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

36–400 PDF 2007

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR

2007 BUDGET: COAST GUARD PROGRAMS

IMPACTING MARITIME SECURITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC 

SECURITY, 

INFRSTRUCTURE PROTECTION, AND 

CYBERSECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 15, 2006

Serial No. 109–64

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana 

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLIE DENT, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, AND

CYBERSECURITY

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio)

(II) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Security, 

Infrastructure Protection, an Cybersecurity ...................................................... 1

The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 

Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity ..................................... 3 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi ....................................................................................... 4

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Washington ............................................................................................. 11

The Honorable James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Rhode Island ........................................................................................... 19

The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas ....................................................................................................... 18

The Honorable Mark E. Souder, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Indiana .................................................................................................... 13

WITNESS

Admiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6

FOR THE RECORD

Questions for Admiral Thomas H. Collins ............................................................. 21

(1)

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2007 

BUDGET: COAST GUARD PROGRAMS 

IMPACTING MARITIME SECURITY 

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY, 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, AND CYBERSECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 5:00 p.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Lungren [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lungren, Souder, Sanchez, Thompson, 

Dicks, Jackson-Lee, Langevin, and DeFazio. 

Mr. LUNGREN. [Presiding.] The Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Economic Security Infrastructure Protection 

and Cybersecurity will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 

president’s fiscal year 2007 budget and Coast Guard programs impacting maritime border security. 

Today, we will hear from Admiral Thomas Collins, the commandant of the United States Coast Guard. I want to thank the 

commandant for his testimony and his appearance before us today. 

I know you leave tomorrow for a long trip overseas, and thank 

you for making it a priority to appear before this subcommittee. 

As the lead federal agency for maritime security, the Coast 

Guard has the awesome task of protecting our waterways and securing our nation’s ports. For over 200 years, the Coast Guard has 

done a great job patrolling and protecting our coastlines, which 

total over 95,000 miles. 

The Coast Guard also plays a key role in pushing out our borders 

further from our shores in order to prevent terrorists and terrorist 

weapons from arriving at U.S. shores. 

2005 proved to be a banner year for the Coast Guard, testing its 

assets, capabilities and personnel like never before. The year began 

in January of 2005 when the Coast Guard was called upon to provide support to Tsunami relief operations. The Coast Guard also 

maintained six patrol boats off the coast of Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the nation watched in awe as the Coast 

Guard rescued over 33,000 persons in search and rescue operations 

in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 
2

The Coast Guard performed admirably under extremely difficult 

circumstances, and I want to take this opportunity to commend the 

Coast Guard for its performance this past year. 

But with such performance we want to ensure that the presi- dent’s fiscal year 2007 budget request of $8.4 billion for the Coast 

Guard accounts for the inevitable toll placed upon legacy assets 

while also allowing for continued performance of the Coast Guard’s 

vital homeland security missions, which does include ports, waterways and coast security, drug and migrant interdiction, defense 

readiness and other law enforcement as well as continued performance of the Coast Guard’s non-homeland security mission. 

Specifically interested to hear about the long-term effects this 

successfully arduous year may have had on the deepwater assets 

delivery schedules, including the Coast Guard’s HH–65C Helicopter 

Reengineering Program and the delivery of the first national security cutter expected in fiscal year 2007. 

The Coast Guard’s budget plans to add another important homeland security mission to its repertoire: protection of the National 

Capital Region’s airspace. This may beg the question, how does the 

Coast Guard plan to add this mission? Also the question, where 

will the assets and personnel in support of this mission come from? 

We are very interested in your thoughts on the mission creep 

and would ask you to explain to us why the Coast Guard is the 

best suited federal agency for this particular mission. 

Another are that I would like to explore today is the proposed 

transfer of the drug interdiction mission from the homeland security mission to a non-homeland security mission. I am concerned 

about such a proposal, because time has shown and intelligence 

has proven that drug traffickers and human smugglers often use 

the same routes, routines and techniques. 

A hidden compartment on a ship conceals drugs, people or both. 

In addition to the fact that terrorist organizations utilize the drug 

trade as a means to finance its operation, I am concerned that that 

transfer in categories might somehow result in a loss of assets for 

that mission. 

Coast Guard has announced its intention to transfer the current 

enhanced maritime safety and security team, commonly referred to 

as EMSST, to an interagency effort with the Departments of Defense and Justice with the 24/7 capability to be called the Maritime 

Security Response Team. This appears to be a worthwhile effort, 

but I have questions about the interagency negotiations that have 

taken place to date and how the responsibilities will be delineated 

and chain of command issues resolved. 

Lastly, the committee is interested in learning about the proposed relocation of the Coast Guard headquarters. I understand the 

initial cost will be $50 million, not to mention $306 million GSA 

will be investing in fiscal year 2007. Is this the best use of federal 

resources at this time for this agency, and what will be the organizational benefits achieved through the new facility? 

I have also been informed of an unfortunately accident that occurred this last week involving one of your older rescue helicopters 

not too far from my district on the coast of California. What does 

that say about the state of your current assets and their maintenance and also assets to take their place? 
3

I look forward to the insights that you will provide us on these 

important issues today, and, again, I thank you for your appearance before the subcommittee. 

I would now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Sanchez, for any 

opening statement she may wish to make at this time. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And hello, Admiral Collins. Good to see you again here. Thank 

you for you coming up to talk to us today. 

Whether it is rescuing the victims of Katrina or protecting our 

ports or stopping the flow of illegal drugs or rescuing distressed 

boats, people who are out for recreational reasons, the Coast Guard 

has actually proven to be really the bright light in most of what 

we see in our capability as far as a government agency. 

Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has taken the lead in securing our 

ports in our maritime transportation system, and that is critical, 

especially to someone like me who lives just 20 minutes away from 

the third largest port system in the world, L.A. Long Beach Port, 

where 20 percent of trade that moves from outside comes through 

that area. So I am very thankful for the work that the Coast Guard 

is doing. 

