that—to do what you’re required to do, as Senator Lautenberg laid out, we need to know what resources you 

need, and then we have to make a broader policy discussion in our 

budgets of what’s the right allocation. But if we don’t know what 

that end is, we don’t know if we’re really fully, if we’re at 70 percent of your mission, 60 percent, 80 percent. So, if you could provide that to the Committee, that would be great. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. 

[The information requested follows:] 

25 

The information requested is provided in the table below. 

Legacy Assets 

Before Deepwater 

Program Started 

Quantity at the 

End of FY 2001 

Current Quantity 

as of June 2011 

Major Replacement 

Assets (A)

Quantity Planned 

When Deepwater 

is Completed (B)

Surface 

High Endurance 

Cutter (378′) 

12 10 National Security 

Cutter (NSC) 

8 

Medium Endurance 

Cutter (282′) 

1 1 

Medium Endurance 

Cutter (270′) 

13 13 

Medium Endurance 

Cutter (230′) 

1 0 Offshore Patrol Cutter 

(OPC) 

25 

Medium Endurance 

Cutter (213′) 

1 0 

Medium Endurance 

Cutter (210′) 

16 14 

Patrol Boat (110′) 49 41 Fast Response Cutter 

(FRC) 

58 

Aviation 

HC–130H Long22 Range Surveillance 

HC–130H 30 Aircraft 22 (C)

HC–130J Long-Range 

6 Surveillance Aircraft 

HH–60 Medium 

HH–60 40 40 Range Recovery 42 

Helicopter 

HH–65 93 101 HH–65 Multi-mission 

Cutter Helicopter 

102 

HU–25 41 13 Maritime Patrol 

Aircraft (MPA) 

36 

Unmanned Aerial 

System (UAS) 

TBD 

Notes: 

(A)Does not include Mission Effective Projects (MEP) for the Medium Endurance Cutters/Patrol Boats and Cutter Boats. (B) Based on Acquisition Project Baselines (APB). (C) Combined LRS program of record—final mix of C–130H/C–130J TBD. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. 

Senator Snowe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, welcome, Admiral Papp. I am sorry that I wasn’t here for 

the opening of the Subcommittee session. Unfortunately, I was 

called to testify on regulatory reform, and that was important. 

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your leadership, and for convening 

this hearing to discuss the future of our nation’s most versatile 

branch, the Coast Guard. 

And I welcome you, Admiral Papp, and your leadership. 

As you know, from your visit there last year, prior to your confirmation, I came from a state truly reliant on the ocean for comVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
26 

mercial and recreational uses. And so, the Coast Guard becomes 

paramount in that regard. 

You probably have already had a very frank discussion about the 

administration’s acquisition budget, which seeks 8 percent less 

than in 2010, and an operations budget reflecting a 3.9 percent increase over last year, and whether or not that’s adequate to meet 

both the anticipated, as well as the unpredictable, needs and requirements of an increasingly complex maritime world. The Coast 

Guard is tasked with sweeping mandates, and, as we well know. 

In 2010 we were reminded again of the tremendous range of the 

Coast Guard’s capacity as it patrolled the nearly 3.4 million square 

miles of the exclusive economic zone. Last year alone, the Coast 

Guard saved over 4,000 lives, inspected over 21,600 shipping containers, interdicted over 2,000 illegal migrants, and prevented 

300,000 pounds of illegal drugs and millions of gallons of oil from 

reaching our shores. 

And despite the Coast Guard’s numerous successes, the agency 

continues to confront the challenge of doing more with less. And so, 

it is reminiscent of the past in so many instances, where we’ve had 

to discuss the fact that the Coast Guard has been asked to do so 

many things with a budget that’s truly constrained. 

This budget reflects some significant points of concern, including a $115 million reduction in the acquisition budget, a $15 million reduction in defense readiness. In these increasingly difficult economic times, government programs must strive for maximum efficiency, but, hopefully, not at the expense of the safety and security 

of our Nation. 

Two thirds of the 2012 budget request would support operating 

expenses, but the fact is, we have an aging fleet, so long-term capital spending cannot be overlooked. The high endurance cutters’— 

one of which would be decommissioned under this budget proposal—the average age is 40 years. 

In the future, the Coast Guard assets and personnel are likely 

to be more often in demand, rather than less. Whether it’s piracy, 

environmental disasters, and growing security responsibility in the 

Arctic, there are ongoing threats that must be factored into the 

budget decisions. While the Coast Guard has continued to fulfill 

these missions, we cannot expect them to operate indefinitely with 

vessels approaching 30, 40, and in some cases, even 50 years of 

service. I am sure you have already touched upon this today, as 

well: for example, in the Arctic, increasing shipping traffic, search 

and rescue responsibilities, and resource exploration is demanding 

more of the Coast Guard. Yet, polar ice breaking capacity has been 

reduced to just one vessel, the HEALY, which was commissioned 

in 1999—a vessel primarily intended to support scientific research, 

rather than provide a heaviest ice breaking support in the polar regions. 

Admiral Papp, your agency’s budget request appears to strike a 

balance, meeting the Coast Guard’s critical operational requirements while reducing costs through administrative efficiencies and 

offsets. But this committee also needs to understand specifics from 

you regarding the tradeoffs that also have been made in that regard. For example, further delay in the delivery of the High Latitude Study means more time will elapse before we’re able to proVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
27 

vide you with the tools that you will require to respond to emerging 

issues, such as resource claims and new passageways in the Arctic. 

Painting that clear picture will also allow us to better set priorities in how scarce resources are going to be spent. Earlier this 

week, a Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report outlined a series of violations that occurred between 2004 and 

2009 in the Response Boat- Medium acquisition program. While it 

was a positive indication that the Coast Guard detected the issue 

and initiated action in response, and recognizing that these problems occurred prior to your watch, Admiral, I raise this issue to underscore the point that, in this budget climate, it becomes even 

more imperative that we consider the impact of every dollar. 

The common theme emerging is that for years we’ve asked the 

Coast Guard to save American lives and natural resources on a 

shoestring budget. The level of service we have received in return 

for our investment, from the unprecedented response to last year’s 

oil spill, to the safety net of security that blankets our nation’s 

port, has been nothing short of heroic. So, we cannot continue to 

heap mission upon mission onto the Coast Guard without increasing its resources, and expect those critical tasks to be carried out 

with the same degree of effectiveness upon which we rely and depend. 

So, I appreciate, Commandant, your leadership, and those of the 

men and women in the Coast Guard, because they truly are a remarkable force. And I appreciate all that you are doing. 

Senator SNOWE. Let me just follow up with a first question on 

this report that was issued by the Inspector General. Can you respond to it? We have had this issue in the past, prior to your tenure, and I think it’s very important to make sure that we get this 

acquisition program on the mark. With the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, we did try to address many of the issues that had occurred in the previous acquisition process. 

I understand the acquisition workforce vacancies had been reduced from 20 to 13, from April to November 2010. In April 2011, 

a GAO report found that within your agency, program managers 

were concerned about not only the ability to fund these positions, 

but also the ability to fill vacancies depending on where they fall 

in the management structure. 

Has this been addressed? And does it affect the acquisition process for the Response Boat-Medium fleet? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. The analogy I like to make about our 

acquisition workforce is, if you go back to the mid-90s, where we 

were going through constant budget reductions every year, part of 

the thing we did was, we gutted our acquisition workforce. There 

wasn’t the work for them to do, first of all, and we couldn’t afford 

to maintain them. We were only getting a couple of hundred million dollars a year for acquisitions back then. 

After September 11, or, September 11, 2001, occurred, all of a 

sudden we started building up, going up to three quarters of a billion dollars, then over $1 billion. And so, it was like trying to overhaul an engine in a race car while you’re in the middle of a race. 

We’re bringing on new people, we’re trying to fill vacancies. And at 

the same time, every other agency in the Washington, D.C. area 

28 

was trying to hire acquisition professionals, because everybody else 

was building up, as well. 

It was a hard job for us. We know we made mistakes along the 

way. Part of the reason we’ve done better is because of the oversight of this subcommittee in putting the pressure on us to make 

sure that we comply. And, as I sit before you here today, I will tell 

you, I am very proud of our acquisition workforce. I’ve seen the 

growth and development. 

Five years ago, I was Chief of Staff of the Coast Guard. We 

brought in then Rear Admiral John Currier, who headed up our acquisitions. He got with the Defense Acquisition University. We 

brought in experts. We hired people away from NAVSEA and 

brought them in to—civilians—to bolster up our program. And 

we’re seeing the benefits of that right now. 

Part of the, the down side of those benefits of getting a professional workforce is, you start discovering things that you did 

wrong. And we self-reported on this ADA violation because it’s the 

right thing to do. We took corrective action on it, and I’m hopeful 

that it will not happen again. But, as I talk to some of our old professionals that have been with us for a long time, they say, wow, 

I did that years ago, and I never got caught on it, or, I never knew 

I was doing it. 

It’s all a process of educating, getting a better educated and 

trained acquisition workforce, and we’ve been working very, very 

hard at that—to the point now where I’m very proud that we uncover the problems before other people do. Of course, there are reporting requirements that we have to comply with. We’ve done 

that. The IG has investigated it. We have squared away that situation. People have been let go. And we’re moving on now. 

Senator SNOWE. And so, how many vacancies do you have currently in the program?— 

Admiral PAPP. Ma’am, I’m sorry, but I don’t know the exact number of vacancies. But we’re continuing to hire and, in fact, in this 

budget we continue to open up a number of other positions as well. 

Our vacancy rate is very low now. But, I’d like to get the exact 

number to you for the record. 

[The information requested follows:] 

As of June 23, 2011, the Coast Guard Acquisition Workforce vacancy rate was 

13.0 percent. This equates to 131 vacant positions out of a total of 940 positions 

within the workforce. 

Senator SNOWE. I appreciate that. And so, all the remedial action 

has been taken on the 20 deficiencies that were cited in the report? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Last year, as you know, in Congress 

we passed the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act which addressed 

some ongoing concerns about the acquisition management process. 

The reforms, I know, are ongoing in your agency, and have been 

over a period of time, to address what happened to the National 

Security Cutter. 

One of the issues is this full-funding requirement rule by the 

OMB. How does the inability to expend funds for long lead materials for the National Security Cutter. How is that going to affect 

the process? Have you discussed that here today? 

29 

Admiral PAPP. We haven’t discussed it. It presents us with a 

challenge, because in past years we have received, for instance, 

funding for long lead materials. 

