U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–010 

" ! SENATE 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2005

109–114 

Calendar No. 185 

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 

2005 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 1280 

JULY 28, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 


congress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Deputy Staff Director 

DAVID RUSSELL, Chief Counsel 

MARGARET CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

39–010 

Calendar No. 185 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 109–114 

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 

JULY 28, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

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

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1280] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 1280) to authorize appropriations for 

the United States Coast Guard and other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and 

recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 1280, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 

2005, as amended, is to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 

(FY) 2006 and 2007 for the United States Coast Guard covering 

seven accounts: (1) operation and maintenance expenses; (2) acquisition, construction, and improvement of facilities and equipment 

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

(RDT&E); (4) retired pay; (5) environmental compliance and restoration; (6) alteration or removal of bridges; and (7) reserve programs. The bill also authorizes end-of-year military strength and 

training loads and includes other provisions to address issues related to the Coast Guard. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

The Coast Guard was established on January 28, 1915, as part 

of the Department of the Treasury, through the consolidation of the 

Revenue Cutter Service (established in 1790) and the Lifesaving 

Service (established in 1848). The Coast Guard later assumed the 

duties of three other agencies: the Lighthouse Service (established 

in 1789), the Steamboat Inspection Service (established in 1838), 

and the Bureau of Navigation (established in 1884). 

2 

The Coast Guard remained a part of the Department of the 

Treasury until 1967, when it was transferred to the newly created 

Department of Transportation. Under the Homeland Security Act 

of 2002 (Public Law 107–296) the Coast Guard was transferred to 

the new Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003. The 

Coast Guard provides many critical services for our nation grouped 

into five fundamental roles: maritime security; maritime safety; 

maritime mobility; protection of natural resources; and national defense. 

The Coast Guard, the Federal government’s principal maritime 

law-enforcement agency, is also a branch of the armed forces. As 

the fifth armed force of the United States, the Coast Guard maintains defense readiness to operate as a specialized service in the 

Navy upon the declaration of war or when the President so directs. 

The Coast Guard has defended the Nation in every war since 1790. 

During the recent combat operations in Iraq, the Coast Guard deployed two 378-foot high endurance cutters, one 225-foot ocean 

going buoy tender, one Port Security Team, and continues to operate six 110-foot Island Class patrol boats in the Persian Gulf. This 

was the first deployment of Coast Guard cutters in support of a 

wartime contingency since the Vietnam War. 

Under title 14, United States Code, the Coast Guard has primary 

responsibility for enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of all 

applicable Federal laws on, under, and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.; to ensure safety of life 

and property at sea; to protect the marine environment; to carry 

out domestic and international icebreaking activities; and to ensure 

the safety and security of vessels, ports, waterways, and related facilities. In carrying out these responsibilities the Coast Guard activities include commercial and recreational vessel safety inspection, the rescue of life and property at sea, fisheries law enforcement, marine environmental protection, and the interdiction of 

drug traffickers and illegal alien migrants. Since September 11, 

2001, the Coast Guard’s security responsibilities have increased 

significantly, with new authorities provided under the Maritime 

Security Transportation Act of 2002. 

The Coast Guard is composed of approximately 39,000 active 

duty military personnel, 8,100 reservists, 7,000 civilian employees, 

and 37,000 volunteers of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. In 2004, the 

Coast Guard responded to over 32,000 calls for assistance, and 

saved 5,500 lives. In 2004, the Coast Guard seized 376,000 pounds 

of illegal narcotics. It also stopped 11,000 illegal migrants from 

reaching our shores. The Coast Guard conducted more than 36,000 

port security patrols, boarded over 19,000 vessels, escorted over 

7,200 vessels, and maintained more than 115 security zones. It also 

conducted patrols to protect our fisheries stocks and responded to 

23,904 pollution incidents. 

Integrated Deepwater System 

The Committee believes the Coast Guard is an agency conducting 

21st century operations with 20th century technology. To accomplish its many vital missions, the Coast Guard needs to recapitalize 

its offshore fleet of cutters and aircraft. The Coast Guard operates 

the third oldest of the world’s 42 similar naval fleets with several 

cutters dating back to World War II. These platforms are technoVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:48 Aug 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR114.XXX SR114
3 

logically obsolete, require excessive maintenance, lack essential 

speed, and have poor interoperability which limit their overall mission effectiveness and efficiency. Compounding the problem is the 

fact that they are reaching the end of their serviceable life just as 

the Coast Guard needs them the most. 

Deepwater, the service’s recapitalization project designed to remedy these issues, poses several areas of concern. The Committee is 

particularly concerned about the lengthy timeline of the Coast 

Guard’s Integrated Deepwater System procurement which is further compounded by the funding shortfalls it has faced. This 

project was conceived as an approximately 20-year, $15 billion acquisition program to recapitalize its fleet of offshore cutters and 

aircraft, based on an annual stream of $500 million in FY 1998 dollars for the life of the plan. Currently, this program is on a 20–25 

year timeframe, costing between $19–$24 billion. While this program was developed prior to September 11, 2001, it is needed now 

more than ever to enable the Coast Guard to carry out all of its 

many important missions. 

The GAO has previously testified that the Deepwater program’s 

growing funding shortfalls ‘‘could jeopardize the Coast Guard’s future ability to effectively and efficiently carry out its missions, and 

its law enforcement activities’’ that is, drug and migrant interdiction and fisheries enforcement ‘‘would likely be affected the most, 

since they involve extensive use of Deepwater cutters and aircraft.’’ 

The Committee is very concerned that funding shortfalls will prevent the Coast Guard from quickly restoring operations in support 

of all its missions to their pre-September 11, 2001 levels. It strongly believes the Coast Guard should be provided with the tools it 

needs to carry out its homeland security responsibilities as well as 

its many other important traditional missions. Accordingly this bill, 

as reported, would authorize $1.1 billion for the Deepwater project 

for FY 2006 and $1.2 billion in FY 2007. 