And I think you also understand, and you understood it almost 

from the very beginning, that an attack on our port is something 

that is significant. I remember the slowdown a few years ago at 

Christmastime in the port system where we had all of the ships 

lined up going all the way down almost to the Mexican border in 

California. And just the economic impact of things slowing down, 

I think it cost us, they estimated something like $2 billion a day 

for the 10 days that we had that lockout on the ports. 

So I am very glad that you have all done a good job, have a commitment, have an agenda, have really managed well the port system, not just where I live but to the north up in the Oakland area. 

And I am sure across the United States you have been just as agile 

and wonderful about doing this. All from Katrina we saw the 

bright light was really the Coast Guard. 

I am concerned on a lot of fronts. I am just concerned that your 

agency is taking on a lot of responsibility, that we are pushing a 

lot of new responsibility onto you in particular. For example, the 

mission of airspace security in the National Capital Region. And I 

am glad that the budget includes funding for that, but I am just 

apprehensive. 

It almost seems like you are the good employer that is working 

harder, working better, and so the more you work the more things 

we throw at you, and there are other agencies and things that just 

are not getting the job done and not performing well and therefore 

more and more of the burden is falling to the Coast Guard. 

So I want to voice my support for the development of the Maritime Security Response Team, which will be stationed in Virginia. 

I think it will enhance the federal government’s counterterrorism 

capabilities in the maritime arena. And although the budget only 

funds an east coast team, I really would like to stress the importance of also having an east and a west coast team. I think that 

is important to both the chairman and myself as Californians. 

I am also worried about the pace of Deepwater, the Deepwater 

Program, and I think that decreasing the funding for that program 
4

is going to put the Coast Guard behind in having the fleet, the cutters, the aircraft that you need. So maybe you can during your time 

talk a little bit about if you have any concerns with respect to that. 

I just think that we need to make available the assets that you 

need in order to do the good work that you are doing. 

And, finally, Admiral, I understand that you will be retiring in 

May, and I want to thank you for giving 38 years of your life in 

service to this country. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, look forward to hearing the admiral’s comments. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank you for your comments, and you can understand that we view you as the antithesis of the government 

Maytag repairman. You guys are always ready but you are always 

used. 

I would like to recognize now the Ranking Minority Member of 

the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, 

for any statement he may make. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Sanchez. 

Admiral Collins, welcome. I want to join the chorus of those individuals who thank you and other members of the Coast Guard for 

a job well done during the Katrina disaster that we had. My district and a lot other districts was significantly impacted by it. The 

bright star was the Coast Guard. Thirty-three thousand people absolutely could not have made it without your help and assistance. 

I only wish the rest of FEMA and DHS could be equally as competent about how they do their job. 

The other thing I am concerned about Deepwater. If we continue 

on the program as outlined with the cuts, I do not think we will 

make it. 2026 is far too long to try to retool our Coast Guard. I do 

not know what we will have left to retool if 2026 is the out-year. 

So some of us, as you know last year, supported significant resources for Deepwater in order to accomplish what we all agreed, 

that the Coast Guard is needed. 

I am a little concerned that we get from this administration lip 

service, but when it comes time to really put the money where 

their mouths are, we come up short. I can assure you that a lot 

of us will work hard during this authorization effort to try to put 

additional monies where we know they have to be. Equipment 

wears out; it has to be replaced. So we will work on that. 

I would like to also at some point get you to talk a little bit about 

what kind of equipment the Coast Guard used during Katrina and 

how did it fair under that, and have we replaced we wore out during Katrina? If not, we need to look at that as a source of concern 

for our part. 

And, lastly, Ms. Sanchez indicated that you will, I would assume 

sometime this year, depart from the Coast Guard, and I would 

want to make sure that you know how I feel, along with the other 

members, that you have done a wonderful job. Your leadership has 

been admirable. And as they say, I wish you fair winds and following seas. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 
5

Other members of the committee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

We are pleased to have the distinguished witness before us today 

on this important topic. And if I were to adequately go through 

your biography, we would have no time. 

So I am just going to say that the chair recognizes Admiral 

Thomas Collins, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, to testify. 

And let me just remind you, sir, that your entire written statement will appear in the record. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THOMAS H. COLLINS, 

COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD 

Admiral COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. It is a real pleasure and opportunity 

to appear before you to talk about the 2007 budget. 

We are a very interesting organization. We have got a blend of 

law enforcement authorities, regulatory authorities, military authorities, Title 10 authorities. It is kind of a unique blend of authorities in our government, and it gives us a military, multi-mission, maritime character to our organization and a unique blend of 

humanitarian, law enforcement, regulatory, diplomatic capability 

that we can bring to bear. 

And as you noted, Mr. Chairman, I think we did work pretty successfully at bringing all those authorities and capabilities to bear 

in 2005. I think it is pretty—we do not have a totally unbiased 

view of this but I think a pretty impressive record of accomplishment across our missions. 

We have noted our aggressiveness and response to the hurricane 

disasters in the Gulf, but I would submit the lifesaving got a lot 

of the recognition, as it should, but we also responded to 8 million 

gallons of oil spills. We got the ports and waterways back, assessed 

and cleared and back in operation within a matter of—some were 

moving the next day. The intercoastal waterway was brought back 

to life. 

We worked very, very hard, especially when about 80 to 90 percent of, in some cases, our aids-to-navigation were destroyed by the 

storm, and those were all put back either temporarily or permanent aids to keep the traffic moving. 

So we were busy across the board, whether it was lifesaving or 

environmental protection or our waterways management business. 

Other notable things that I am very, very proud of our men and 

women is our continued effort in our counterdrug operations. We 

have got this exponential curve of success going, which is a nice 

trend. We keep beating each year by some substantial margin the 

preceding year’s total seizure of cocaine. We are surpassing last 

year 300,000 pounds of cocaine seized at sea, and our interagency 

coordination is being refined and getting better and better, our application of intel better and better, coalition forces, et cetera. And 

I think we are really making a dent on that and very, very proud 

of that trend of performance within the counterdrug operation. 

Counterdrugs and counterdrug operations remain a very, very 

high priority with the United States Coast Guard. 