What we do know is that, as much money as you can put up 

front, it reduces your long-term costs in terms of getting these 

things built. The longer you press things off to the right, the more 

expensive these things are going to be able to build. And trying to 

order one unit at a time, having all the funding in 1 year, presents 

us with a challenge, because then the shipbuilder, to cover itself, 

will increase its prices in order to take care of that uncertainty of 

perhaps not having a follow-on ship as well. 

So, part of the challenge that we faced—I wanted to put NSC 

number 6 in the 2012 budget, but when we finally negotiated our 

fixed-price contract for numbers 4 and number 5, we had to ask for 

additional money in this year, which would not have allowed us to 

fit all of the money for number 6 in this budget year. 

I’m very grateful to the Congress for providing all the money in 

the 2011 budget so that we could award NSC number 5 this summer. But now, unfortunately, it looks like we’ll be delayed in follow-on orders for 6, number 6, until the 2013 budget. 

Senator SNOWE. Until the 2013. So, you’ll be off by one or 2 years 

on that scale? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, one from where I wanted to be right now. 

So, and of course, you probably incur some additional costs as well, 

as you move that further to the right. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, I know. That is one of the things we tried 

to resolve with the Deepwater acquisition program reforms, was to 

make sure you received the money in a given year so that you can 

move forward. 

Where does the recapitalization of the medium endurance cutter 

stand? Those are vessels are approaching 50 years of age. And you 

also have included $25 million for the pre-acquisition of the Offshore Patrol Cutter in this year’s budget? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes. 

We’re getting into the design—we’ve put out the request for proposals for the preliminary design right now. We’ll be looking at 

multiple preliminary designs. So, this money covers the review of 

those, and then ultimately we down-select to one design 2 years 

from now, and then hopefully have money in the budget 3 years 

from now to start construction. 

Senator SNOWE. So, the commissioning is still scheduled for 

2014? 

Admiral PAPP. No, ma’am. We won’t see that in 2014. It would 

be probably 2015 before we actually award and start cutting steel. 

But that may even slip into 2016, depending upon the progress we 

make with the National Security Cutter. Obviously, we have to get 

the National Security Cutter out of the way so we can make room 

for the OPC. 

Senator SNOWE. How does that affect your mission requirements? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, it affects my mission requirements, or because the, we’re losing effectiveness of the ships that are in existence. Two things—— 

Senator SNOWE. You’re having to do the, all the maintenance? 

30 

Admiral PAPP. Exactly. We’re getting about 75 percent of the desired days out of our high endurance cutters now because of breakdowns. And when we do have breakdowns, because the equipment 

is old, sometimes companies have to re-manufacture parts that 

they don’t, they no longer hold in stock. It costs us more and more 

each year. 

So, we talked about the 1 percent increase in our budget, and I’m 

certainly grateful that the President gave us a 1 percent increase. 

But, all our expenses are going up at a much higher rate than that 

to keep these old ships going. So, the longer we hold onto them, the 

more they cost us. The longer we wait to construct the new ships, 

the more they cost. So, I’m in this vicious cycle that I find myself 

caught in. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. It is regrettable, because this is one of the 

things we tried to avoid in the past, knowing exactly that all these 

aging vessels require spending tremendous resources for maintenance and upkeep, not to mention risk to those who serve on these 

ships. They’re very old, so there can be a lot of issues finding the 

parts which can drive up the costs, both for maintaining a fleet 

that clearly isn’t going to be of longstanding use, and then, of 

course, delaying the new vessels that should come online. It’s 

amazing and remarkable that you do with what you have, to be 

honest with you. I’ve said this time and again, given the age of the 

vessels. 

Senator BEGICH. Admiral Papp, and what we’ll do here, we’ve 

done this before, the Ranking Member and I, we just kind of go 

back and forth with questions as, until we exhaust each other, or 

exhaust you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. But, what happens is, you—— 

Senator SNOWE. That’s hopeful for him. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. That’s hopeful for you. But, we end up adding 

to each other’s commentary, because I think, you know, we’re trying to figure out what’s the right approach to some of these things. 

First off, on the, if I can go to real quick, on the GAO report on 

the 20 deficiencies, is there something you could, again, provide to 

the Committee, kind of, that list of 20, and here’s what you’ve been 

able to do on those? Just kind of a, you know, bullet—not right 

now, obviously. But, at a later date. Would you mind doing that? 

Admiral PAPP. No, that—— 

Senator BEGICH. Just kind of how you succeeded, and kind of 

where you’re at? Just kind of a—— 

Admiral PAPP. We want to be completely transparent. Because if 

we’re not, that just leaves a cloud over my acquisition folks. 

Senator BEGICH. Of course. 

Admiral PAPP. And, quite frankly, I’m proud of them discovering 

this, and then taking the action—— 

Senator BEGICH. Excellent. 

Admiral PAPP.—themselves. And I want to make sure that everybody understands that we are self-correcting. 

Senator BEGICH. Excellent. So, if you wouldn’t mind doing that, 

that would be great for us. 

[The information requested follows:] 

31 

The Coast Guard has been very conscientious in working to comply with all facets 

of financial/contracting laws and regulations. In the summer/fall of 2009, the Coast 

Guard was reviewing the approach and structure for the funding of an upcoming 

major fixed-price contract. Recognizing the need to reserve funds for antecedent liabilities for this contract, reviews of existing contracts were conducted to ensure 

adequate funds had been similarly reserved for other fixed-price contracts. Once the 

potential for non-compliance was realized, the Coast Guard immediately sought 

legal advice and conducted further contract reviews to assess the situation for all 

major fixed-price contracts, there was the potential for a deficiency for the Response 

Boat-Medium (RB–M) contract. As a consequence, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was notified of the Coast Guard’s 

self-identified potential deficiency related to the RB–M contract and asked to conduct an independent review. The DHS OIG started the review in August 2010. 

The DHS OIG concluded their review and reported in OIG Report 11–82, dated 

May 10, 2011, that the Coast Guard incurred 20 Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) violations totaling approximately $6.7 million. These discrepancies were the result of 

using funds from later Fiscal Years to fund changes to contract line items that were 

initially funded from an earlier fiscal year. 

Once there was a realization that ADA violations were possible in the summer/ 

fall of 2009, the Coast Guard took the following actions. 

Upon review of the RB–M contract funding, immediate action was taken to correct 

transactions as much as possible. As a result and as noted by the OIG (pgs 3–4 of 

their report), the Coast Guard reduced the deficiency from approximately $7.8 million to $6.7 million. The Coast Guard also immediately initiated policy and process 

changes within the Acquisition Directorate to prevent future ADA violations. 

• On October 23, 2009, the Acquisition Directorate (CG–9) instituted a business 

process change, via memo, for funding fixed-price contracts. This process was 

further defined in CG–9 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) #9–21 (version 

3.4) issued on 2 March 2010, and was modified as published on 1 June 2011. 

• Appropriations Law training for the CG–9 Funds Managers is required to be 

completed as soon as possible after hiring and in no less than every 3 years 

thereafter. This requirement is also outlined in CG–9 SOP #9–21, and was also 

made a requirement for the project Business Managers upon discovery of this 

issue. 

• Four days of appropriations law training for Business Managers was 

• Internal controls were reviewed and modified to ensure separation of duties, 

verification of appropriate funds usage, and compliance with this process. 

These actions along with other information were provided to the DHS OIG for 

their report 11–82 which listed two recommendations for the Coast Guard. The DHS 

OIG concluded the report by stating: 

‘‘The Coast Guard’s corrective actions satisfy the intent of the recommendation(s), and we consider it resolved and closed.’’ 

Senator BEGICH. And then, you noted it—and I guess this will 

lead to the question—and that is, the acquisition timetable, and 

when you have to move something off, when you have to not get, 

maybe, instead of two ships, or three ships, you’re doing two, and 

the contractor then has to readjust pricing, and if they do a fixed 

price on the first two, the third one’s going to be more expensive 

because you pushed it off. 

Would a multi-year—I think I know the answer to this, but I’m 

going to want it for the record—a multi- year authorization on capitalization be helpful the get these longer-term kind of agreements, 

so you get the maximum value? I mean—— 

Admiral PAPP. I—— 

Senator BEGICH. Now, hold that thought—with understanding 

that we have an obligation to put the cash in. But, if the two meld, 

I’m just assuming that if you could tell a shipbuilder, OK, we need 

eight of these ships—I’m using the gross number here—over a period of time, that they’re going to give you a much better fixed price 

32 

than, we’ll take two this year, and maybe a third one next year, 

maybe the year after. 

Admiral PAPP. Absolutely, sir. You know, I, there are days that 

I feel sorry for our shipbuilders—I mean, not real sorry, because 

they’re getting a lot of my money. But—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. Yours, and the Navy, and NOAA, and—— 

Admiral PAPP. But, they are, like any other businessman. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Admiral PAPP. If they can order six engines instead of two, 

they’re going to get an economic order discount, which ultimately 

ends up costing me less money, which ultimately ends up costing 

the taxpayer less money. So, yes sir. Having multi-year authorizations is a good start. As you correctly identify, it’s the multi-year 

appropriations that are really the bottom line, that we need to get. 

But, any predictable, steady source of funding is going to help us 

in keeping the costs down, because they’ll be able to, they’ll have 

the confidence to order. 

And these are good people. I meet with—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP. I met with Mr. Petters from HII. And they want 

to build ships. They want to keep the costs down. And they’ve been 

very reasonable in their negotiations with us. But, they have no 

guarantees that we’re going to go beyond five, or six, or seven. And 

what we need to do is definitively say, we’re going to build eight 

National Security Cutters, and, and so that they can have that, 

and then come up with a predictable, steady source of funding. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. I’ll switch topics here, because I 

want to hit a few minutes in, just on the Arctic, and the needs up 

there. We’ve talked a little bit about the High Altitude Study, 

which, it sounds like, as we move to the end of summer, first of 

fall, we should see something in regards to that. And that will give 

us kind of a pathway in, kind of, the issues that are up there. 

Second, your overall view of our readiness—I mean, here’s my 

concern. And, I know, we have a great debate around here, always 

about oil and gas development and OCS. My bigger concern, to be 

very frank with you, is ships that are moving back and forth that 

are not oil and gas related. They just happen to have oil or diesel 

operating them, and they’re cargo ships from some country. We 

have no clue what their safety standards are; they run aground. 

And that to me seems to be the bigger concern. Because we know 

the way we operate with the oil and gas industry, at least in the 

Arctic—I can’t speak to the Gulf—but, in the Arctic, and the work 

we do in the North Slope, we’re very conscientious of what they 

need, and what their requirements are. 