The Deepwater project is the single largest procurement program 

that the Coast Guard has managed to date. A recent report by the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) (GAO–04–380) entitled 

‘‘Coast Guard Deepwater Program Needs Increased Attention to 

Management and Contractor Oversight’’ outlined significant concerns with the Coast Guard’s oversight and management of the 

program, and included numerous recommendations to improve the 

situation. The Committee strongly believes that it is in the best interests of the Deepwater program for the Coast Guard to implement the GAO’s recommendations promptly, and S. 1280 requires 

a report from the Coast Guard on the progress the service is making in implementing these recommendations. In addition, the GAO 

is continuing to examine how the Coast Guard might improve management of the program. 

As a result of the expanded missions that the Coast Guard finds 

itself facing in a post-9/11 world, the Coast Guard was required by 

the FY 2005 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 

to submit a report on the rebaselining of Deepwater. This rebaseline would reflect the Coast Guard’s new asset requirements (surface & aviation) which would allow the service to operate in a post9/11 world. Released on March 25, 2005, this report caused significant concern on the part of numerous committee members, and the 

4 

subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard conducted a hearing 

on the new baseline on June 21, 2005. 

One issue raised at the hearing was the potential need for a targeted acceleration of Deepwater in order to more quickly provide 

the Coast Guard with the assets it needs to fill the gap between 

its current capabilities and required mission demands. 

Compounding the urgent need for new cutters and aircraft is the 

fact that the Coast Guard’s legacy assets are deteriorating much 

more rapidly than anticipated. A related concern raised at the 

hearing was the decision by the Coast Guard to extend the life of 

certain legacy assets rather than replace such assets. Discussion 

regarding the possible acceleration of Deepwater is not a new issue. 

In March 2003, the Coast Guard released a report, entitled ‘‘Report 

to Congress on the Feasibility of Accelerating the Integrated Deepwater System.’’ This Coast Guard report found that the 10-year acceleration time-line would be feasible, would save an additional $4 

billion (29 percent) in acquisition costs as compared to the 20-year 

plan, would provide significantly increased operational capability 

sooner, and would provide approximately 943,000 additional (and 

more capable) mission hours above the original 20-year plan. According to the report, to accelerate the Deepwater program in this 

timeframe, the Coast Guard would need an estimated $4 billion in 

acquisition funding sooner, but this would be offset by the overall 

$4 billion savings which would be realized by compressing the 

timeline. 

GAO testified at the June 21, 2005 subcommittee hearing that 

it had concerns that the risks it identified with the Deepwater program would likely be compounded should the program be accelerated. However, a witness from the Congressional Research Service 

(CRS) suggested that a more narrow, ‘‘targeted’’ acceleration of specific assets with proven designs might not raise the same level of 

concern. The committee is supportive of examining whether such a 

‘‘targeted’’ acceleration of specific assets might be possible and the 

potential cost savings it would yield. S. 1280 includes a provision 

that would require the Coast Guard to report on possible acceleration. 

Administration’s proposed bill 

In its FY 2006 budget proposal, the Administration requested approximately $8.146 billion in funding for the Coast Guard. In addition, the Administration requested an FY 2006 end-of-year strength 

of 45,500 for its active duty military personnel. On March 17, 2005, 

the Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard held a hearing 

on the Coast Guard’s FY 2006 Budget request and heard testimony 

from Admiral Thomas Collins, Commandant of the Coast Guard, 

Master Chief Franklin Welch, Master Chief of the Coast Guard, 

and Ms. Margaret Wrightson, Director of the General Accounting 

Office’s (GAO) Homeland Security and Justice Team. In addition to 

FY 2006 authorizations, the bill would provide authorizations for 

FY 2007, reflecting an 8 percent increase over those amounts authorized for FY 2006 across the board. The Coast Guard budget accounts that would be authorized in S. 1280, as reported, are included in the summary below. 

Operating Expenses (OE). The Coast Guard uses over two-thirds 

of its total budget conducting operations in support of its primary 

5 

mission areas: protecting public safety and the marine environment; safeguarding our ports, waterways, and coastal areas; enforcing laws and treaties, including preventing illegal drug trafficking, 

interdicting illegal aliens and enforcing fisheries laws; maintaining 

aids to navigation; and preserving defense readiness. For FY 2006, 

the Administration requested $5.547 billion for operating expenses, 

an increase of approximately $390 million from the FY 2005 appropriated level. The request assumes that $24.5 million would be 

transferred from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to the operating 

expenses account. S. 1280, as reported, authorizes $5.594 billion for 

this account, $47.5 million more than the Administration’s request 

in order to provide funding to the Coast Guard for the operation 

and maintenance of the Coast Guard’s icebreaking fleet. The Administration budget requested these funds in the National Science 

Foundation budget, with the intent that they be transferred to the 

Coast Guard, but did not guarantee that they would be spent in 

support of these vital, national assets. The Committee desires that 

these funds remain in the Coast Guard, thus ensuring that they 

are dedicated to the operation and maintenance of those vessels designed to fulfill the icebreaking missions of the Coast Guard. Regardless of which agency receives these funds, it is the understanding of this Committee that these funds ($47.5 million) are 

designated for the operation and maintenance of U.S. Coast Guard 

icebreaking assets. For FY 2007, S. 1280 authorizes $6.042 billion for this account. 

This assumes that $24.5 million would be transferred from the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund to the operating expenses account. 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I).—AC&I 

funds are used to pay for major capital improvements, including 

vessel and aircraft acquisition and rehabilitation, information management, and construction programs at selected facilities. Major 

AC&I projects include arming helicopters; recapitalizing the National Distress and Response System; implementing the vessel 

Automatic Identification System (AIS); aircraft sensor, avionics, 

and engine upgrades; the Integrated Deepwater System project; 

and various shore facility upgrades to those units in need. For FY 

2006, the Administration requested $1.269 billion; of that amount 

$966 million would fund the Integrated Deepwater System and 

$101 million would fund Rescue 21. The AC&I request assumes 

that $20 million would be transferred from the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund to the AC&I account. S. 1280, as reported, authorizes 

$1.424 billion for this account, with $1.1 billion designated to fund 

Deepwater ($134 million more than the President’s request). Additionally, $8.7 million is authorized to be used for the construction 

of an Aquatic Training Facility for the Aviation Survival Technician (AST ) ‘‘A’’ School, located at Coast Guard Air Station Elizabeth City, NC. Also, $10 million is authorized to complete the Vessel Traffic System (VTS) upgrade for Puget Sound, located in 

Washington, and $3 million is authorized for the construction of 

the Sector Operations Building for Group Seattle, located at Integrated Support Command Seattle, WA. 