But our people our delivering. You mentioned our role in port security and the implementation of these national ship and port secu-
6

rity code and Maritime Transportation Security Act. It is the biggest regulation in the history of the United States Coast Guard 

that we put into effect in less than a year, and we are getting 

great, great compliance rates out of that. 

The 2007 budget, this is a challenging budget environment, as 

we all know, but I think I am pleased with the presentation that 

we have in the 2007 budget. It does position the Coast Guard to 

continue our record of operational excellence. It does provide for investments that strengthen our preparedness, that invest in our 

ability to be more aware of things going on in the maritime environment, and it builds on our capability to respond effectively as 

first responders. For instance, nearly $100 million in operating expense funding 

to support our operation and maintenance of our cutters, as well 

as bringing on the new assets that we are requiring, and important 

funds within that envelope for sustaining our older cutters. It also includes $89 million to build what we term maritime domain awareness. It is a fancy term to say, how do you get transparency of the people, cargo and vessels in the maritime through 

processes, systems and so forth? So there is investment in that, as 

part of Deepwater and elsewhere, automatic identification system 

infrastructure that we are implementing nationwide. 

And, finally, of course, the big investment, as you have already 

alluded to, Mr. Chairman, is Deepwater. That is just the most important acquisition in the history of our service, back to 1790, as 

far as I am concerned. Incredibly important acquisition that is 

spread over a number of years. 

And this budget does in fact allow us to keep going, pushing 

ahead forward on a number of important items within that budget, 

including the national security cutter, the modernization and the 

conversion of our helicopter fleet, the acceleration of our fast-response cutter, the patrol boat that does so much in the Caribbean 

and elsewhere. We are accelerating that by over 10 years and moving that forward. 

So on a number of fronts, and this is just tip of the iceberg that 

I have mentioned, but a number of fronts that allows us to, again, 

build up preparedness, to get better at awareness of things happening in the maritime and in building the capabilities we need to 

do the job. 

Look forward to the committee to work through these issues. I 

would be glad to answer the questions that you have already posed 

in your statement and be pleased to respond to those specific questions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Admiral Collins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THOMAS H. COLLINS

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. It is 

a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Coast Guard’s FY 2007 budget request. 

The Coast Guard is one of the Nation’s five Armed Services. Its mission is to protect the public, the environment and U.S. economic interests—in the Nation’s ports 

and waterways, along the coast, on international waters and in any maritime region 

required to support national security. The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency 

for maritime homeland security; a role supported by its unique complement of authorities, maritime capabilities, proven competencies, and longstanding domestic 
7

and international partnerships. Executing this role requires a Coast Guard that is 

ready to act, enabled by awareness, as well as equipped to sustain an effective presence and mount an effective response to maritime threats. 

Coast Guard forces are flexible, rapidly employable and able to respond to crises 

with a full range of capabilities. It is a military, multimission and maritime service 

that has adapted to growing mission demands to enhance maritime security while 

continuing to meet other mission requirements. For example, in 2005, the Coast 

Guard:

—Secured the maritime border: 

• Completed verification of security plans, required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), for U. S. port and facilities and vessels operating 

in U. S. waters; 

• Completed 31 foreign port security assessments in order to improve our 

awareness of foreign port compliance with international requirements; 

• Prevented more than 338,000 pounds of cocaine (an all-time maritime record) 

and over 10,000 pounds marijuana from reaching the United States; 

• Interdicted nearly 9,500 undocumented migrants attempting to enter the 

country illegally by sea, the second highest number of any average year in the 

past 20 years; —Enhanced national maritime preparedness: 

• Began comprehensive security reviews of waterside nuclear power plants; • Created formal processes for addressing security concerns and requirements 

involving the siting of new shore-side Liquefied Natural Gas facilities; 

• Established a new Area Maritime Security Exercise program requiring annual local exercises, and is designed to assess the effectiveness of the Area Maritime Security Plans and the port community’s preparedness to respond to security threats and incidents. Funding appropriated for FY 2006 will bolster this 

effort significantly.

—Strengthened partnerships: 

• Established a National Maritime Security Advisory Committee in order to 

provide a strategic public-private forum on critical maritime security topics; 

• Launched America’s Waterways Watch, a citizen involvement program that 

leverages the Coast Guard’s relationship with the maritime public; 

• Deployed the Homeport information sharing web portal, which allows for collaboration and communication in a controlled security environment (for sensitive but unclassified material) among Area Maritime Security Committee 

members and port stakeholders at large; 

• Conducted more than 268,000 port security patrols, 5,800 air patrols and 

26,000 security boardings; and 

• Provided security escorts to over 10,000 vessels.

Saved lives and property: 

• Saved over 33,000 lives in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, one of 

the largest search and rescue operations in United States history; 

• In addition to hurricane response, responded to more than 32,000 calls for 

maritime rescue assistance; 

• Saved the lives of over 5,600 mariners in distress;

Protected the environment: 

• Boarded more than 6,000 fishing vessels to enforce safety and fisheries management regulations, a 30 percent increase over 2004; 

• Conducted more than 3,000 inspections aboard mobile offshore drilling units, 

outer continental shelf facilities and offshore supply vessels; 

• Responded to 23,904 reports of water pollution or hazardous material releases 

from the National Response Center, resulting in 4,015 response cases;

—Facilitated maritime commerce: 

• Kept shipping channels and harbors open to navigation during the Great 

Lakes and New England winter shipping season; 

• Ensured more than 1 million safe passages of commercial vessels through 

congested harbors, with Vessel Traffic Services; 

• Maintained more than 50,000 federal aids to navigation along 25,000 miles 

navigation channels;

—Supported national defense 

• Safely escorted more than 169 military sealift movements at 13 different 

major U.S. seaports, carrying more than 20 million square feet of cargo; 

• Maintained an active patrol presence in the Arabian Gulf in support of the 

U.S. Navy and allied naval units. 
8

More than singular statistics or accomplishments, the above list, in total, demonstrates the winning formula of a military, multimission service founded on core 

operational principles such as flexibility, on-scene initiative and unity of effort. It 

is this time-tested operational model that allows the Coast Guard to meld its safety 

and security roles into a seamless set of maritime strategies designed to guarantee 

the safety and security of the U.S. maritime domain. 