Can you give me some, just some thoughts on the Arctic? And 

then, I think, there’s no question in my mind, we need a deepwater 

port up there—not only for the industry, but for the Coast Guard, 

and oil spill technology. And these ships that are just cruising, you 

know, at some point—when I way cruising by, I’m exaggerating. 

They’re not, like—but, they’re going to be up there, and they already are. And I don’t know what they’re made out of, and what, 

they’re going to run aground in shallow water up there. Any comments on that? 

33 

Admiral PAPP. Well, sir, you know, I could spend my entire existence as Commandant preoccupied with the day-to- day issues that 

are going on. But, what I’ve, one of the things I’ve chosen to look 

at in terms of needs of our country for the future is the Arctic. And 

I appreciate you going up there with me last summer when I made 

my visit. I visited Barrow, Kotzebue and Nome. And actually, it 

was a revisit, because I had served up there as an ensign 35 years 

ago. And so it was good to get back up there and see the changes. 

But what has not changed is the infrastructure up there. And I 

think that we have to have a robust discussion on the infrastructure needed to support what is no doubt going to be an increase 

in human activity up there, off the north coast of Alaska. 

Icebreakers, I think, are important, but they cloud the discussion 

of the other needs that we have up there. And, I think we’ve focused too much on icebreakers over the last few years, even though 

they are important—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Senator BEGICH.—and needed. But, right now, if we were to have 

to mount a response like we did in the Gulf of Mexico—I sent 3,000 

people down for Deepwater Horizon. You know how many hotels 

are available in Barrow. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s right. 

Admiral PAPP. We have no place to put people up there. We have 

no hangers for aircraft. We have no piers, no Coast Guard boats. 

So, my immediate pressing concern is, as human activity occurs, as 

you have that ship that goes through that—first of all, we’ll assure 

safety standards, because no matter where ships operate in the 

world, we are involved in their safety standards. But, if an accident 

happens, how do we respond? 

And right now we’ve got zero capability to respond in the Arctic 

right now. And we’ve got to do better than that. That, when people 

ask me, what keeps me awake at night—an oil spill, a collision. A 

ship sinking in the Arctic keeps me awake at night, because we 

have nothing to respond. Or, if we respond, it’s going to take us 

weeks to get there. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP. So, a seasonal air station, seasonal boats. We 

have a full range of Coast Guard capabilities that we need to be 

placing up there. 

And also, it provides an opportunity for the interagency to be 

able to—if we have an infrastructure that’s in place, the interagency that would be involved and needed for a response to some 

sort of disaster would have the ability to station up there, as well. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me end on this comment, and I’ll turn back 

to the Ranking Member. And that is, you hit where, you know, 

you’re right. We talked, it kind of gets the attention, the icebreaker, which is a big ticket item, so, we’re—but, you get where 

I’m really interested in, and that’s what I call core infrastructure. 

It may be, like you said, seasonal runways, seasonal facilities. Or, 

even long-term deepwater port access to the area, that you can 

move in and out very rapidly, and/or be stationed there permanently. And I think that’s the biggest challenge. 

And I know, from this committee’s perspective, this is one area 

that we’re going to concentrate on because the frontier, the opporVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
34 

tunity up there, is unbelievable from the oil and gas, to mineral, 

the fishing, transportation components, it has so much—and you’re 

right. No matter what happens, where we think it is, where we 

stand on the political spectrum, there is going to be increased—and 

I’ll use your phrase, because I think it’s a great phrase—human activity up there. Period. And it doesn’t matter what spectrum you 

sit on. And if we’re not preparing—and infrastructure is part of it. 

The onshore infrastructure is a critical piece of it. 

So, I appreciate you emphasizing that. Because I know we get 

wrapped around sometimes the icebreaker a lot, which is, you 

know, and, like you said, we don’t want to diminish the importance 

of that, because it is. But, this other infrastructure is critical for 

year-around, or increased activity that may occur up there. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. And, what I owe you is a concept of Coast 

Guard operations up there. And thank you. I understand you’re on 

the schedule for the Arctic Symposium that was held earlier this 

week. I spoke on the first day. 

What I owe the administration and the Congress is a Concept of 

Operations on how we carry out the full spectrum of responsibilities up there. 

I faced almost the opposite situation when I was the Ninth District Commander on the Great Lakes, because people thought, once 

the lakes freeze over, you don’t have anything to do up there. The 

fact of the matter is, you’ve got a lot to do and—— 

Senator BEGICH. You have a lot. 

Admiral PAPP.—you need the special capabilities to be able to do 

that. Well, we’ve always thought the Arctic is a place we don’t have 

to worry about, because it’s covered with ice. But, now we’ve got 

all that open water—the Coast Guard authorities, Coast Guard responsibilities exist there. The challenge is, we don’t have the resources to apply against them. And I need to come up with a consolidated plan on how I will address that, and put the resource proposals forward so that we have transparency for everybody to see, 

so we can start working toward it. 

Senator BEGICH. Well, we’ll work with you on that. 

Let me turn back to the Ranking Member and see if she has 

some additional questions. 

Senator SNOWE. I just have a couple questions. Admiral Papp, in 

terms of the National Security Cutter and the Offshore Patrol Cutter, how do the numbers square with your mission requirements? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, this goes—the mission-needs statement goes 

back to 1994, when we started working on this. And then, during 

the late 1990s, when we finally decided on the numbers of ships, 

and, as we all know, the numbers of missions have increased since 

then. 

And I think a studied review of where we are right now would 

probably—and, as I mentioned earlier in the hearing here, every 

review I’ve seen always says, you need more ships. You need more 

than what you’re asking for. And that’s probably true. But we’re 

having a hard time just getting to our acquisition baseline that 

we’ve asked for right now. So, it makes the discussion almost fruitless, because we’re having a hard time just getting to the 8 and 25. 

So, that’s where we’ve put our focus. 

35 

Frankly, if I get the 8 and 25, we will find ways of covering all 

the bases that we need to do. And, if at some point in time somebody thinks we need more to do that, I’m always grateful to get 

that sort of support. But, right now I’m focused on the 8 and 25. 

Senator SNOWE. Unfortunately, yes, it was a significant setback. 

As you know, the Deepwater acquisition process set the program—— 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator SNOWE.—back a number of years. 

Do you have an age breakdown of the ships in your fleet? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, for our major cutters, on average, the high 

endurance cutters, the Hamilton class, are about 40 years old, a little beyond that. The 210-foot medium endurance cutters on average 

are above 40. And then, the, I say, it’s positive, but the 270-foot 

medium endurance cutters which were built a little bit later, 

they’re, across the board, I think it’s an average of 23 years right 

now. So, they’re at the limits of their originally designed service 

life, and we’re going to need to get, probably, another 10 or 15 

years out of them. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Admiral PAPP. But we can get you a more precise breakdown for 

the record. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Class # of Assets Today 

Original Designed Service Life Average 

Age 

WMSL–418 2 30 2 

WHEC–378 10 30 42 

WAGB–420 1 30 12 

WAGB–399 2 30 35 

WMEC–270 13 30 24 

WMEC–210 14 30 44 

WMEC–282 1 30 40 

EAGLE 1 N/A 75 

WPB–110′ 41 20 22 

WPB–87′ 73 25 9 

WLBB 1 30 5 

WLB 16 30 10 

WLM 14 30 13 

WTGB 9 30 30 

WYTL 11 30 48 

WLI 4 30 57 

WLR 18 30 43 

WLIC 13 30 45 

TOTALS 244 

36 

Senator BEGICH. Just before you got here, we asked for a kind 

of a flow chart—— 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH.—of just what they have, what they’re replacing, 

and then the most difficult channel, or, the last column is, what 

they really need, and so we can see these gaps. Because I think 

that’s where your core question is coming from. Because some of 

these things are so darn old that, you know, you’re going to be 

floating one day, and it’s not going to be powered by anything other 

than, hopefully, a sail, you know. 

Admiral PAPP. Well, one of the other challenges that we face is, 

many times people will say, Well, why don’t you just buy some 

more Law Enforcement Detachments and put them on Navy ships? 

And when I talked about that to Admiral Roughead, he kind of 

laughed at me, because—— 

[Laughter.] 

Admiral PAPP.—he would make the case, he’s not got enough 

Navy ships to do the things that he needs to do. 

Senator SNOWE. Right. 

Admiral PAPP. And, in fact—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Admiral PAPP.—we’re seeing less and less—particularly down in 

the drug interdiction mission, Wichata South—we’re seeing fewer 

Navy ships. Our foreign partners—the British, who have been so 

reliable, and the Dutch—we’re seeing less of them down there. We 

used to put Law Enforcement Detachments on them. So, allied support and our own Navy support is diminishing, and at the same 

time we’re having a harder time keeping our cutters out there. 

Senator SNOWE. I know. This issue is related to procurement, 

even in the Navy. We’re far below the 300-ship Navy that was the 

original goal. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Senator SNOWE. I remember the days when they were talking 

about a 600-ship Navy, back in the early 1980s. So, you can see 

how far we’ve come. But, unfortunately, the level of procurement 

is never sustained. I used to be Chair of Sea Power in the late 

1990s. And unfortunately, the level of procurement never sustained 

even a 300-ship Navy. And so, here we are today with a fleet down 

in the 270s. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator SNOWE. So, again you are asked to do more with less, 

and being stretched thin, and the demands around the world are 

increasing. 

I wonder if there’s any way of comparing the costs, in terms of 

looking at the maintenance costs—let alone the separate issue of 

getting the parts. That’s another question. Because that does add 

astronomically to the costs, when you have to Rube Goldberg, you 

know, many of the parts in these boats. 

Admiral PAPP. Well, it’s the cost, and the reliability as well. 

We’re just—we’re for a high endurance cutter, if we, we’re getting 

only about 75 percent of the days that we’re programmed for with 

them right now. And it’s affecting the other ships, as well. 

And, as I said before you came in, of our layered security that 

we do, the overseas people that we put to inspect in the ports, and 

37 

then our conventional forces that are in our ports, we have this 

very important layer out there that provides a persistent presence 

offshore, that guards against migrants, can do search and rescue, 

can do drug interdiction. And, that’s the layer that I’m most concerned about, because now it’s the least reliable. Unfortunately, it’s 

the most expensive to replace. 

But it’s also the most versatile. On September 11, what did we 

do? We took one of our medium endurance cutters and actually put 

it in the Port of New York to serve as a command and control platform. Yet, we can send that same ship 2,000 miles offshore to interdict a threat vessel coming in, or perform search and rescue. 