For FY 2007, S. 1280 authorizes $1.538 billion for this account, 

with $1.188 billion designated to fund Deepwater. This request also 

assumes that $20 million would be transferred from the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund to this account. 

6 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E).—Funds 

from this account are used for applied scientific research that aids 

in the development of hardware, procedures, and systems that directly contribute to increasing the productivity of Coast Guard operating and regulatory programs. The Administration proposed to 

consolidate the Department of Homeland Security’s requests into 

the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, thereby taking the 

Coast Guard’s anticipated $24 million in funding and lumping it 

into this directorate. In doing this, the Administration violated section 888 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and put at risk the 

Coast Guard’s funding for research and development for FY 2006, 

since they would have to compete for funding within this directorate. The Committee wants to ensure that the Coast Guard is 

funded for the important research it needs in order to maintain its 

mission effectiveness. The Committee does not want the Coast 

Guard to have to compete for this funding within DHS among 

many other Federal agencies. S. 1280, as reported, authorizes $24 

million for this account with $3.5 million to be transferred from the 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to this account. For FY 2007, S. 1280 authorizes $25.9 million for this account 

and assumes that $3.5 million will be transferred from the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund to this account. 

Retired Pay.—Funds from this account are used for retired pay, 

annuities, and medical care for retired military personnel and 

former Lighthouse Service members, their dependents, and their 

survivors under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code. The Administration requested $1.014 billion for this account for FY 2006. 

S. 1280, as reported, authorizes $1.014 billion for this account for 

FY 2006, and $1.095 billion for FY 2007. 

Alteration of Bridges.—Under the Truman-Hobbs Act, the Federal government shares with the States the cost of altering publicly-owned highway and railroad bridges that cause significant obstruction of the free movement of marine traffic. The Administration did not request any funding for FY2006 Truman-Hobbs Act 

projects. S. 1280, as reported, authorizes $17.4 million for this account for FY 2006 and $18.7 million for FY 2007. 

The Committee directs the Coast Guard to re-evaluate the categorization of both the Leeville Bridge and the Kerner Ferry Bridge 

in Louisiana. The Leeville Bridge provides the only access to Port 

Fouchon and Grand Isle, and has been struck 11 times in the past 

year while the Kerner Ferry Bridge has experienced several 

vertical clearance problems. These bridges are currently categorized as non-hazards to navigation, therefore making them ineligible for funds under the Truman-Hobbs Act. The Committee expects to receive the Coast Guard’s findings no later than 90 days 

after the enactment of this legislation. 

Environmental Compliance and Restoration.—This account provides resources to bring current and former Coast Guard facilities 

into compliance with national environmental standards. The Administration requested $12 million for FY 2006. S. 1280, as reported, authorizes $12 million for this account for FY 2006 and 

$12.9 million for FY 2007. 

Reserve Programs.—The Coast Guard Reserve Forces provide 

trained and qualified personnel available for active duty in time of 

war or national emergency and at such other times as the national 

7 

security requires. Reserve personnel maintain their readiness 

through realistic coordinated mobilization exercises, formal military training and duty alongside regular Coast Guard members 

during routine and emergency operations. The Administration’s requested level of $119 million provides resources to fully train, support, and sustain a reserve force of approximately 8,100 members. 

S. 1280, as reported, authorizes $119 million for FY 2006 and 

$128.5 million for FY 2007. 

Military Strength and Training.—This section would provide the 

Coast Guard’s active duty military personnel end-of-year strength 

as well as its average military training student loads for fiscal year 

2006. S. 1280, as reported, would authorize the Coast Guard’s levels of military strength and training for FY 2006 to the following 

levels: 

• Active Duty personnel: 45,500 

• Recruit & Special Training: 2,500 

• Flight Training: 125 

• Professional Training: 350 

• Officer Acquisition: 1,200 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

S. 1280 authorizes appropriations and levels of military strength 

and training for the Coast Guard in FY 2006 and 2007, and includes other provisions to address issues related to the Coast 

Guard. 

TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION

S. 1280, as reported, would authorize appropriations for the 

Coast Guard accounts covered in the bill totaling $8.2 billion for FY 

2006 and $8.8 billion for FY 2007. 

Section 101 would authorize $5.594 billion for operating expenses 

(OE) for FY 2006. For FY 2007, $6.042 billion is authorized, and 

would authorize $1.424 billion for Acquisition Construction and Improvements (AC&I) for FY 2006 and $1.538 billion for FY 2007. As 

a reflection of its support of the Coast Guard’s need to recapitalize 

its fleet of cutters and aircraft, the reported bill would authorize 

$1.1 billion for Deepwater in FY 2006, $134 million above the 

President’s request. Deepwater is authorized at $1.188 billion for 

FY 2007. 

Section 103 would provide an authorization of $1,000,000 for the 

Coast Guard to continue their development of a web-based risk 

management system that links occupational health and safety 

databases to reduce accidents and fatalities. 

TITLE II—HOMELAND SECURITY, MARINE SAFETY, FISHERIES, AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

S. 1280, as reported, would improve the Coast Guard’s ability to 

conduct marine environmental protection, enforce fisheries laws 

and regulations, as well as enhance the service’s capabilities in 

managing the largest acquisition program in its history, Deepwater. 

Section 202 adds a dimension of enforcement flexibility by allowing the Secretary to assess a civil penalty for each day an owner/ 

operator remains non-compliant beyond the first day on which the 

8 

violation of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 was 

cited. The total fines per violation would not exceed $50,000 during 

FY 2006, $75,000 during FY 2007, and $100,000 after FY 2007. 