The FY 2007 budget request supports critical initiatives needed to preserve the 

Coast Guard’s ability to respond to current mission demands, while enhancing capabilities to counter emerging threats and strengthen its preparedness across a broad 

range of missions.

2007 Budget 

The above accomplishments are only possible with a Coast Guard that is Ready, 

Aware and Responsive. The President, Congress and public expect nothing less: 

Ready to prevent and respond to a broad range of maritime safety and security requirements; Aware of what is going on in our ports, along our coasts and on the 

high seas; and most of all, Responsive whenever and wherever there is a need for 

the Coast Guard to save lives, secure maritime borders, protect natural resources, 

facilitate maritime commerce or contribute to national defense. The fiscal year 2007 

request delivers on these expectations through its focus on three key investment priorities: 

• Strengthen Preparedness [READY], 

• Maximize Awareness [AWARE], and 

• Enhance Capability [RESPONSIVE] 

The Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) acquisition program remains the centerpiece of a more ready, aware and responsive 21st-century Coast Guard. The 2007 

Budget provides a Deepwater investment plan that provides funding for: 

—Constructing the fourth National Security Cutter; 

—Producing the first Fast Response Cutter; 

—Acquiring the sixth Maritime Patrol Aircraft; 

—Bolstering the network of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) technology; 

—Completing the HH–65 re-engining; and 

—Initiating several essential legacy conversion projects, including installation of 

airborne use of force equipment aboard 36 helicopters. 

While the Deepwater program necessarily invests in capabilities adequate to operate in the often unforgiving offshore environment, it is these same capabilities that 

are instrumental to effective response operations in port and coastal areas as well. 

For example, assets scheduled for modernization under the Deepwater program include every Coast Guard aircraft type. These aircraft, rotary-wing in particular, are 

critical parts of our port and coastal response infrastructure as well as extended offshore operations. The Deepwater program’s conversion and/or enhancement of legacy aircraft and cutters are making an impact now. The operational benefits were 

apparent during the Coast Guard’s response to Hurricane Katrina. As an example, 

three more powerful re-engined HH–65C helicopters flew 85 sorties to save 305 

lives. The converted aircraft can hoist 280 more pounds and stay on-scene longer 

than its predecessor. Similarly, the C4ISR improvements to high and medium endurance cutters enabled more effective on-scene coordination of rescue operations in 

New Orleans, LA, and Gulfport, MS, with local first responders and other Federal 

agencies. 

Strengthen Preparedness. Coast Guard readiness is a cornerstone of national maritime preparedness. Strengthening preparedness within the U.S. maritime domain 

is a core competency and responsibility of the Coast Guard. It depends directly on 

the readiness of Coast Guard cutters and aircraft, infrastructure and personnel. The 

FY 2007 requests funding to preserve and strengthen Coast Guard readiness. Relevant budget initiatives include: 

• Depot level maintenance and energy account: $51.3 million to close inflationary cost growth gaps. These are bills that must be paid; without increased 

funding, Coast Guard readiness will be eroded. 

• Medium endurance cutter mission effectiveness project: $37.8 million to support the Mission Effectiveness Project (MEP) for 270-foot and 210-foot Medium 

Endurance Cutters (WMEC). Our 210-foot and 270-foot cutters are currently operating with obsolete equipment and subsystems that must be replaced. The 

project includes replacing major sub-systems such as small boat davits, oily 

water separators, air conditioning and refrigeration plants, and evaporators. 

The main propulsion control and monitoring systems will also be upgraded. This 

effort is vital to sustain our legacy fleet of medium endurance cutters until they 

are recapitalized. 
9

• Operations and Maintenance for new assets: $30.5 million to fund operations 

and personnel for the airborne use of force program, the first national security 

cutter, new maritime patrol aircraft and secure communications systems; $42.3 

million for Deepwater logistics support. • Personnel protective equipment: $7.2 million to replace obsolete oxygen 

breathing apparatus aboard ships and training centers with safer self-contained 

breathing apparatus (SCBA). Over the past 30 years, all shore-based Federal 

and DOD fire fighters, the Military Sealift Command, all western navies, all 

merchant ships, the U.S. Air Force and all U. S. Navy flight deck personnel 

have adopted and use exclusively the open circuit SCBA. The Navy is currently 

replacing all their OBAs with SCBAs. This leaves the Coast Guard as the only 

fire fighting organization without SCBA for its personnel. In order to ensure the 

personal protection of Coast Guard personnel while serving aboard Coast Guard 

cutters, the transition from using the obsolete OBA to the SCBA is essential. 

• Shore infrastructure and aids-to-navigation: $25.9 million to recapitalize 

aids-to-navigation nationwide and rebuild or improve aged shore facilities in 

Cordova, Alaska (housing), Integrated Support Command Seattle and Base Galveston. Facing a $1.4 billion shore maintenance backlog, funds are necessary to 

improve critical shore infrastructure essential to supporting Coast Guard personnel as they execute missions and operational requirements. 

Maximize Awareness. Securing our vast maritime borders depends upon our ability to enhance maritime domain awareness (MDA). Effectively addressing maritime 

vulnerabilities requires maritime strategies that not only ‘‘harden’’ targets but detect and defeat threats as far from U.S. shores as possible. Identifying threats as 

far from U.S. shores as possible requires improved awareness of the people, vessels 

and cargo approaching and moving throughout U.S. ports, coasts and inland waterways. Relevant budget initiatives include: • Nationwide Automatic Identification System: $11.2 million to continue procurement plans and analysis for deployment of a nationwide system to identify, 

track and exchange information with vessels in the maritime domain. 

• Maritime Domain Awareness: $17 million to support follow-on and new initiatives, including a new Coast Guard counterintelligence program, prototype 

Sector and Joint Harbor Operation Center support, and expanded secure communications system infrastructure. 