We had the Morgenthau, which is 42 years old, that was sent 

well offshore to rescue four Venezuelan fishermen that were severely injured when their equipment crashed on them off the coast 

of, well off the coast of Colombia. And they sprinted out there and 

picked up the four crewmen, provided medical support, got them 

into Mexico, and, basically, on fumes, because they, we don’t have 

the capability to ballast the ship and refuel it out there. 

So, they’re still getting the job done, but at an increasing cost. 

Senator SNOWE. One final question. As you know, the 2010 Coast 

Guard authorization included significant changes to commercial 

fishing, inspection and safety requirements—you know, inspections 

are now mandatory for commercial fishing vessels and increased 

safety training will be required. These are all major issues important to the industry. 

But there is, there was a committee that was established in 

order to make sure that the fishing community was involved in the 

implementation. Where does that process stand? 

Admiral PAPP. We’re in the process of drafting up the regulatory 

package for that right now, and starting to work that through. 

The other thing is, it’s another one of those jobs that’s going to 

carry resource needs with it. We’ve been recapitalizing our marine 

safety and marine inspection forces over the last couple of years. 

This budget continues that process in putting people out there. We 

do have to designate some people and find people with the right 

competencies for fisheries inspections. And as we take on, as we’re 

continuing to analyze what sort of workload this is going to be for 

us, I think we’ll probably see, within the 2013 budget we’ll start 

identifying some of those resources we need to beef up our fisheries 

inspection forces. 

Senator SNOWE. So, the Committee for implementation for these 

safety measures has not yet been established? 

Admiral PAPP. Okay. That’s correct. 

Senator SNOWE. Are you required by a certain time frame to accomplish that? 

Admiral PAPP. I don’t have the exact date at the tip of my fingers, but I can provide that for the record. 

[The information requested follows:] 

The Coast Guard is developing a rulemaking to fulfill our statutory responsibilities under the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 for commercial fishing vessel 

safety requirements that took immediate effect. 

Senator SNOWE. I think it’s to make sure that the fishing community’s involved in the process before these rules are impleVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
38 

mented, given that they are such important stakeholders. This is 

why I was wondering about the timeline for implementation of 

these new rules. 

Admiral PAPP. Oh, absolutely. Yes, ma’am. 

We do have a timeline. Unfortunately, I just can’t—— 

Senator SNOWE. OK. 

Admiral PAPP.—remember the specific dates. But we’ll provide 

that for the—— 

Senator SNOWE. But, that will run—it will be run simultaneously 

with the Committee itself—— 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator SNOWE.—that will involve the fishing industry. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator SNOWE. It is important because in New England the 

commercial fishing industry continues to have the highest fatality 

rate of any occupation, which is deeply troubling. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator SNOWE.—and so—— 

Admiral PAPP. The good news is—these regulations are long 

overdue. We’re glad to have them. It’s, the process now is just the 

implementation, and identifying the resources to carry it out. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Admiral Papp. Thank you very 

much for your exceptional work, and we appreciate it. Thank you. 

Thank you—— 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SNOWE.—Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Admiral Papp. 

And I will have just a couple quick ones. And then we’ll, unlike 

some committees, we’ll end up early. This is good. So, we like that. 

Let me ask you very quickly one, it has a relationship to Alaska, 

and it’s in regards to unmanned aircraft. And I know the Coast 

Guard is considering, that, when you deal with unmanned aircraft, 

there are a couple—I’m not sure how familiar you are with them— 

there’s the Fire Scout, then there’s the ScanEagle, there are a couple, and, the ScanEagle, which is being developed. And, I know, the 

University of Alaska at Fairbanks, is developing, it’s a lower cost— 

they’re working with NOAA right now very successfully. 

Has the Coast Guard looked at alternatives to the Fire Scout, 

which is more expensive alternative, to one that, for example, I 

know UAF is working with NOAA on? I don’t know if that has been 

in your mix or not. If you don’t have a direct answer for that now, 

I’d love that for the record, so I kind of get the sense of the budgetary constraints, and how you’re looking at these types of issues, 

too. 

Admiral PAPP. Well, you’re right. The budgetary issue has been 

the problem for us with the other acquisitions and trying to fit 

them in. 

Our unmanned systems have gone unfunded so far. We need a 

long-range system similar to Predator to cover a broad area. The 

entire Deepwater System, as it was originally conceived, depended 

upon unmanned systems. And then you need a shipborne tactical 

UAV to use, as well. 

39 

We’ve been streaming behind the Navy on this. The Navy has 

put their effort behind Fire Scout. Since we don’t have the wherewithal or the funding to strike out on this, our own—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP.—we’ve been following the Navy’s progress. And if 

the Navy decides to go with it, it really does offer us long-term efficiencies in terms of logistic support, training, and other things that 

would save the Coast Guard money. So, sometimes we look toward 

our bigger sister service to provide the lead on this, because we can 

use common systems. But, we’re certainly willing to look at what 

other systems are out there that might make sense for us. It’s all 

a matter of, how can we do that efficiently? 

Senator BEGICH. Great. If you wouldn’t mind just giving me, 

again, at a later time, just kind of a response, especially with the 

ScanEagle, and if that, even—you gave us a good argument here, 

because the Navy’s already doing the Fire Scout, and therefore 

you’ve got a lot, you’re kind of grabbing the tail and holding on to 

a lot of their volume, in essence—volume of purchase, potentially, 

volume of training. And I know NOAA’s kind of focused on the 

ScanEagle. 

But I’d be interested in your positives and negatives on the system. 

Admiral PAPP. I will take a look at ScanEagle and give you an 

assessment back on that. 

[The information requested follows:] 

The Coast Guard is currently investigating the utility of several small Unmanned 

Aerial Systems (UAS), including Scan Eagle and the Navy’s Small Tactical UAS program, as an interim step for a cutter-based capability. Although relatively limited 

in payload capacity, the inherent simplicity of such smaller systems is they would 

allow the Coast Guard to evaluate much of its cutter-based UAS Concept of Operations, develop required skill sets, and support the acquisition effort at a reduced 

cost. With potential partnership opportunities, this methodology allows the Coast 

Guard to effectively and affordably evolve into the larger, objective systems while 

they continue to be developed. 

Senator BEGICH. Fantastic. 

The other one is, I, there’s a huge—and we actually had a little 

bit of discussion—it’s about our infrastructure, onshore infrastructure. Has, do you go through a process now, as the new Commandant, now you’ve been there a year—we expect everything from 

you now, after a year—but, have you done or started any process 

to kind of look at all the basing that occurs all across the Coast 

Guard, and determining, OK, can we consolidate? Are there better 

approaches? Is there better positioning of our onshore assets? Is 

that something that you would do on a normal, regular basis? Or, 

is that something that would be done just as a new Commandant? 

Admiral PAPP. We—— 

Senator BEGICH. Does that make sense? It’s kind of like what 

we’re doing on the military side, it’s always the international 

BRAC, the domestic BRAC, we’re always, kind of, turning—— 

Admiral PAPP. Oh, absolutely. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. I owe that to you. I owe it to my people 

to make sure that we’re keeping it properly balanced. 

Part of this ‘‘Steadying the Service’’ theme that I used right from 

the start is stopping all the constant reorganization that we had 

40 

been doing, and locking in, so that then we can properly resource 

and balance across all, the sector concept, making sure all our sectors are properly resourced, our district commands are properly 

resourced, and then getting our mission support side right. This is 

an ongoing process for us. 

We’re looking at our deployable specialized forces—I’m doing 

what I call a stem-to-stern review on them, to make sure that we’re 

using them optimally, and making sure they’re properly trained. 

At the same time, we’re also doing a boat force optimization program. I’m a believer that we’ve got too many boats out there, too 

many boat classes, and consequently, it provides us logistic challenges and training challenges at most of our boat stations. So, 

we’re looking, we’re reviewing all them with an eye toward reducing the number of boats that we have to maintain out there, while 

still maintaining operational efficiency—or, effectiveness, rather. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. And maybe, as you finish some of those 

analyses—the boat forces, the stem-to-stern—would you, maybe we 

can coordinate with your staff, and maybe those are opportunities 

for you or your staff to present to the Committee what you found, 

what can happen, what, you know, again, having an opportunity 

there. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. Absolutely. I think what we will find, 

though, is, most places, we’re under-resourced in terms of people. 

People is really the issue. And if I could just highlight that. We lost 

about 5,000 or 6,000 people in the mid-90s when we went through 

a process called streamlining, which is just another name for— 

you’re getting less money, so—— 

Senator BEGICH. Budget-cutting. 

Admiral PAPP. Right. We have grown over the last decade. But 

really, we’re only back at the strength that we were at the early 

1990s, and we have, clearly, more missions, more jobs to do. So, 

even though we’ve gained 6,000 people, they’re fully employed. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP. And the 2012 budget, I gave guidance when we 

developed our 2012 budget—I don’t want to cut a single person. We 

need every person that we have. And we still need to give—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP.—mission effectiveness, and deliver our services. 

And we need to recapitalize. And we’re in a fine balance point right 

now with this budget. Not everything I want or need, but we’re 

keeping it balanced. 

Senator BEGICH. Excellent. 

Admiral PAPP. We start going below, and something’s got to 

give—either we’ve got to stop buying more boats and ships, or I’ve 

got to start cutting people. I’m really at that point right now. And 

the last thing I want to do is cut people. But I think we’re going 

to find ourselves backed into that position as we face further constraints on the budget. 

Senator BEGICH. Last question, and then I’ll close off. And that 

is—and this is kind of a global question, and one that may be uncomfortable to answer. But, you know, you are now under Homeland Security, and, I guess the question is, being in that situation, 

where you’re located now, does it create administrative challenges, 

or challenges that affect the potential for your readiness and ability 

41 

to deal with some of the issues? And it may be, regulatory setting, 

or work that maybe is necessary to complete your mission. 

And I, why I’m asking this is, it’s kind of a quirky question in 

the way I’m asking it, is, sometimes when you move an agency— 

and the Coast Guard kind of keeps, you know, moves here, and 

moves here—that, when you do that there are new processes that 

new agency has which, then, you have to adjust to. Or, sometimes 

it’s faster, or slower. 

Can you give me your thoughts of, now you’re under Homeland 

Security. Is that, you know, creating—does it give you the flexibility that you need to be, really, the Coast Guard that I think we 

all expect, and need, and desire? Does that—without putting you 

in an awkward—I don’t want to put you in any position here. But 

I just, because part of our role is, I think, is to, we want you to 

be very effective in anything, and if there’s process that are layered 

on top of you that are creating problems, we need to know that. 

Admiral PAPP. Sir, I, first of all, you never make me uncomfortable. 

Senator BEGICH. Good. 

Admiral PAPP. I’m going to be candid with you and—— 

Senator BEGICH. Good. 