Section 203 would require the Coast Guard to take all necessary 

measures to maintain, at a minimum, its current vessel capacity 

for carrying out ice-breaking in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, 

and for the long-term recapitalization of such vessels. $100,000,000 

is authorized for the Coast Guard in order to carry out this section. 

Section 204 would require the Coast Guard to submit a report on 

opportunities for and the feasibility of co-locating Coast Guard assets and personnel at facilities of other Armed Services branches, 

and entering into cooperative agreements for carrying out Coast 

Guard missions. The committee directs the Coast Guard to examine Naval Station Everett, located in Everett, Washington, for such 

potential co-location and operating opportunities. The committee 

also directs the Coast Guard to examine the feasibility for the following matters concerning Naval Station Pascagoula, MS: (1) the 

clustering of current and future Coast Guard cutters at the Naval 

Station; (2) locating other DHS resources at the Naval Station; and 

(3) establishing a DHS training facility at the Naval Station. The 

Committee expects to receive the results of the Coast Guard’s examination of these two facilities no later than 90 days after the enactment of this legislation. 

Section 205 establishes a pilot program to conduct mandatory 

dockside crew survivability examinations on uninspected U.S. commercial fishing vessels in at least 5, but no more than 10 fishing 

ports of the United States over the next five years. Those ports 

with the highest number of fatalities associated with the fishing industry will be targeted, but not those ports for which a safety program is already established. This program is aimed to reduce the 

number of fatalities which have dramatically risen in recent years. 

The Committee feels that this program is a way forward in educating the commercial fishing fleet and ensuring that those engaged in this dangerous occupation are competent in all aspects of 

vessel safety and crew survivability techniques. 

Section 207 allows the Coast Guard to conduct international 

training and provide technical assistance to international navies, 

coast guards, and maritime authorities during regular Coast Guard 

operations without additional requests having to be filed by other 

Federal agencies. 

Section 209 requires the Coast Guard to submit a report on the 

feasibility of using bio-diesel fuel in both new and existing vessels 

and vehicles. This report should focus on the potential benefits biofuels could provide the Coast Guard in terms of fuel supply security, fuel price stabilization, improved fuel spill safety, and reduced 

air pollution near population centers. 

Section 212 requires the Coast Guard to submit a report on the 

status of their compliance with the GAO’s recommendations outlined in their report entitled ‘‘Coast Guard Deepwater Program 

Needs Increased Attention to Management and Contractor Oversight.’’ The report number is GAO–04–380. 

Section 213 requires the Coast Guard to submit a report, in conjunction with the President’s FY 2007 budget submission, on many 

aspects of the Deepwater Program. Issues such as acceleration, legacy asset sustainment costs, feasibilty concerns, and anticipated 

9 

mission capability deficiencies are among those which are required 

to be discussed in detail in this report. The Committee wants to ensure that Deepwater produces what the service needs to fulfill its 

missions to the nation and requires the information outlined in this 

report to assist in doing this. 

Section 216 would allow the Coast Guard to continue to use existing agreements with organizations that assist in providing safety 

training and cold water immersion education to fisherman and children. These public outreach programs enable the Coast Guard to 

establish a rapport with local communities, their community leaders, and those in the boating public which prove to be invaluable 

over time. 

TITLE III—UNITED STATES OCEAN COMMISSION IMPLEMENTATION

S. 1280, as reported, includes several provisions that implement 

recommendations of the Final Report from the United States Commission on Ocean Policy, dated July 22, 2004. 

Section 301 requires the Coast Guard to work with other local, 

State, and Federal agencies in developing a process for determining 

when a vessel in distress may seek a place of refuge in the United 

States. 

Section 303 requires the Coast Guard to utilize public outreach 

programs for educating the boating public regarding the pollution 

hazards of two-stroke engines, and to support voluntary programs 

to reduce such pollution and encourage early replacement of older 

two-stroke engines. The Committee would like to ensure that this 

program educates the public on the differences between older carbureted two-stroke engines, and the newer fuel-injected two-stroke 

engines which operate much cleaner and efficiently than the older 

models. 

Section 305 requires the Coast Guard to submit a report on the 

measures it intends to take that would improve its ability to detect 

and interdict those vessels violating the United States Exclusive 

Economic Zone, especially in the Western/Central Pacific area 

where these known violations are continuing to escalate each year. 

This requirement reflects the committee’s concern that from FY 

2000 through FY 2004, the Coast Guard reported a total of 216 

suspected illegal incursions of foreign fishing vessels within the 

Western/Central Pacific area of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, 

yet the Coast Guard detected only three of these incursions and 

interdicted none. 

TITLE IV—COAST GUARD PERSONNEL, FINANCIAL, AND PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT

S. 1280, as reported, authorizes several significant changes in 

the way the Coast Guard utilizes it Reserve personnel, conducts officer promotions, and the process for liability coverage of equipment 

used by the Coast Guard Auxiliary. 

Section 403 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to 

order Coast Guard Reservists to active duty for an increased period 

of time of not more than sixty days in any four-month period and 

not more than one hundred twenty days in any two-year period, 

and expands its ability to use such recalls for a threat of a terrorist 

attack. The provision also requires that for purposes of calculating 

the duration of active duty, a period of active duty shall begin on 

10 

the first day that a member reports to active duty, including for 

training. 

Section 404 allows personal motor vehicles of Coast Guard Auxiliary members to be eligible for liability coverage under Coast 

Guard claims procedures when the Auxiliary member is towing, 

under official Coast Guard orders in support of Coast Guard missions, trailers that carry government-owned boats or equipment. 

Section 406 waives time in grade requirements for officers in the 

rank of Lieutenant (O–3) through Commander (O–5) and ensures 

each officer the possibility of being considered for promotion from 

below-the-zone (deep selection) at least twice. 

Section 410 eliminates the requirement for Senate advice and 

consent on officer appointments of Lieutenant (O–3) and below in 

both peacetime and wartime. The Committee intends that this provision be applicable to both regular and reserve appointments. Additionally, the Committee expects to receive notification of those 

appointments which will now require Presidential approval only in 

order to be aware of all officer promotions in the Coast Guard. 