• Deepwater C4ISR: $60.8 million to develop and install systems and subsystems that are part of the Deepwater Command, Control, Communications, 

Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) system. This 

system is designed to support designated Coast Guard commanders in the exercise of authority while directing all assigned forces and first responders across 

the full range of Coast Guard operations. This system of ‘‘eyes and ears’’ allows 

us to see, hear and communicate activity occurring within the maritime domain, 

which is critical to deterring and defeating threats before reaching our shores. 

Enhance Capability. Just as important to being ready and aware is equipping and 

training Coast Guard personnel with the capabilities and competencies to respond 

effectively. For example, the advance information required of vessels arriving to the 

United States is critical to understanding who and what is arriving in order to identify potential threats. However, if Coast Guard cutters and aircraft do not have the 

capabilities necessary to deal with identified threats early and effectively, an opportunity to mitigate risk is lost. Relevant budget initiatives include: 

• Deepwater: $934.4 million (total). The FY 2007 request for the Deepwater 

program reflects the Administration’s continued commitment to the recapitalization of the Coast Guard’s aircraft and ships and the network that links them 

together into an integrated system. More capable and reliable cutters, boats, 

aircraft and associated systems will enhance safety and security in U. S. ports 

by improving the Coast Guard’s ability to perform all its missions. Specifically, 

the FY 2007 request provides funding for: the fourth National Security Cutter, 

the first Fast Response Cutter, HH–65 and HH–60J conversions, new maritime 

patrol aircraft, HC–130J operations, sustaining the HC–130H, arming two HH–

60’s and 34 HH–65’s at seven Air Stations, and development of shipboard and 

land-based vertical unmanned aerial vehicle systems. 

• Rescue 21: $39.6 million to continue system design (two locations), preparation (four locations) and installation (seven locations). The Rescue-21 project 

represents a quantum leap in maritime communications technology, enhancing 

effectiveness across all coastal missions. 

• National Capital Region air defense: $62.4 million to establish infrastructure, acquire additional aircraft and fund operations for this newly assigned 

homeland security mission in the Nation’s capital. The Air Defense mission in 

the National Capital Region rests with the Department of Defense (DOD) under 
10

the construct of OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE. Through a Memorandum of Understanding, DOD has assigned this requirement to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard has been directed to execute this requirement on behalf of DHS. Requested funding is critical to stand-up this new 

capability and avoid negative impacts to other Coast Guard mission-programs. 

• Response Boat—Medium: $24.8 million to begin low-rate initial production 

to replace 41-foot utility boats and non-standard boats. 

• Maritime Security Response Team (MSRT): $4.7 million to provide additional personnel and transform the prototype Enhanced Maritime Safety and 

Security Team in Chesapeake, Va. into an MSRT, providing on-call maritime 

counter-terrorism response capacity. This request will also enhance maritime 

counter-terrorism training facilities at the Coast Guard Special Missions Training Center at Camp Lejeune, N.C.

Conclusion 

During the response to Hurricane Katrina, the Nation saw the value of a ready, 

aware and responsive Coast Guard. Rescuing more than 33,000 people in a twoweek period, Coast Guard men and women from around the Nation contributed to 

this historic operation. Of course, that was only the most visible Coast Guard 

achievement in 2005. From record-breaking drug interdictions to continued implementation of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Coast Guard again delivered tremendous results for the American people. Full support of the 2007 budget 

request is vital to ensuring we sustain these results. 

No one can predict the timing of the next catastrophic event akin to Katrina, or 

whether it will be natural or man-made. Nonetheless, history tells us it will come. 

When it does, it will be vital that we have done all we can to build a Coast Guard 

that is prepared to answer the call, supremely aware of the maritime environment 

and poised for dependable response. The Nation saw in 2005 what I have known 

for decades—if we give Coast Guard men and women the training and equipment 

to do the job, they won’t let us down. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. I yield myself 5 minutes. 

On the Deepwater Program, how do you compare it with what 

you were coming up with last year to this year? 

What have been the negative effects, if any, as a result of 

Katrina, both in terms of—obviously, it added more service time to 

your assets, but also isn’t Pascagoula the location of where you are 

going to get one of your major assets? And as I understand it, they 

took a pretty big hit as a result of the storm. 

If you could respond to those two things. 

Admiral COLLINS. Yes, sir. As far as the overall plan, we are 

working on the revised implementation plan for Deepwater that we 

presented to Congress last summer. We are still on course for that 

program. That program adjusted for the post–9/11 environment 

and made some programmatic adjustments, capability adjustments 

to some of the platforms and adjusted when they appear in the 

transition of the overall program. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me just interrupt for a second. But as a result 

of the budget you are presenting to us today, does that get you further along toward your goal of your deepwater assets in terms of 

a timeline? 

Admiral COLLINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. —or how do we? 

Admiral COLLINS. No. It is moving ahead, sir. For instance, the 

national security cutter is our fourth cutter. The national security 

cutter, that is a big one. We are building eight of those. That is in 

this budget. Patrol boat money is in the budget, aircraft conversion 

money is in the budget. So we are advancing along that timeline. 
11

In terms of Katrina and the impact on Pascagoula, there was adverse impact, just like there was for Navy shipbuilding programs 

as well. We roughly estimate probably a 4-month delay or so in the 

first and second national security cutter because of that storm. 

There is impact on equipment in the yard, impact on workforce and 

so forth, impact on the vessel itself. 

And probably some increased costs. We know that somewhere be- tween probably $20 million and $80 million additional because of 

the delay and the problems associated with that hurricane, some 

of which has already been appropriated in the supplemental and 

more we are going to have to identify in the fourth supplemental 

that we are likely to come forward with Katrina. 

So, yes, there has been impact by Katrina, but the shipyard is 

back in operation. I was just down there last week walking around 

that new ship, the Coast Guard cutter, Bertholf. It is about 50 percent done. It is going to be a terrific ship. It is going to have 

vertical UAV capability, helicopter capability, twin stern launch 

with over-the-horizon small boats. It is going to be a very, very capable platform for our missions. 