Admiral PAPP.—tell you exactly what I feel. And I will tell you 

that I’m happy in the Department of Homeland Security. Is it perfect? No. But it wasn’t perfect in the Department of Transportation, 

either. 

But, what I will say is, more of our mission sets fit within the 

Department of Homeland Security than when we were in the Department of Transportation. Yet, there are transportation issues 

that are still very important to me. We meet with the Department 

of Transportation all the time. Just like I talked about the bridge 

that we provide to the Department of Defense—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP.—we also provide a bridge to the Department of 

Transportation. I’m meeting constantly with the Department of 

Justice, the Department of the Interior. The beauty of the Coast 

Guard is—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral PAPP.—we provide those linkages across. 

The challenge I face in DHS is, it’s still a new department, and 

consequently, we don’t have the career bureaucrats—and I’m not 

saying that pejoratively—but, we don’t have the career bureaucrats 

that understand the multi-mission capabilities in what the Coast 

Guard does. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Admiral PAPP. They are learning. But, the challenge is, in this 

new department, the leadership is very shallow. There’s a lot of political appointees. So, consequently, there’s turnover, and you have 

to re-educate. 

I will tell you that Secretary Napolitano is personally involved, 

going out visiting the Coast Guard, learning. I mean, for someone 

who didn’t have much coastline as a Governor, she has done magnificently in terms of learning about what we do. 

Our Deputy Secretary, Jane Lute, has been marvelous. I meet 

with her every week. She is personally involved in working up a 

42 

strategy which explains us better to OMB and other people on all 

these capabilities that we bring into the Department, that heretofore people said, What? Aids to navigation in Homeland Security? 

Oil spill response—well they understand oil spill response now—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. They’ve got it now. 

Admiral PAPP.—clearly. But, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary 

are believers. 

Senator BEGICH. Good. 

Admiral PAPP. And they are both personally involved in convincing other people that need to understand the versatility and 

adaptability the Coast Guard brings to all the missions sets. 

We even had, at the beginning of the Department, we had, of our 

11 missions, we had some that were considered homeland security, 

others that weren’t. There were proposals to fund them at different 

levels. Now, both the Secretary and Deputy Secretary believe all 11 

statutory missions have an impact on homeland security. 

So, back to the bottom line—I’m happy where I’m at. And it’s not 

providing me an impediment. 

What it obligates me to do is make sure I continue to work with 

my Secretary to make sure she, or in the future, he, understands 

fully what we bring to the table. 

Senator BEGICH. Well, thank you, Admiral Papp. And let me just 

say that, in all the year here, and the time we spent on the plane 

in going up north, you’ve always been very candid. And it’s always 

a pleasure to work with the Coast Guard in all aspects because, 

you have great needs, but also provide an incredible service. And 

the men and women that serve in the Coast Guard are unbelievable, and the families that support them. 

So, first, again, thank you for coming today. 

We’re going to continue. We have some questions we’ll submit for 

the record, and look forward to those answers. And then, the hearing record will be open for another 7 days for submission and comments by other members. But, again, we want to thank you for 

being here today, and doing what you do in the Coast Guard, because it is an incredible team of folks. 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, thank you, Senator Snowe. 

Senator BEGICH. This meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(43) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR. 

Question 1. While we understand that an engine overhaul alone will not bring the 

POLAR SEA back to operational status. How much would the engine overhaul cost? 

Answer. The cost to repair and overhaul POLAR SEA’s 6 Main Diesel Engines and 2 Ship’s Service Generators would be $4.5 million. 

Question 2. What is the cost (range) to bring the POLAR SEA back to operational 

status and what work would that entail? 

Answer. Approximately $14–15 million non-recurring funding to complete the nec- essary Hull, Mechanical & Electrical (HM&E) work and an additional $30 million 

annual recurring funding for crewing and asset Operations & Maintenance (O&M) 

are required to return POLAR SEA to operational status. Operational status is defined as the ability of the cutter to deploy for a polar mission. It is estimated that 

this work would take 12–16 months, with impacts to the POLAR SEA schedule, to 

complete from the receipt of funding. 

Bringing POLAR SEA to operational status would also have significant impacts 

to the current POLAR STAR reactivation project due to limited supply of critical 

parts and long production timelines for diesel engine parts that would have to be 

allocated across both assets. Additionally, the specialized workforce necessary to reconfigure the engines would also have to be balanced across both assets. The required work listed above would return POLAR SEA to operational status but would 

not significantly enhance reliability. POLAR SEA’s projected end of service life 

would remain at the end of 2014, which means escalation of reliability concerns and 

maintenance costs would continue unless a Service Life Extension Project (SLEP) 

was performed. 

Question 3. How much would a 10-yr service life extension of the POLAR SEA 

likely cost? Answer. Approximately $40–68 million in non-recurring funding would be required to achieve a 10-yr service life extension for POLAR SEA as a bridging strategy until new construction. Additionally, $30 million of annual recurring funding 

will be required for crewing and Operation & Maintenance (O&M) costs. 

Question 4. Would the 10-yr service life extension include the necessary overhaul 

of the engines? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 5. The Coast Guard performed admirably as head of the Federal response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the Service continues to do good work 

overseeing the cleanup of the Gulf. As we approach the one-year anniversary of the 

capping of the Deepwater Horizon well, what are some of the lessons the Coast 

Guard has learned from that historic response? What did we get right and what 

could we have done better? 

Answer. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the first incident in U.S. history to 

be declared a Spill of National Significance (SONS) and the first to designate a National Incident Commander (NIC). Despite the challenges of the first ever SONS 

declaration and NIC designation, many aspects of the response worked very well. 

The National Contingency Plan (NCP) served the Nation well and proved effective 

during the Deepwater Horizon response. The NCP provided a sound framework that 

allowed for the needed discretion and freedom of action to address contingencies 

that arose during the response. 

Although the NIC’s role and function evolved through the course of the response, 

the NIC proved to be an effective command organization that served its intended 

purpose to promote unity of effort across the whole-of-government. 

After several near mishaps in the airspace above the oil spill response, the NIC, 

in coordination with U.S. Northern Command and the U.S. Air Force, established 

the Aviation Coordination Center (ACC) at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida to establish command and control over the airspace. The ACC helped prevent midair colVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
44 

lisions, improved situational awareness, validated oil trajectory monitoring, tracked 

skimmers and vessels of opportunity, and directed boom deployment to where it was 

most needed. 

The Coast Guard is conducting a review of the President’s National Commission 

on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling’s findings, the National 

Incident Commander’s (NIC) Report, Incident Specific Preparedness Review (ISPR) 

along with the other Deepwater Horizon reports that provide a body of observations, 

perspectives, and opinions. The Coast Guard is carefully reviewing these reports to 

identify areas of positive and effective preparedness improvements to develop effective and appropriate national implementation strategies. The Coast Guard has already taken several actions to address areas where planning and preparedness will 

be improved, including: directing Captains of the Port to review Oil Spill Response 

Plans for offshore facilities; requiring Area Committees to include Worst Case Discharge scenarios for offshore facilities in their respective Area Contingency Plans; 

increasing State, local, and tribal outreach and participation in Area Committee 

meetings and activities; participating in a Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Environmental Protection Agency workgroup to develop recommendations to harmonize the National Contingency Plan and National Response 

Framework governance constructs. Additionally on July 7, 2011 the Coast Guard 

issued a Federal Register Notice announcing an updated policy employing risk 

based targeting to prioritize inspections of foreign-flagged Mobile Offshore Drilling 

Units operating on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

Question 6. Congress has made few legislative fixes to address gaps in our spill 

prevention and response capabilities. Does the Service have the statutory authorities and flexibility it needs to respond to Deepwater Horizon-like events in the future? 

Answer. Broadly speaking, the statutory authorities vested in the Secretary of 

Homeland Security and the Commandant of the Coast Guard are sufficient. The 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill however, did expose the limitations of those powers 

when confronted with a spill of national significance—specifically, the ‘‘per-incident’’ 

limitation on expenditures from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the limitation 

on advances from the Fund for Federal removal activities, and the lack of an appropriation from the Fund for the extraordinary costs to administer the claims process. 

The Coast Guard is conducting a comprehensive review of the various Deepwater 

Horizon reports to identify areas of improvement and, from this viewpoint, the sufficiency of its authorities. Once this review is complete, the Department stands ready 

to work the Congress to identify appropriate remedies to identified limitations. 

Once this review is complete, the Department stands ready to work with Congress 

to identify appropriate remedies to identified limitations. 

Question 7. Do you envision the Coast Guard being more or less involved in inspecting offshore drilling systems and how do you think the Service and the successor agency to the Minerals Management Service should coordinate their inspection duties for offshore drilling systems? 

Answer. The Coast Guard shares foreign-flagged Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit 

(MODU) regulatory responsibilities with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). Each agency’s areas of responsibility are 

outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) OCS–01 signed September 30, 

2004. This MOU outlines the inspection responsibilities of the two agencies. In general, the Coast Guard’s primary responsibilities are related to vessel operations and 

safety systems including firefighting, lifesaving, electrical systems, and hull structures on MODU’s. BOEMRE’s primary responsibility is subsea operations and drilling systems. The Coast Guard does not oversee drilling systems, but the interface 

between subsurface and surface operations warrants very close coordination and collaboration between both agencies. 

The MODU Deepwater Horizon casualty primarily resulted from a well blowout. 

Although the blowout preventer and drilling systems fall under the authority and 

jurisdiction of BOEMRE, this incident and others have prompted the Coast Guard 

to review all operations and systems under its responsibility for potential improvements to both regulations and the inspection regime of foreign-flagged MODUs on 

the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). To that end, the Coast Guard is developing 

improvements to enhance the safety of offshore operations and improving coordination with BOEMRE. Furthermore, Coast Guard and BOEMRE established a prevention working group to enhance alignment and consistency on how inspections are 

conducted. 

The Coast Guard recently announced, by publication in the Federal Register, an 

updated policy that Coast Guard marine inspectors will use to determine the risk 

posed by foreign-flagged MODUs operating on the U.S. OCS by examining accident 

45 

history, past discrepancies, flag state performance and classification society performance to identify those vessels requiring additional oversight in addition to annual 

inspections undergone by all vessels. Risk based targeting allows more efficient use 

of Coast Guard resources and more frequent examinations of the highest risk 

MODUs. 

Question 8. Admiral Papp, at the annual State of the Coast Guard Address in 

February, you said the following: 

‘‘In order to achieve proficiency in our most needed activities and capabilities, 

we may have to reduce our range of activities and capabilities. This is acceptable.’’ Let me repeat this—‘‘We may need to reduce the number and range of 

capabilities we’ve added since 9/11, until properly resourced, and this will be 

acceptable.’’ 