TITLE V—TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

S. 1280, as reported, also makes numerous changes in this title 

that reflect the Coast Guard’s transition from the Department of 

Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1280 was introduced in the Senate on June 21, 2005, by Senator Snowe (and co-sponsored by Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, 

and Senator Cantwell) and referred to the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation. On June 23, 2005, the bill 

was considered by the Committee in an open Executive Session. 

Senator Stevens offered an amendment regarding officer promotions. The Committee, without objection, ordered S. 1280 be reported with the amendment. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

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

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

JULY 14, 2005. 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1280, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2005. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

11 

S. 1280, Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2005 

Summary: S. 1280 would authorize appropriations for U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG) activities for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts would result 

in outlays of $4.7 billion in fiscal year 2006 and $14.6 billion over 

the 2006–2010 period. (About $500 million of the authorized 

amounts would be spent after 2010.) Enacting S. 1280 would have 

no effect on direct spending. Because the bill would raise existing 

civil penalties for violations of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, its enactment could affect revenues, but we expect that 

any resulting increases would be less than $500,000 annually. 

S. 1280 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Any costs to state, 

local, and tribal governments would be incurred voluntarily. 

S. 1280 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined in 

UMRA, on certain mortgage holders of vessels engaged in commerce in U.S. waters and on persons that transport certain mooring equipment from one point on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) to another such point. Based on information provided by government sources, CBO expects that the aggregate direct costs of 

complying with those mandates would be minimal and fall below 

the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($123 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effects of S. 1280 are summarized in the following table. The 

costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 300 (natural resources and environment) and 400 (transportation). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

USCG Spending Under Current Law: 

Budget Authority/Authorization Level 1 ................................ 6,515 29 29 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 6,104 1,932 786 324 135 56 

Proposed Changes: 

Authorization Level .............................................................. 0 7,293 7,767 4 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 0 4,748 6,421 1,988 969 478 

USCG Spending Under S. 1280: 

Authorization Level .............................................................. 6,515 7,322 7,796 4 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 6,104 6,680 7,207 2,312 1,104 534 

1 The 2005 level is the amount appropriated for that year. The $29 million shown for 2006 and 2007 is the amount already authorized to be appropriated from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for Coast Guard operating expenses and research. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 

amounts authorized will be appropriated for each year. The total 

authorization amounts shown in the table for each year are the 

sum of all amounts stated in the bill for USCG discretionary accounts, excluding $29 million to be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF). (This amount, which consists of $24.5 

million for operating expenses and $3.5 million for research, is already authorized under existing law.) Estimated outlays are based 

on historical spending patterns for the Coast Guard. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

For 2006, S. 1280 would authorize the appropriation of over $5.7 billion for USCG operations (including $119 million for reserve 

training and $12 million for environmental compliance) and nearly 

12 

$1.5 billion for capital acquisitions and other multiyear projects (including $24 million for research activities and $36 million for 

bridge alterations). For 2007, the bill would authorize about $6.2 

billion for operations and nearly $1.6 billion for capital and 

multiyear spending. Of those amounts, $48.5 million would be derived from the OSLTF, but $29 million of that amount is already 

authorized to be appropriated from the trust fund by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

S. 1280 also would authorize appropriations for specific USCG projects, including $1 million in 2006 for a Web-based risk management data system, $100 million in 2006 for the acquisition, maintenance, and operation of icebreakers, and $4 million for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2008 for a pilot program for long-range 

tracking of vessels using satellites. In addition, the bill would authorize the appropriation of $25 million for each of fiscal years 

2006 and 2007 to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for expenses of the LORAN–C navigation system. DOT would use most 

of those amounts to reimburse the Coast Guard for navigation services provided to the Federal Aviation Administration and other 

transportation agencies. The Coast Guard operates the LORAN–C 

system using a combination of direct appropriations and reimbursements from funds appropriated to other agencies. Finally, S. 1280 would authorize the appropriation of about $1 billion for 2006 and $1.1 billion for 2007 for Coast Guard retirement benefits, but those amounts are excluded from this estimate 

because such benefits are considered an entitlement under current 

law and are not subject to appropriation. Thus, the authorizations 

have no additional budgetary impact. 

Revenues 

S. 1280 would amend the Maritime Security Act to raise certain 

civil penalties that may be imposed for violations of port security 

laws or regulations. CBO estimates that the changes made to the 

act would increase federal revenues from civil penalties by less 

than $500,000 annually. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: S. 1280 

contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Some provisions of title III would require the Coast Guard to consult with state and local law enforcement agencies, but any participation by those agencies would be voluntary. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 1280 would impose 

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA on certain mortgage 

holders of vessels engaged in commerce in U.S. waters and on persons that transport certain mooring equipment from one point on 

the Outer Continental Shelf to another such point. Based on information provided by government sources, CBO expects that the aggregate direct costs of complying with those mandates would be 

minimal and fall below the annual threshold established by UMRA 

for private-sector mandates ($123 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Section 206 would require mortgagees of documented vessels engaged in coastwise commercial trade and fishing to submit reports 

to the Secretary of Transportation. Such reports would provide information regarding the qualifications their vessels to engage in 

the coastwise trade and the fisheries in U.S. waters. Vessels must 

13 

have a certificate of documentation from the Coast Guard to engage 

in commerce in U.S. waters. Currently, owners, masters, and 

charterers of documented vessels must submit reports regarding 

the qualifications of their vessels to engage in such activities— 

while mortgagees are not required to submit such reports. The reporting requirement in the bill would affect mortgagees that are affiliated with or have an office within the United States. According 

to the Coast Guard, the mortgagees would be required to submit 

operating documents upon the Secretary’s request to comply with 

the mandate. Since mortgagees already have such documentation 

available to them, CBO estimates the cost to submit the information would be minimal. 