Mr. LUNGREN. What about the impact of the actual increased use 

of your assets during those two hurricanes? I mean, I know you 

project you are going to use your assets, but those are pretty heavy 

loads. 

Admiral COLLINS. We build to increase maintenance, and operation cost is built into our Katrina supplemental to pay for those 

costs and for some of the maintenance. And as I mentioned, we also 

have an uptick in operation and maintenance funding within our 

2007 budget request to account for some of those as well. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And the question I was not going to ask until I 

was made aware of the accident that occurred off Humboldt Bay 

this past week, I guess it was, you have been warning us for some 

time about the useful life of your helicopters, about the standards 

that you have to use versus what would be allowed in the civilian 

arena. Is this an unfortunate evidence of the need to accelerate our 

effort to modernize that element of your assets? 

Admiral COLLINS. Probably a little too early to rush to judgment 

on that. It just happened. In all of these type of things, we have 

a formal Mishap Investigation Board that will look at every nook 

and cranny of that accident, how it happened. The helo was set 

down in the water. The folks all egressed safely and successfully. 

We have recovered the helo; the engineers say it is salvageable. So 

those are good things. 

The investigation is ongoing, and we do not have, again, even an 

interim report on some of the issues, but very, very preliminary it 

looks like there may be human factors, issues associated with that 

accident, more than a maintenance or reliability issue with the helicopter. But we will know more when we get the mishap investigation completed. We would be more than happy to provide the committee with a full blow-by-blow on that accident. 

Mr. DICKS. Will the chairman yield just briefly? 

Mr. LUNGREN. I will yield the 1 second I have left. 

Mr. DICKS. How old of a helicopter was this? 

Admiral COLLINS. These helicopters, oh boy, I think they are 

about 18 years old, sir. 
12

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. My time has expired. 

I recognize the gentlelady for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Again, thank you, Admiral. 

When you testified before the committee in June, I asked you 

about the maritime infrastructure recovery plan required by 

HSPD–13. All of us are aware of the significance of a shutdown of 

a port. 

I would like to know when it was released, when the strategy 

was released on June 21, the maritime infrastructure recovery has 

still not been completed. So according to the Department, the completion of the plan was delayed because the administration wanted 

to incorporate some lessons learned from the Katrina incident. 

So I would like to know when is the plan going to be completed? 

And what were the challenges faced by the Coast Guard during 

Hurricane Katrina, and what challenges are faced in terms of restoring port operations? And what steps are taken to ensure that 

commerce will continue to flow? 

Admiral COLLINS. I will have to get back to you on our best estimate on when you will get that report. The overarching strategy, 

of course, was published last September, the national maritime security strategy, and there were several moving parts to that, about 

eight different subordinate plans, that being one of them. Hopefully 

it will be a this spring thing, but let me get back to the committee 

with a specific—give you the best date I can on that. 

In terms of Katrina, obviously, there are a whole bunch of people 

studying that, what went right and what went wrong, and just this 

week, obviously, a lot of things coming out. I think that common 

to a lot of them is the issue of unity of command issues and information flow and timeliness of information. I mean, those are going 

to be central features to every—

Ms. SANCHEZ. The whole issue of the port facilities. 

Admiral COLLINS. The port facilities itself, I mean, I think our 

response to the port, I think, and how we dealt with the port and 

got the port and the waterway back in operation, I think a lot of 

things went right. 

What went right was we live and work in the communities we 

serve. We do not parachute in when there is an incident. We are 

there. We have over 2,400 people in Mississippi and Louisiana, for 

example. They are stationed there; they live there. Many of them 

lost their own homes as well. 

They build partnerships in the community, they build partnerships with the American waterways operator, they build partnerships with the pilot, they build partnerships with the salvage operators. 

And when we moved our district office from New Orleans to Alexandria, Louisiana, that was our emergency site, if you went into 

that command center in there, it was a bevy of activity: Sticky yellow with the bulkhead people, the phones in the area, and it was 

really a neat thing to see. 

But if you look at all the special teams working on the subject 

matter stuff, private sector folks wove it in. Salvage folks were over 

here, the waterways over there. Why? Because we had developed 

partnerships in the safety end of our business, in the environ-
13

mental end of our business, in the security end of the business for 

years. And we build collaborating mechanisms, including planning 

for a crisis, and that served us extraordinarily well. 

I will give you an example. The salvage plan that we developed 

to clear the channels and so forth was done collaboratively with the 

salvers who have great insight and expertise. And we did that collaboratively. Within a day and a half we had a salvage plant that 

we floated up and got funded to get the ports open. 

So when we decided how we are going to manage this particular 

waterway with the aids down, we did it collaboratively with the 

users of the waterway. 

We put agreed upon restrictions. Maybe we said, ‘‘Only daylight 

transit or one-way transit,’’ or whatever we had to do to ensure 

safety, protection of the environment but yet get the commerce 

flowing. If you talked to the people in Florida, that east-west intercoastal waterway is very important to them, because all their petroleum products move along that waterway. 

So I was very impressed with the job of our district folks, Admiral Bob Duncan and all his folks in Louisiana, Mississippi, and the 

great, great partnerships. And I was down in Mississippi and the 

Gulf coast, up in Gulfport, walked into the county EOC there and 

the Coast Guard was embedded there two or three days before the 

incident, and there was constant communication between the local 

folks and out at EOC. 

So it is those partnerships, day-to-day partnerships that you 

have that you can build on and use in a crisis situation. And I 

think it worked very, very well to ensure the flow of the port and 

the waterway. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Had you practiced that? I mean, had you done 

these drills where you were integrated? 

Admiral COLLINS. Yes, ma’am. We stuck to our knitting, the basics. We have a plan, we train and equip to the plan, we exercise 

the plan, and we implement the plan. And every one of our districts have disaster emergency plans and hurricane plans that they 

have drills on and exercise and have their partners included. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Great. 

Thank you, Admiral. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. 

What kind of short stick did you draw? Usually when the Coast 

Guard guys are retiring, you get Diamondhead or Old Point Loma. 