Admiral Papp, without the proper resourcing, which activity or capability will 

have to be reduced first? 

Answer. The biggest challenge the Coast Guard faces is sustaining front-line operations while simultaneously recapitalizing our fleet to stem declining readiness. The 

FY 2012 President’s budget supports these priorities while making investments to 

enhance maritime incident prevention and response and support military families. 

The budget required tough choices in a constrained fiscal environment to fund these 

priorities. These are honest and necessary choices to sustain front-line operations 

and rebuild the Coast Guard. 

The Coast Guard is no different than other agencies across the Federal Government—just as the Nation is tightening its belt, we must focus our resources on the 

tasks that provide the Nation with maritime safety and security services in the 

most efficient manner. 

The Coast Guard will leverage technology and base resources to mitigate impacts 

of these reductions on Coast Guard readiness, operations, and the workforce. 

Question 9. Section 3316 of Title 46 of the United States Code grants the United 

States Coast Guard the ability to delegate the authority to perform certain Coast 

Guard functions to the American Bureau of Shipping and other ‘‘recognized’’ classification societies. This authority encompasses the performance of broad discretionary functions (review of plans and inspection of vessels to Coast Guard standards), the ability to approve or reject such plans or vessels on the Coast Guard’s 

behalf, and the authority to issue vessel certificates required under U.S. and international law. These recognized classification societies perform these functions pursuant to memoranda of agreement (‘‘MOAs’’) executed between the society and the 

Coast Guard. These MOAs delineate which authority the Coast Guard is delegating 

to that particular society and the responsibilities of that society in carrying out 

these delegations. They make clear that approvals issued by the society will be accepted in the same manner as if approved by the Coast Guard. The MOAs also state 

that remuneration for delegated services carried out by the society will be charged 

directly to the party receiving such services and not the U.S. Government. 

Given the above, does the Coast Guard consider a classification society, when performing the functions as described under 46 USC 3316 and the relevant MOA, to 

be an agent of the Coast Guard? 

Answer. Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 3316, the Coast Guard may delegate to the 

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) or another recognized classification society the 

authority to review plans, conduct inspections, and issue certificates of inspection. 

However, that same statute assigns special status to ABS by requiring each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States to recognize ABS as its 

agent in classifying vessels owned by the Government, and in matters related to 

classification. 

Question 10. What is the Coast Guard’s position regarding the propriety of allowing an organization which serves as an agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran on matters of marine safety and security to also serve in a similar capacity for the United 

States Coast Guard? 

Answer. The Coast Guard believes in the longstanding international axiom that 

class societies be permitted to operate in the interests of maritime safety and pollution prevention regardless of political/nationalistic affiliations. Recognized class societies operate globally, providing impartial service to customers regardless of national affiliation. Moreover, it is this axiom that underpins the development of an 

important new Code for Recognized Organizations (Classification Societies) at the 

International Maritime Organization. 

Question 11. Section 3316 of Title 46 of the United States Code appears to give 

the Coast Guard broad discretionary authority regarding if, when or how it chooses 

to delegate any of its authority to any classification society. For example, while SecVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
46 

tion 3316(a) requires that U.S. Government agencies ‘‘shall’’ recognize the American 

Bureau of Shipping as its agent in classifying vessels owned by the Government and 

in matters related to classification, Section 3316(b) provides that the Coast Guard 

‘‘may’’ delegate its authority to one or more societies, subject to certain reciprocity 

and recordkeeping requirements. Please explain the Coast Guard’s position regarding its discretion to exercise its authority under Section 3316 of Title 46. 

Answer. The Coast Guard implemented section 3316 of Title 46 in 46 CFR Part 

8. 

The Coast Guard exercises its authority to evaluate a class society for participation as a recognized organization (RO) under 46 CFR Part 8. The elements for accepting an RO under section 3316 can be broadly described using the terms ‘‘track 

record’’, breadth of customer base, technical proficiency, and reciprocity. However, 

the Coast Guard is limited to the criteria listed in 46 CFR Part 8; it may not create 

new criteria not listed without changing the regulation. 

Question 12. Does the Coast Guard ever consider that it is ‘‘required’’ to grant any 

of its authority to any society under Section 3316? If so, under what circumstances? 

Answer. The requirements for any class society’s participation as a recognized organization (RO) acting on behalf of the Coast Guard is stated in both 46 U.S.C. 3316 

and further refined in 46 CFR Part 8. Should a class society fail to meet the regulatory criteria required for participation, the Coast Guard is not compelled to recognize it under 46 U.S.C. 3316 and 46 CFR Part 8. 

Question 13. Section 8 of Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides the 

regulations for the implementation of the Coast Guard’s authority under Section 

3316 of Title 46 of the United States Code. 46 CFR 8 contains several conditions 

governing the delegation of its authority to classification societies which are not contained in 46 U.S.C. 3316, and which are not directly related to the performance of 

review/inspection services on behalf of the Coast Guard. For example, a class society 

wishing to receive a delegation from the Coast Guard must execute an agreement 

which, inter alia, allows the Commandant to participate in the development of that 

class society’s rules; requires the class society to inform the Commandant of all proposed changes to its class rules; and requires the class society to provide the Commandant the opportunity to comment on any proposed changes to its class rules. 

Similarly, the Coast Guard criteria for recognition of class societies for delegation 

purposes contain several requirements not mentioned in 3316 (e.g., ‘‘recognized’’ 

class societies must have a total classed tonnage of at least 10 million gross tons; 

must have a classed fleet of at least 1,500 ocean-going vessels over 100 gross tons; 

and must employ a minimum of 150 exclusive surveyors). 

Please explain the Coast Guard’s position regarding its latitude, absent direction 

from Congress, to establish (e.g., through a rulemaking process) additional criteria 

under which it will recognize a classification society and allow it to receive a delegation from the Coast Guard, including any criteria which ensures such societies are 

not engaged in activities which are inconsistent with United States law or policy. 

Answer. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Coast Guard 

established regulations that comply with the law. This effort was undertaken to establish a construct that could ensure consistency and performance of recognized 

class societies in a manner that meets Coast Guard and International Maritime Organization (IMO) marine safety requirements. 

As those marine safety requirements evolve, the Coast Guard will endeavor to ensure class societies act not only to uphold the requirements of U.S. regulation, but 

also meet IMO criteria for the issuance of international certificates issued on behalf 

of the U.S. 

The Coast Guard does not believe that its criteria are inconsistent with U.S. law 

or policy. 

Question 14. Section 8.230(a)(23) of Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

provides that, ‘‘In order to receive recognition by the Coast Guard a classification 

society must not be involved in any activities which could result in a conflict of interest.’’ 

Please provide the Coast Guard’s position regarding whether the Coast Guard 

considers an entity acting on behalf of the United States in the performance of safety and security inspections, while simultaneously acting in a similar capacity for a 

foreign government which is the subject of U.S. sanctions, to be a ‘‘conflict of interest’’ and counter to the objectives of U.S. policy for purposes of 46 CFR 8.230(a)(23). 

Answer. The Department of State (DOS) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control 

(OFAC) are the agencies charged with ensuring compliance with U.S. economic 

sanctions. While we defer to their expertise and encourage you to seek their views 

on the proposed legislation, we do believe that class societies should be permitted 

47 

to operate in the interests of maritime safety and pollution prevention regardless 

of political/nationalistic affiliations. 

Question 15. The propriety of classification societies serving as agents of the U.S. 

Government while those same organizations also serve as agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or other sanctioned governments, arguably requires consultation with 

other agencies of the U.S. Government. Please provide the Coast Guard’s position 

on the input, if any, required from other agencies, as well as a history of any previous discussion held with other agencies. 

Answer. No formal input has been required from the Coast Guard by other agencies. 

Several separate teleconferences between the Coast Guard and ABS, and between 

the Coast Guard and Department of State (DOS) and Treasury’s Office of Foreign 

Asset Control (OFAC) culminated in a May 2011 meeting with all of the above parties. An additional meeting with DOS, OFAC and the Coast Guard in June 2011 

was held to provide a ‘‘Class Society 101’’ instructional session to better acquaint 

staff with the work of class societies as ROs under 46 USC 3316. The Coast Guard 

recommends contacting DOS to obtain their official position. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR. 

Question 1. I was pleased the Arctic Council recently ratified an international 

agreement on search and rescue (SAR) in the Arctic. What can you tell me about 

the Coast Guard’s readiness to uphold America’s responsibilities in this landmark 

agreement? What do we need in terms of personnel, assets, and infrastructure to 

comply with its terms and perform Arctic SAR? 

Answer. The Coast Guard realizes that with limited search and rescue (SAR) resources and with the increase in human activity in the Arctic (on land, in the maritime environment and with the increase in passenger aircraft on transpolar flights), 

international SAR coordination and cooperation in this region will become more crucial. The arctic SAR agreement will serve as the basis for future SAR cooperation 

and coordination with the other Arctic Council nations (e.g., Canada will host an 

arctic SAR exercise in October 2011; all eight Arctic Council nations have been invited to participate). In addition, the agreement highlighted the Coast Guard’s already existing arctic SAR responsibilities and, with limited available resources, the 

Coast Guard’s continued challenge in conducting arctic SAR. 

The agreement does not impose additional requirements on the Parties beyond 

those already required by international Convention. 

Question 2. The Coast Guard still has not released the Fleet Mix Analysis—an 

analysis of the types, numbers, and capabilities of assets it needs to meet mission 

requirements. This analysis contains important information Congress needs in order 

to make well informed spending decisions. What is the status of the Fleet Mix Analysis; what is delaying its release? When will Congress be able to see it? 

Answer. The Fleet Mix Analysis was delivered to Congress on July 29, 2011. 

Question 3. The Coast Guard reported $1.5 billion backlog in shore infrastructure 

projects including century-old small boat stations in the Great Lakes that are crumbling and very expensive to maintain. Does there need to be a realignment of bases 

in the Great Lakes to consolidate small boat stations and how would this impact 

the Coast Guard’s lifesaving mission there? 

Answer. At this time, realignment of Coast Guard boat stations on the Great 

Lakes is not needed. Changes to the Coast Guard’s boat station footprint must be 

based on a clear understanding of maritime risks and operational requirements. The 

seasonal nature of the Great Lakes creates two distinctly different operating environments, each requiring unique mission capabilities and assets: cold weather and 

ice operations associated with frozen or ‘‘hard’’ water conditions, which impact commercial traffic and pose unique challenges with Search and Rescue, and warm 

weather or ‘‘soft’’ water conditions that result in a surge of recreational boating activity. 