Section 217 would require vessels that engage in the moving of 

mooring equipment from one point over or on the OCS to another 

such point in connection with exploring or developing resources on 

the OCS to be registered in the United States and have a certificate of endorsement from the Coast Guard. Currently, most types 

of vessels transporting merchandise and personnel to and from the 

OCS must have a U.S. registry and be certified by the Coast 

Guard. The requirement in this section of the bill would be a mandate as defined in UMRA on any foreign-flagged vessels engaged 

in moving certain mooring equipment to or from the OCS that are 

affiliated with or have an office within the United States. According to the Coast Guard, few, if any, foreign-flagged vessels are engaged in such activities. Consequently, CBO estimates that the cost 

to comply with this mandate would be small. 

Previous CBO estimate: On June 10, 2005, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, as ordered reported by the House Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure on May 18, 2005. The two 

bills contain different authorization levels and periods. In addition, 

H.R. 889 contains provisions that would affect direct spending. Finally, H.R. 889 contains an intergovernmental mandate (by requiring certain publically operated ferries to submit to USCG inspections, reporting requirements, and fees). S. 1280 does not contain 

those requirements or any other intergovernmental mandates as 

defined in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis. Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro. Impact on the 

Private Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

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

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

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

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

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

S. 1280 as reported by the Committee would authorize appropriations to continue existing Coast Guard programs and make a number of changes to current law. The bill would have little, if any, 

regulatory impact, but a few of the bill’s sections could impact some 

14 

individuals and businesses, and the effects of these sections are 

discussed in the paragraphs below. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Section 202 would amend section 70119 of title 46, United States 

Code, to permit the Secretary to assess substantial civil penalties 

to compel owners and operators of vessels and facilities to comply 

with the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MSTA). 

Enactment of this legislation would expand the enforcement options available to the Secretary under MTSA, consistent with other 

statutes that provide for a separate violation for each day a violation remains outstanding. The total fines per violation would not 

exceed $50,000 during FY2006, $75,000 during FY2007, and 

$100,000 after FY2007. 

PRIVACY

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

privacy of U.S. citizens. 

PAPERWORK

The reported bill should not significantly increase paperwork requirements for individuals and businesses. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section states that the Act may be cited as the Coast Guard 

Authorization Act of 2005. 

Section 2. Table of contents 

This section states the table of contents for the bill. 

TITLE I—AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 101. Authorization of appropriations 

This section would authorize funds for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal 

year 2007 at the following levels: 

FY2006 Amount 

Operating Expenses ................................................ $5,594,900,000 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements ........ $1,423,852,000 

Research and Development .................................... $24,000,000 

Retired Pay .............................................................. $1,014,080,000 

Alteration of Bridges ............................................... $17,400,000 

Environmental Compliance ..................................... $12,000,000 

Reserve Program ..................................................... $119,000,000 

TOTAL ...................................................................... $8,206,232,000 

15 

FY2007 Amount 

Operating Expenses ................................................ $6,042,492,000 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements ........ $1,538,840,160 

Research and Development .................................... $25,920,000 

Retired Pay .............................................................. $1,095,206,400 

Alteration of Bridges ............................................... $18,792,000 

Environmental Compliance ..................................... $12,960,000 

Reserve Program ..................................................... $128,520,000 

TOTAL ...................................................................... $8,862,730,560 

Section 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training 

This section would authorize a Coast Guard end-of-year strength 

of 45,500 active duty military personnel for fiscal year 2006. This 

section would also authorize average military training student 

loads for fiscal year 2006 as follows: 

Training Student Years 

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

Flight ....................................................................... 125 

Professional ............................................................. 350 

Officer ..................................................................... 1,200 

Section 103. Web-based risk management data system 

This section would provide an authorization of $1,000,000 for the 

Coast Guard to continue their development of a web-based risk 

management system that links occupational health and safety 

databases to reduce accidents and fatalities. 

TITLE II—HOMELAND SECURITY, MARINE SAFETY, FISHERIES, AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Section 201. Extension of Coast Guard vessel anchorage and movement authority 

Section 91 of title 14, United States Code, would allow the Coast 

Guard to control the anchorage and movement of any vessel in the 

navigable waters of the United States to ensure the safety and security of any U.S. naval vessel. The purpose of this section is to extend the seaward jurisdiction from 3 nautical miles to 12 nautical 

miles from the baseline. 

A Naval Vessel Protection Zone (NVPZ), under section 91 of title 

14, United States Code, is the preferred tool for establishing a protective standoff distance, or exclusion zone, around any naval vessel in U.S. waters. Under current law, NVPZs only extend out to 

3 nautical miles from the baseline, unlike other security statutes 

that provide authority out to 12 nautical miles. Navy Commanders 

have indicated that increasing NVPZs coverage out to 12 nautical 

miles would benefit their force protection efforts. Whenever a U.S. 

naval vessel travels beyond 3 nautical miles from the U.S. baseline, 

16 

the Navy currently possesses no explicit statutory authority to enforce the Federal criminal law intended to protect the vessel’s 

‘‘safety and security.’’ DOD maintains that its personnel cannot enforce a NVPZ beyond 3 nautical miles from the baseline until Congress expressly amends section 91 of title 14, United States Code, 

to track with the expansion of the territorial sea to 12 nautical 

miles. This provision would close a gap in the Navy’s perceived enforcement authority. 

Section 202. Enhanced civil penalties for violations of the Maritime 

Transportation Security Act (MTSA) 

This section would amend section 70119 of title 46, United States 

Code, to permit the Secretary to assess substantial civil penalties 

to compel owners and operators of vessels and facilities to comply 

with MTSA. The amendment would add a dimension of enforcement flexibility for the Secretary to assess a civil penalty for each 

day an owner/operator remains non-compliant beyond the first day 

on which the violation was cited. Currently, the only enforcement 

alternative is for the Secretary to order cessation of vessel or facility operation until the owner or operator corrects the outstanding 

violation. Enactment of this legislation would expand the enforcement options available to the Secretary under MTSA, consistent 

with other statutes that provide for a separate violation for each 

day a violation remains outstanding. The total fines per violation 

would not exceed $50,000 during FY2006, $75,000 during FY2007, 

and $100,000 after FY2007. 