You get to come in front of the committees and defend the budget? 

[Laughter.] 

What kind of final tour is that? 

A couple of things. As you know, as narcotics chairman, I have 

very particular things, as much as I appreciate everything you do. 

I am a little concerned about this National Capital Region. I will 

insert my full statement in the record, and I hope you will respond 

to some of the written questions so we can fill out this whole 

record. 
14

But we are already taxed for air resources in the transit zones, 

and the Coast Guard has old—you did not get enough dollars really 

to add this and still do that. And I am very concerned about the 

weakening one mission in return for what is a thankless mission 

and that is, man, you have a mild screw-up here, you are going to 

have every committee down your throat. 

And so I am concerned this is going to be kind of an overreaction 

of the capital region and instead thousands of Americans may die 

because we have taken the helicopters out of the transit zone. Far 

more people are dying, 20,000 to 30,000, from illegal drugs, and we 

have had very few to none on our soil die of terrorism. 

And it is important that we work on the terrorism question, but 

narcotics are part of the terrorism, which then leads to the bigger 

question: How in the world in the budget here did drugs get moved 

out of the terrorism mission when we, when we drafted this agency, put it specifically that narcotics are part of the terrorism mission? And in my opinion, this budget request violates the organic 

nature of this act. Did you propose that or how did this get into 

the budget? 

Admiral COLLINS. Sir, it was sort of a budget accounting mechanism and also how it fits into the out-year budget. Obviously, the 

implication is the homeland security designation in terms of budget 

allowed budget growth over the 5-year plan more robust than if 

you are not in that category. I mean, so that is really the implication is in your budget. 

Clearly, this was an attempt, I think, to get us on the same, or 

my understanding is, budget accounting level as everyone else in 

the Department. Their budgets for drugs are not counted as ‘‘homeland security mission.’’

So purely as a budget accounting mechanism, sir, but I do share 

your concern about what it will do to the glide path, if you will, 

budget glide path for the segment of our mission set going forward. 

Mr. SOUDER. Illegal immigration is listed under homeland security, which is far more complex than this homeland security, and 

you have other things listed under homeland security. Narcotics 

have at least the same nexus. Forget that narcoterrorism is terrorism and defined in your act not to be separated. 

But at the same time, that even the interlinks between the different groups that are moving people, that are moving drugs, that 

can move chemical and biological weapons, are increasingly, as we 

drive them underground, as we seal of their financial tactics, as we 

look at this, it is clear they are moving even more in that direction. 

This is an artificial distinction that is not real and is going to become even more dramatically wrong. 

In my opinion, Director Walter should be screaming at the top 

on this. We are having similar problems with the defense missions, 

as you know, from JATF. We have already seen because of improved intelligence, more drug loads that we are not seizing. We 

are seizing but we are seeing more, and we do not have enough to 

do that. 

And by separating this out, we compound the problem of not 

intercepting. Then local law enforcement is overwhelmed, and they 

are basically, at the end of the day, going to be the same groups. 
15

The drug runners, the trucks that are running the drugs are running other things too. They are smuggling people with them. 

I do not understand how—did OMB propose this, is that what 

you are saying? Is this something Director Chertoff said inside the 

Department? Who can move your numbers around in those charts? 

I mean, I do not think it is going to some kind of CPA at a lower 

level; it has got to be a policy decision. 

Admiral COLLINS. Yes, sir. I think this was a policy decision 

within the administration in terms of having this accounting 

framework. I am very sympathetic with some of the observations 

you have made about the linkages and so forth. 

So it really is sort of the budget folks wanting to have neat little 

categories. And also as you increase the non-homeland security 

designated missions in terms of the budget category, there is more 

downward pressure on the out-year budgets. 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. Quite frankly, we ca not have some—I have a 

business degree and an MBA and have taken many accounting 

things, did our payroll in our business and so on. You do not want 

a CPA make terrorism and drug policy in the United States because of the boxes where the stuff goes. 

Now, I have some specific questions to follow up on the capital 

region, on some of the Hetron helicopters. I very much appreciated 

visiting in Jacksonville and down at JATF as well as in northern 

California. The Coast Guard has been great in so many missions, 

and if you are not careful, we are going to give you the land border 

in the Southwest too. 

Admiral COLLINS. Sir, we would be very, very glad to give you 

a detailed brief, your staff, on the whole initiative for the National 

Capital Region. And I think in terms of the current baseline of effort, it is mission-neutral. And we will lay that why it is, how we 

are able to do that with the inventory of helicopters we have. And 

I think you will see very clearly that really, really minimal or no 

impact on the drug mission against the current baseline. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the gentleman. I also sense that what the 

admiral is telling us is that while it has no impact this time, those 

categories that are called homeland security have a greater slope 

of increase in probably the out-years versus non-homeland security. 

So if you take the drug mission out of it, it is probably going to 

be less dollars in the future. 

The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral we talked a little bit about the Deepwater Program and 

the fact that the request this year is less than last year. And in 

light of Katrina and the fact that some of the areas of the country 

impacted by Katrina were damaged that goes specifically to the 

Deepwater, how are we going to make up for the shortfall? 

Admiral COLLINS. Well, it is approaching $1 billion, the request. 

If it is successful in Congress and it puts us on an equivalent level 

of last year—last year we got in the mid–90s, $900 million, although with 1 percent rescission it did take some money off the 

table—allow us to push ahead on the fourth national security cutter, and it does allow us to move ahead on the fast response cutter 

and a lot of the important aviation conversions, the conversions of 
16

existing platforms that we are doing. And it puts us on the 25-year 

plan that we submitted last summer. 

So it is fairly close to that plan that we submitted last summer 

in terms of the schedule. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So your testimony is that it has no significant 

impact on Deepwater, the cut that is being proposed in the budget. 

Admiral COLLINS. Really, we are not—I mean, we are even with 

last year, for all intents and purposes, in terms of the level, and 

it keeps us on pace with the bulk of that plan going forward. The 

big thing is it does provide for—and one adjustment too is we have 

had some progress on the maritime patrol aircraft. There was one 

added in, there were two added in on the congressional action last 

year. So that end of the program is moving ahead as well. 