Coast Guard stations in the Great Lakes play a critical role in meeting Coast 

Guard mission requirements along the 6,700 miles of coastline and 1,500 mile international border encompassed by the Great Lakes. Cutter capacity and capability is 

limited and used to the maximum extent possible to provide offshore presence and 

response. 

Certainly, new technologies and platforms improve our patrol and response capability. As Rescue 21 and the Response Boat-Medium are deployed in the Great 

Lakes, the Coast Guard will continue to evaluate those capabilities and any opporVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 072563 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72563.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
48 

tunities these new assets may provide relative to the location and number of our 

stations. 

Question 4. It has been a rough 3 years for the Coast Guard’s aviation community 

with the loss of 14 Coast Guard aviators in accidents. Many of these accidents are 

still currently under investigation by the Coast Guard but I understand the Coast 

Guard is conducting a nose-to-tail safety assessment to evaluate the overall fitness 

of Coast Guard aviation. What have you learned in your investigations into these 

incidents so far; is there a common thread between these accidents? What lessons 

have been learned from the safety assessment and how do you evaluate the overall 

fitness of Coast Guard aviation? 

Answer. The ‘‘nose to tail’’ assessment of the aviation safety environment was 

completed earlier this year. Analysis of the study suggests that a number of factors 

combined to create an environment where complacency, rate of change, inadequate 

leadership, lack of focus on aviation professionalism and incomplete risk management undermined the overall safety posture of Coast Guard aviation. Common in 

each of the recent mishaps was a failure to adequately address risk factors when 

the perceived risk was low. There was also a sense of complacency, and an environment existed in which safety policies and safeguards were not effective in preventing mishaps. 

The Coast Guard Aviation Safety Assessment Action Plan (ASAAP) identified immediate action items to counter these negative environmental factors and provides 

a plan of action to prevent similar mishaps in the future. As a result of strong leadership at every level within the aviation community, a commitment to aviation professionalism, and immediate actions taken to adopt the ASAAP recommendations, 

one-year has passed since the last major aviation mishap. The Coast Guard will continue to emphasize that maintaining professionalism requires continual learning, 

mastery of the operations, and knowledge of policy, regulation and mission requirements. 

Question 5. Since September 11, 2001, Coast Guard aviation, specifically helicopters, has adopted new mission capabilities to support the service’s new homeland 

security missions. Each new mission requires qualifications and training requirements for pilots and aircrew on top of traditional training. Despite these new responsibilities, the Coast Guard has the same number of aircraft and pilots as it did 

pre-9/11. 

Does the Coast Guard need more aircraft, pilots and aircrew to cover these new 

special missions? Are aircrews being overextended? Is the expertise and proficiency 

level being diluted as pilots train for these new special missions? Does Coast Guard 

Aviation even need to perform these new special missions? 

Answer. Coast Guard minimum aviation asset requirements are outlined in the 

FY 2010 Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan Review report to Congress. The 

Coast Guard balances its rotary wing training and resource needs for special missions through the use of existing assets and planned accomplishments in the FY 

2012 President’s Budget. 

The special missions that Coast Guard aircrews have absorbed since 2001 have 

made adequate levels of proficiency a challenge. Managing multiple qualifications 

is accomplished by flying a higher percentage of mission hours for training. 

The Coast Guard performs the Rotary Wing Air Intercept mission as a military 

service in support of Department of Defense’s OP NOBLE EAGLE air defense mission. The Coast Guard’s Airborne Use of Force and Fast Roping capabilities were 

developed and utilized in our traditional Law Enforcement role in the late 1990s, 

and as the Maritime Security mission grew after September 11, 2001, the use of 

these latter two capabilities expanded. 

Question 6. You mentioned this disturbing trend in accidents in your State of the 

Coast Guard speech and said training needs to lead toward the higher level of proficiency and not just qualification. Can you give an example of what you are now 

doing in your training programs to achieve a higher level of proficiency? Will this 

require the Coast Guard to narrow its mission focus? 

Answer. For aviation, the Coast Guard has significantly modified the aircrew 

grading system to better stratify individual performance levels. The legacy grading 

system evaluated aircrew performance on a Pass or Fail basis. The stratification allows evaluators to provide more comprehensive feedback to pilots, improving proficiency. 

For tactical, high risk boarding teams, Special Missions Training Center (SMTC) 

in Camp Lejeune, NC, has revamped tactical and pursuit training based on the results of a comprehensive study. SMTC has been allocated new boats, allowing coxswains to be instructed on the same equipment they use during everyday operations 

at their home units. Prior to this initiative, coxswains were trained on dissimilar 

49 

boats. The SMTC training program has been improved by adding remedial training 

options for basic tactical operator. Early returns show that this remediation training 

has increased graduation rates while meeting the same rigid standards for basic tactical operators. The study also indicated a need for increased preparation prior to 

attending the basic course and an increased/revised need for sustainment training 

at units following course attendance. The Coast Guard has initiated these changes 

at field units. 

For surf boats, a new four-week surfman course was instituted in an effort to increase the number of qualified surfman by providing fifty hours of operations in the 

surf. This course, coupled with the existing Standard Surfman Training Package, 

has substantially increased the number of qualified surfman in the Coast Guard 

through standardized proficiency training, resulting in fewer operational mishaps in 

the high-risk surfman community. 

These initiatives do not require the Coast Guard to narrow its mission focus. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR. 

Question 1. Coast Guard personnel continue to staff the Gulf Coast Incident Management Team, performing standard cleanup operations such as manual removal of 

oily debris and mechanical recovery of oily marsh, and working on special operations 

such as the Submerged Oil Mats program. Response activities continue but have diminished substantially compared to the height of operations. 

The Coast Guard’s response to the oil spill required a significant amount of resources from a Service that operates under a small budget, when compared to the 

other Armed Forces. Answers to these questions will hopefully highlight some concern within the Coast Guard, as to their ability to support future demand for their 

capabilities. Over the course of the oil spill, how much did Coast Guard spend on 

the response? To what extent do these funds come from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund? If a large spill occurred again given the current funding levels, would CG be 

able to mount an effective response? 

Answer. Over the course of the oil spill, the Coast Guard spent $400,640,847 (as 

of July 27, 2011). This value does not include Coast Guard directed payments from 

the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) to other government agencies. Of the 

aforementioned amount, $129,707,889 of that funding came from the OSLTF. 

The National Response System contains a series of plans that are used to respond 

to a spill and the resources required will vary for any given spill. However, recent 

experience with several complex oil spills including the M/V COSCO BUSAN, the 

T/V EAGLE OTOME, and DEEPWATER HORIZON underscore the importance of 

having proficient and readily deployable incident managers and pollution responders 

throughout the Coast Guard. 

The President’s FY 2012 budget request addresses critical resource and capacity 

gaps in marine environmental response in two ways. First, the President’s FY 2012 

budget request seeks funding for Coast Guard military and civilian personnel to enhance the Service’s marine safety and marine environmental response capacity 

through the establishment of a Coast Guard National Incident Management Assist 

Team. It also strengthens oil pollution research by funding a full-time Executive Director of the Interagency Coordinating Council for Oil Pollution Research. 

Question 2. I am increasingly concerned with the USCG’s acquisition programs 

and how problems with it have contributed to your current operational hour gaps, 

meaning there are missions that the American people expect the Coast Guard to accomplish, but you’re not able to. One such area is the patrol boat operational hour 

shortfall in the tens of thousands per year. What missions are not being met by your 

patrol boats? Are patrol boats the only place where you’re seeing this operating hour 

gap? If not, where else do you have shortfalls? The House recently recommended 

stripping funding for 2 of your 6 Fast Response Cutters due to structural deficiencies . . . can you respond to that and what affect would that have on the operating hour shortfall? 

Answer. To establish a consistent baseline from which to measure, the patrol boat 

operational hour capacity of 99,400 hours is based on programmed operational hours 

available in 1998 with a full complement of 49 110-ft WPBs. In 2010 the 110-ft WPB 

fleet patrolled 70,065 hours resulting in an operational hour gap of 29,335 hours 

(29.5 percent short of the 1998 baseline). Both the hour and hull gaps are acutely 

manifested in the Coast Guard District Seven’s area of responsibility, which is programmed for 47,400 hours (53 percent of all Coast Guard Patrol Boat hours). The 

below graph illustrates the patrol boat operational hour gap and the future projection to close the gap based on the Fast Response Cutter (FRC) delivery schedule: 

50 

Patrol Cutter Transition Schedule—FY 2012 President’s Budget Request 

The primary missions of the 110-ft WPB are Counter-Drug, Alien Migration Interdiction Operations, Search and Rescue, Ports Waterways and Coastal Security and 

Living Marine Enforcement. All missions continue to be met by the patrol boat fleet 

but at a reduced operational capacity. This reduced capacity inhibits the Coast 

Guard’s ability to patrol and enforce applicable laws/regulations and reduces overall 

effectiveness across the entire mission set. 

The patrol boat gap is projected to start closing in FY 2012 with the delivery of 

the first FRC in 2011. Each FRC is designed to be operated 2,500 hours annually. 

Following delivery, testing, and evaluation, these new cutters will immediately contribute toward mitigating shortages in WPB operational capacity. Specifically, the 

first 12 FRC hulls will be home-ported in Miami and Key West, FL, where the patrol boat gap is the most acute. Based on an out-year FRC delivery schedule of six 

FRC deliveries per year projected in the FY 2012–2016 Capital Investment Plan, the 

1998 baseline is anticipated to be met in FY 2016. Delivering four FRCs annually 

equates to a 5,000 operational hour impact that would shift the attainment of the 

1998 baseline and closure of the patrol boat gap beyond 2020. To mitigate operational impacts of any delays in FRC delivery, the 110 ft WPBs, 29 of 41 which are 

beyond their 20-year service life, would continue to operate until replaced by FRCs. 

Question 3. GAO recently testified that you have been working on a Fleet Mixed 

Analysis since October 2008 and still have not released its findings. GAO also said 

that the initial numbers you’re holding onto are not feasible in the current fiscal 

climate. In May, House Appropriators claim you’ve been conducting this analysis 

since 2004 and have yet to submit its findings. This lack of transparency is concerning because if you have mission requirements, and don’t have the resources to 

accomplish them, we as Congress need to know. When will the Fleet Mixed Analysis 

be ready? Are you getting some independent help with this analysis or has it been 

internal to the Coast Guard? 

Answer. The Fleet Mix Analysis was delivered to Congress on July 29, 2011. The 

Coast Guard used a consultant to complete this study. 