Section 203. Icebreakers 

This section would require the Coast Guard to take all necessary 

measures to maintain, at a minimum, its current vessel capacity 

for carrying out ice-breaking in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, 

and for the long-term recapitalization of such vessels. $100,000,000 

is authorized for the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating in order to carry out this section. 

Section 204. Cooperative arrangements 

This section would require the Coast Guard to submit a report 

on opportunities for and the feasibility of co-locating Coast Guard 

assets and personnel at facilities of other Armed Services branches, 

and entering into cooperative agreements for carrying out Coast 

Guard missions. 

Section 205. Pilot program for dockside no fault/no cost safety and 

survivability examinations for uninspected commercial fishing 

vessels 

This section would authorize the Secretary to establish a pilot 

program to conduct mandatory dockside crew survivability examinations on uninspected U.S. commercial fishing vessels in at least 

5, but not more than 10 fishing ports of the country over the next 

5 years. The ports selected would be ones in which there are a high 

number of fatalities on uninspected vessels but would not include 

ports that already have a fishing vessel safety program. The purpose and scope of the pilot program would be to examine fishing 

vessels and their crews dockside, to ensure required safety equipVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:48 Aug 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR114.XXX SR114
17 

ment is on board the vessel and that the crew is trained in its 

proper use. 

Section 206. Reports from mortgagees of vessels 

This section would add ‘‘mortgagees’’ to section 12120 of title 46, 

United States Code, and would give the Coast Guard the authority 

to seek information and reports from foreign mortgage holders as 

well as ‘‘owners and masters’’ and ‘‘charterers’’ of Jones Act vessels 

for the purposes of ensuring Jones Act ownership requirements. 

Section 207. International training and technical assistance 

This section would allow the Coast Guard to conduct international training and provide technical assistance to international 

navies, coast guards and maritime authorities during regular Coast 

Guard operations without requiring a specific request from a third 

party U.S. Government agency. 

Section 208. Reference to trust territory of the Pacific Islands 

This section would remove the reference to the Territory of the 

Pacific Islands from the definition of ‘‘State’’ and ‘‘United States’’ 

for purposes of recreational boating programs. The Trusteeship 

Agreement for the Pacific Islands was terminated on October 1, 

1994. Once this agreement ended and new ‘‘Compacts of Free Association’’ were entered into with the United States, there was no request for approval of a numbering system for undocumented vessels or participation in the State Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) 

Compacts that would allow territories to continue to participate in 

the programs. 

Section 209. Bio-diesel feasibility study 

This section would require the Coast Guard to submit a report 

on the feasibility of using bio-diesel fuel in both new and existing 

vehicles and vessels. The report would include anticipated costs associated with implementing the use of bio-diesel, as well as predicted cost savings. 

Section 210. Certification of vessel nationality in drug smuggling 

cases 

This section would amend The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement 

Act (MDLEA) to close a loophole in criminal enforcement evidentiary rules for drug smuggling cases. The lack of jurisdiction by 

another flag State is often the critical element in establishing U.S. 

jurisdiction for a violation of the MDLEA. This amendment would 

allow the U.S. to prove that a flag State which the defendant alleged has jurisdiction does not have such jurisdiction if the flag 

State, in response to a U.S. inquiry, states that it ‘‘can neither confirm nor deny’’ a suspect vessel’s nationality. 

Section 211. Administrative Jones Act waivers 

This section would establish a waiver that would allow vessels 

not built in the United States to transport fish and shellfish within 

the coastal waters of the State of Maine if they meet the criteria 

outlined in the section. The criteria include that such a vessel must 

meet the other requirements section 27 of the Merchant Marine 

Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 802), be ineligible for documentation 

18 

under chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, because it measures less than 5 net tons, has transported fish or shellfish within 

the coastal waters of the State of Maine prior to December 31, 

2004, and has not undergone a transfer of ownership after December 31, 2004. 

Section 212. Deepwater oversight 

This section would require the Coast Guard to submit a report 

on the status of their compliance with the GAO’s recommendations 

in report GAO–04–380, ‘‘Coast Guard Deepwater Program Needs 

Increased Attention to Management and Contractor Oversight.’’ 

Section 213. Deepwater report 

This section would require the Coast Guard to submit, in conjunction with the President’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget, a report that 

discusses possible acceleration of the Deepwater program, including 

legacy asset sustainment issues and costs, feasibility concerns, anticipated mission deficiencies, projected capabilities, and required 

funding levels. 

Section 214. LORAN–C 

This section would authorize the Department of Transportation 

to transfer $25,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2006 and in Fiscal Year 2007 

from the Federal Aviation Administration to the Coast Guard for 

recapitalization of the LORAN–C radio navigation system. 

Section 215. Long-range vessel tracking system 

This section would authorize a pilot project that would allow the 

Coast Guard to conduct a program for long-range tracking of up to 

2,000 vessels using a satellite tracking system. This project would 

be conducted with the assistance of an existing non-profit maritime 

organization that has a demonstrated capability of operating satellite communications systems able to transmit this type of data in 

an effort to aid the Coast Guard in responding to maritime emergencies and threats to maritime security. 

Section 216. Marine vessel and cold water safety education 

This section would allow the Coast Guard to continue to use existing agreements with organizations that provide marine vessel 

safety training and cold water immersion education to fishermen 

and children. 

Section 217. Suction anchors 

This section would create parity for vessels utilizing suction anchors with those vessels using normal anchors. 

TITLE III—UNITED STATES OCEAN COMMISSION IMPLEMENTATION

Section 301. Place of refuge 

This section would require the Coast Guard, working with other 

Federal, State, and local agencies and marine salvage companies, 

to establish a process for determining when a vessel in distress 

may seek a place of refuge in the United States. The Coast Guard 

would be required to submit a report to Congress summarizing 

such process. 

19 

Section 302. Implementation of international agreements 

This section would require the Coast Guard, in conjunction with 

other appropriate Federal agencies, to work with the responsible officials of other nations to accelerate efforts at the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO) to enhance flag State oversight and 

enforcement of security, environmental, and other agreements 

adopted within the IMO. 

Section 303. Voluntary measures for reducing pollution from recreational boats 

This section would require the Coast Guard to utilize public outreach programs for educating the boating public regarding the pollution hazards of two-stroke engines, and to support voluntary programs to reduce such pollution and encourage early replacement of 

older two-stroke engines. 

Section 304. Integration of vessel monitoring system data 

This section would require the Coast Guard to integrate vessel 

monitoring system data into its maritime operations databases in 

order to improve its monitoring and enforcement of Federal fisheries laws. 

Section 305. Foreign fishing incursions 

This section would require the Coast Guard to submit a report 

to Congress, to be updated biannually, on the measures it intends 

to take to significantly improve the Coast Guard’s detection and 

interdiction of foreign fishing vessel incursions in the United States 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), focusing on areas such as the 

Western/Central Pacific where such incursions have been occurring 

but have gone undetected by the Coast Guard. 

TITLE IV—COAST GUARD PERSONNEL, FINANCIAL, AND PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT

Section 401. Reserve officer distribution 

This section would amend section 724 of title 14, United States 

Code, to link Coast Guard Reserve officer authorization levels to 

Active Duty officer authorization levels for grades O-6 and below 

in order to properly distribute the numbers of Reserve officers in 

those grades. The proposal would also make clear that Reserve officers in an active status are counted only against the Reserve component strength. 

Section 402. Coast guard band director 

This section would amend section 336 of title 14, United States 

Code, to allow the Secretary to appoint the United States Coast 

Guard Band Director at a rank commensurate with the person’s experience and training, rather than requiring the Director to be appointed as a junior officer. The proposal would also allow the Secretary to appoint the Band Director from any source rather than 

only from among members of the Coast Guard. 

Section 403. Reserve recall authority 

This section would amend section 712 of title 14, United States 

Code, to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to order Coast 

20 

Guard Reservists to active duty, (1) for an increased period of 

time—of not more than sixty days in any four-month period and 

not more than one hundred-twenty days in any two-year period, 

and (2) for a threat of a terrorist attack. The provision would require that for purposes of calculating the duration of active duty, 

a period of active duty shall begin on the first day that a member 

reports to active duty, including for training. 

Section 404. Expansion of equipment used by auxiliary to support 

Coast Guard missions 

This section would allow personal motorized vehicles of the Coast 

Guard Auxiliary, in limited circumstances, to be eligible for liability coverage under Coast Guard claims procedures when an Auxiliary member is towing, under official Coast Guard orders in support of Coast Guard missions, trailers that carry governmentowned boats and other equipment. 

Section 405. Authority for one-step turnkey design-build contracting 

This section would amend title 14, United States Code, by adding 

a new section 677 which would permit the Secretary to award consolidated Design-Build contracts using a one-step turn-key selection procedure similar to the authority found in section 2862 of 

title 10, United States Code. One-step turn-key authority would 

permit the selection of a contractor on the basis of price and other 

evaluation criteria through a single proposal, in accordance with 

the provisions of a firm fixed-price contract, for both the design and 

construction of a facility using performance specifications. 

Section 406. Officer promotion 

This section would amend section 257 of title 14, United States 

Code, to allow the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast 

Guard is operating to waive time in grade requirements for officers 

O–3 through O–5. Title 10, United States Code, allows the Secretary of Defense this same authority. 

Section 407. Redesignation of Coast Guard law specialists as judge 

advocates 

This section would redesignate Coast Guard ‘‘law specialists’’ as 

‘‘judge advocates.’’ The Coast Guard is currently the only military 

service that does not use the title ‘‘judge advocate’’ for its military 

attorneys. 

Section 408. Boating Safety Director 

This section would ensure that the individual who is assigned as 

the Coast Guard Boating Safety Director will be a uniformed officer 

in the rank of Captain. 

Section 409. Hangar at Coast Guard air station Barbers Point 

This section would require the Coast Guard to submit a report 

that includes a proposal and cost analysis for constructing an enclosed hangar at Coast Guard Air Station Barbers Point. The current station is not enclosed, and is not large enough to house a single C–130 aircraft. 

21 

Section 410. Promotion of Coast Guard officers 

This section removes the advice and consent of the Senate for officer appointments to the rank of Lieutenant (O–3) and below in 

both peacetime and wartime. 

TITLE V—TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

Sections 501–518, 520–521 

These sections would make technical corrections and conforming 

amendments that update various sections of the United States 

Code to reflect the transfer of the Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). This transfer was mandated by the Homeland Security Act 

of 2002, Public Law 107–296, and the Coast Guard transferred to 

DHS effective March 1, 2003. The corrections and amendments in 

this title are non-substantive, for example replacing ‘‘Secretary of 

Transportation’’ with ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Security.’’ 

Section 519. Nontank vessels 

This section would clarify the applicability of section 701 of P.L. 

108–293 (Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004) 

to nontank vessels within 12 nautical miles of the United States. 

TITLE VI—EFFECTIVE DATES

Section 601. Effective dates 

This section would provide that the Act would take effect on the 

date of enactment, except that the technical amendments of sections 501–518 would take effect on March 1, 2003. 

ROLLCALL VOTES IN COMMITTEE

In accordance with paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following description of the record votes during its consideration of S. 1280: 

By a roll call vote of 22 yeas and 0 nays as follows, the bill was 

ordered reported: 

YEAS—22 NAYS—0 

Mr. Stevens 

Mr. McCain1

Mr. Burns 

Mr. Lott 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Ms. Snowe 

Mr. Smith 

Mr. Ensign1

Mr. Allen 

Mr. Sununu 

Mr. DeMint1

Mr. Vitter1

Mr. Inouye 

Mr. Rockefeller1

Mr. Kerry1

Mr. Dorgan1

Mrs. Boxer1

22 

Mr. Nelson of Florida 

Ms. Cantwell 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson of Nebraska 

Mr. Pryor 

1By proxy 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that, in its opinion, it 

is necessary to dispense with the requirements of that paragraph 

in order to expedite the business of the Senate. 

Æ