Question 4. For your Deepwater acquisition programs, GAO reports $3.8B cost 

overruns when compared to your 2007 baseline and an overall 35 percent overrun 

for programs that were re-base lined. In our current fiscal state, this is unacceptable 

and points to re-occurring issues in the way the USCG does business. How do you 

account for such cost growth and what is the Service doing to address the overarching problems with your acquisition processes? 

Answer. In 2007, the Coast Guard assumed responsibility as Lead System Integrator (LSI). Integrated Deepwater System acquisition projects were disaggregated 

into individual Acquisition Program Baselines, leveraging project estimates that 

were provided by ICGS under the legacy Deepwater construct. The projected total 

acquisition costs were $24.2 billion and the Life Cycle Cost Estimates (LCCE) were 


623CHT1.eps
51 

approximately $180 billion. Efforts to consolidate the Acquisition Directorate, assume Lead System Integrator responsibilities, and implement the Blueprint for Continuous Improvement have better equipped the Coast Guard to manage costs, schedules and contractor performance. 

Over the past four years, the Coast Guard has focused on improving cost management for all related projects and budget accounts, and significantly improved its 

ability to acquire in an integrated fashion with rigorous, coordinated participation 

from technical authorities and sponsors. 

As the Coast Guard assumed this role, our focus included a robust analysis of all 

cost estimates, partnering with the U.S. Navy and third-party technical experts. 

Question 5. With the permanent decommissioning of 1 of the Coast Guard’s 2 

heavy polar icebreakers, we’re losing the ability to support national interests in the 

region, which is especially alarming since Russia maintains 8 heavy icebreakers. 

New shipping routes that were previously frozen and unnavigable are now being 

used by vessels to reduce transit times. You recently stated that, ‘‘because of the 

condition of the icebreakers, we are rapidly losing the expertise, and we don’t have 

the resources to respond up there to a major emergency.’’ Is the Coast Guard 

equipped to properly handle this mission? What efforts are under way to ensure we 

maintain a good grip on our national interests in that region? 

Answer. The Coast Guard mission demand for icebreakers in the Arctic has been 

primarily in support of National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration science 

missions. As the ice cover diminishes, we can expect increased maritime activity, especially in the form of vessel transits and natural resource exploration. Coast Guard 

vessel presence and capability will become key factors for meeting national response 

requirements. While Coast Guard could potentially respond during extended open 

water periods of the summer using Alaska’s buoy tenders, the Coast Guard only has 

one operational icebreaker (HEALY) that is able to work in ice-covered waters in 

summer and the shoulder seasons when Arctic sea ice covers much of the ocean. The 

Coast Guard’s reactivation of POLAR STAR for full mission capability will be complete in 2013. DHS has proposed an icebreaker acquisition analysis in the 2012 

President’s Budget which will help define the long-term icebreaking solution well 

beyond the expected service life of the POLAR STAR. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR. 

Question 1. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 outlined a consultation 

process for sharing of technical expertise between the U.S. Coast Guard and Department of Defense, with the objective of obtaining the Navy’s acquisition program 

management expertise. Has the Coast Guard initiated the memorandum of understanding to facilitate technical expertise sharing? What is the status of that process? 

Answer. The Coast Guard presently has approximately 80 interagency agreements 

and memorandums of agreement, primarily with the DOD and U.S. Navy. Those 

agreements are primarily for acquisition management and technical expertise sharing. The GAO has verified this fact in their April 2011, report GAO–11–480. In this 

report, the GAO made a recommendation that the Coast Guard develop and maintain a repository for information on Federal partnerships and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). The Coast Guard is in the process of establishing this repository to ensure that the process for sharing of technical expertise between the U.S. 

Coast Guard and Department of Defense outlined in the Coast Guard Authorization 

Act of 2010 is implemented. Once established, the Coast Guard will assess if an additional Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate technical expertise sharing is 

necessary. 

Question 2. What are the differences in the acquisitions authorities of the U.S. 

Coast Guard and the Navy? 

Answer. The U.S. Coast Guard and Navy acquisition authorities are codified in 

the following three titles of the U.S. Code: 

• Title 10 Armed Forces 

• Title 14 Coast Guard 

• Title 41 Public Contracts 

Implementation of the law is established in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) and most of the Coast Guard and the Navy acquisition authorities are located 

in two titles of the CFR: 

• Title 41 Public Contracts and Property Management 

52 

• Title 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System (FAR) 

Coast Guard acquisition authority is further defined in DHS and Coast Guard 

regulations, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Homeland Security Acquisition Manual (HSAM), DHS Acquisition Management Directive 102–01 

Revision 01 of 20 January 2010, and Coast Guard Major Systems Acquisition Manual (MSAM). Navy acquisition authority is further defined by the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) which is part of the FAR. From the 

DFARS, the Navy acquisition authority is further refined in DOD and Navy regulations. 

In general, many of the Coast Guard and the Navy acquisition authorities are the 

same. There are, however, significant differences in the area of major acquisition 

programs, as that portion of Title 10 applicable to Major Acquisition Programs 

(Chapter 144) is not applicable to the Coast Guard (the term ‘‘major defense acquisition program’’ means a Department of Defense acquisition program,’’ 10 U.S.C. 

§ 2430(a)). The Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement also contains additional 

authorities that are DOD-specific. 

One other notable difference is that the Navy has well established multi-year/ 

multi-ship authority. Multi-year/multi-ship contracts allow the procurement of 

known requirements for up to 5 years, even though the total funds ultimately to 

be obligated may not be available at the time of contract award. 

Question 3. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 set forth a number of 

changes that will affect fishing vessels operating in Federal waters, including new 

construction standards for vessels built after July 1, 2012. While the high fatality 

rates that plague the fishing industry are deeply troubling, the implementation of 

new training, classing and loadline requirements are of concern to the fishing industry, particularly those already enduring regulatory changes that stress their financial viability. When does the Coast Guard expect to promulgate rules on the implementation of new training requirements? How can the Coast Guard ensure that the 

new construction requirements will not deter the fishing industry from pursuing 

necessary upgrades or vessel replacements? 

Answer. The Coast Guard does not have discretion to modify or exempt the requirements for construction standards and classing of vessels as mandated by the 

Coast Guard Authorization Act (Act) of 2010. The new requirements may or may 

not deter the fishing industry from pursuing necessary upgrades or vessel replacements and impact their financial viability. However, the industry will be involved 

in developing new alternate safety compliance program requirements for older vessels and vessels altered after July 1, 2012, so that the impact of these requirements 

will be taken into consideration in the adoption of the final alternate safety program 

requirements. 

As set forth in the Act, construction standards apply to new vessels. Vessels built 

after January 1, 2010, are less than 50 feet overall in length, and operate beyond 

three nautical miles from the baseline, must at least meet the safety standards established for recreational vessels. Vessels built after July 1, 2012, are at least 50 

feet overall in length, and operate beyond three nautical miles from the baseline, 

must meet all survey and classification requirements prescribed by the American 

Bureau of Shipping or other similarly qualified organization. For instance, Det 

Norske Veritas (DNV), a similarly qualified organization, is currently developing 

rules for survey and classification of fishing vessels and hopes to have them completed by early 2012. 

Vessels that are upgraded through a significant alteration or a substantial change 

to its dimensions or type will have to meet standards of an alternate safety compliance program. This applies to vessels built before July 1, 2012 and altered after that 

date, are at least 50 feet overall in length, and operate beyond three nautical miles 

from the baseline. The alternate safety compliance program requirements will be developed by the Coast Guard in cooperation with the industry and consultation with 

and recommendations from the Advisory Committee, and must be implemented not 

later than January 1, 2017. The alternate safety requirements may be developed for 

specific regions and fisheries. All vessels meeting the criteria above, whether altered 

or not, and are 25 years of age or older must comply with an alternate safety program after January 1, 2020. 

53 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROGER F. WICKER TO

ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR. 

Question 1. A multi-year contract would save tax payer money and stabilize the 

industrial workforce by guaranteeing procurement beyond a single year. Now that 

the NSC design is mature, would you support multi-year contract authority for this 

program, recognizing that some changes in your current acquisition strategy may 

be required? 

Answer. We cannot execute the National Security Cutter (NSC) project under a 

multi-year procurement construct given the current NSC contract structure. 

Question 2. Assuming NSCs 6, 7, and 8 are contracted in FY 2013, 2014, and 

2015, respectively, can you quantify how much they would cost if contracted individually? Similarly, can you quantify the cost of these three NSCs if purchased with 

multiyear contract authority, assuming a Congressional funding commitment in FY 

2013? 

Answer. Contracting individually for National Security Cutters (NSCs) 6, 7, & 8 

are consistent with the current FY 2012–2016 NSC Capital Investment Plan (CIP) 

for single-year funding of each NSC. Under the assumptions of the CIP, the total 

planning cost for each NSC and related project costs are as follows: 

Segment Single-Year Funding 

Appropriation Amount 

Year of Planned Funding 

NSC #6 $775M 2013 

NSC #7 $795M 2014 

NSC #8 $815M 2015 

Structural 

Enhancement for 

NSCs #1/#2 $38M 2015 

Project Close-out $45M 2016 

With Multi-year contract authority, all three NSCs could be ordered together. It 

is possible that savings could accrue due to economic order quantities, increased 

productivity, and improved scheduling. Coast Guard estimates that the potential 

savings derived with Multi-year contract authority could be approximately $85 million as shown below. 

Coast Guard estimates for Single-Year and Multi-Year NSC Funding Scenarios 

Segment Single-Year Funding Multi-Year 

NSC #6 $775M $750M 

NSC #7 $795M $765M 

NSC #8 $815M $785M 

Structural 

Enhancement for 

NSCs #1/#2 $38M $38M 

Project Close-out $45M $45M 

Est. Reduction from Single-Year Funding $85M 

Question 3. In light of the proposed decommissioning of Pascagoula, Mississippibased ‘‘Patrol Coastal’’ Cutters, does the Coast Guard have a long range plan to replace these cutters in Pascagoula, and cover the potential mission gap in the Gulf 

of Mexico region? 

Answer. The return of the PC–179’s to the Navy, which were originally transferred to the Coast Guard as part of a mitigation strategy for the patrol boat operational hour gap, results in a short-term loss of patrol boat operational capacity in 

mission areas that include Counter-Drug (CD), Alien Migration Interdiction Operations (AMIO) and Living Marine Resources/Other Law Enforcement (LMR/OLE). 

This capacity will be filled by the delivery of Sentinel Class patrol boats beginning 

in early 2012, several of which will be homeported in the Gulf Coast region. 

Æ