Obviously, the issue is—I think the real question is, is 25 years 

the right length of the program and what kind of challenges does 

a program that is 25 years long present to you? And can we wait 

25 years to get all the necessary capability that we have in the 

plan over a 25-year timeframe? That is the issue de jour, and it is 

all about affordability and how it can fit in the budget. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I am glad you brought that up. So if we 

give you $1 billion every year, we make 25 years. Do we have anything left at the end of 25 years, is my question, to fix it? 

Admiral COLLINS. What we have tried to do is carefully manage 

the legacy assets under this plan as well as introduce the new. So 

you will see the substantial investments. For instance, it is over, 

I think, if I recall right, $35 million or so out of that total request 

is being invested in what we call a Mission Effectiveness Program, 

which is a shipyard availability on steroids. It is a long shipyard 

availability program. We pull the crew off and we change the major 

subsystems on the ship—the heating and air conditioning, the sewage system and so forth?so we can keep those ships going until 

they are ultimately replaced. 

So the big change, because of the 25-year plan, has been a more 

robust allocation to the legacy assets so we can keep them alive 

until they are changed. So we have had to do that kind of tap 

dance between the legacy systems. 

Mr. THOMPSON. But is keeping them alive, Admiral, the highest 

and best use of our money or are we using baling wire and bubble 

gum and other things to keep them afloat? And I am just saying 

that if the budget request is not as realistic as it needs to be, then 

some of us are just looking for somebody to say, ‘‘Look, if you gave 

us more money, we could do it in a shorter period of time. From 

a cost-benefit ratio, we could save taxpayers money over the long 

run.’’

Admiral COLLINS. Well, of course, we at the—I think it was the 

very first report that came of the Department of Homeland Security after it was formed, a report to Congress, was on Deepwater, 

and it was a response to a requirement by Congress that asked for, 

could you accelerate Deepwater? Is it possible? Did we have the 

shipyard capacity? The answer is absolutely yes. And what kind of 

benefits would accrue? That report came up and it said, ‘‘Yes, you 

could accelerate. Here is the distinct advantages of accelerating. 
17

What it comes down to is, again, an affordability issue and a pacing issue of what can we fit into the envelope. And that is a decision, of course, much above my pay grade on those issues. 

Mr. THOMPSON. But if more money showed up in the envelope, 

we could get it done in a shorter period of time. 

Admiral COLLINS. Absolutely, sir. And we would get the capability and the performance enhancements much earlier. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And we might be alive to see it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. THOMPSON. In our life? 

Mr. LUNGREN. In our life? Well, that is usually what I say when 

I am alive, my lifetime. 

The gentleman from Washington, the always pensive, Mr. Dicks. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commandant Collins, you have done a great job and I appreciate 

the good work you have done out in the Pacific Northwest. And you 

and I had a chance before the meeting to discuss the situation on 

the heli. 

I am not going to get into that in much detail, but I just would 

reiterate my view that this is a mistake, that this ship should remain home ported in Seattle, Washington, not in my district. But 

we have invested money there in a new pier. If we do not do this 

and it is moved to Alaska, it will wind up having some of the Coast 

Guardsmen crew away from home for 300 days a year. It is bad 

for the crews, it is bad for the Coast Guard. 

And I know that this is sensitive because it involves some very 

senior members of the Congress, but this is a waste of taxpayers’ 

money. I mean, this is going to be $8 million every single year, and 

the cost of building a new facility up in Alaska, at Kodiak, a new 

pier. So I just do not know why some people want to do these kind 

of things when it is just bad policy. 

And I know you have done what you can do and this is up to the 

Congress to resolve, and I just want to say I appreciate your good 

service over your 38-year career, and I am a big supporter of Deepwater, and we are going to continue to work, Senator Murray and 

I, in our state to be supportive of the Coast Guard. 

I enjoy going up to Port Angeles in particular and go out on the 

new safeboat and some of the patrol missions and see how the 

Coast Guardsmen do their good work. 

So, again, I appreciate your efforts and hope that you get 

through this next few months. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral COLLINS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you for the comments. 

Before I recognize Ms. Jackson-Lee, I should mention that we are 

going to go back in in about 2 minutes and there will be 2 votes—

one a 15-minute vote, one a 5-minute vote—so I would hope that 

would could finish this round of questions for the two remaining 

members so that maybe we could allow the admiral to leave. 

With that, I would recognize the gentlelady for 5 minutes. 
18

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased 

that the chairman and ranking member, that we are holding this 

budget hearing. 

And let me say, Admiral, I am not sure if you read verbatim your 

statement but allow me to just briefly say that in your words, ‘‘No 

one can predict the timing of the next catastrophe event akin to 

Katrina or whether it will be natural or manmade. Nonetheless, 

history tells us it will come. When it does, it will be vital that we 

have done all we can to build a Coast Guard that is prepared to 

answer the call, supremely aware of the maritime environment and 

poised for a dependable response.’’

Let me echo your words and applaud and thank you for the heroic, powerful efforts that were made by the Coast Guard. I know 

the Coast Guard is equal to people. To the young men and women 

who risked their lives saving people from roofs and oily, dirty 

water. Let me pronounce to you our enormous debt. 

I come from the Gulf region, I have been in hurricanes and 

floods, and so let me thank you very much for that. 

I have two very brief questions and in addition two statements 

just to put on the record briefly. And that is that as generous as 

you have been with your kindness, I do not find any comfort in a 

$32 million cut in Deepwater regardless of your stoic response, and 

I find no comfort in the fact that your budget has been frozen. And 

I, frankly, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I think we need 

to be in the fight on this issue. 

And, as well, let me just simply do as I will continue to do 

throughout this timeframe is to ask the chairman and ranking 

member but as well this is conveyed generally for the committee, 

that the work of Katrina task force appointed by the Speaker has 

ended. It is now time for a responsible oversight committee, such 

as Homeland Security to have before it, in addition to yourself, Admiral, not on the budget but on the issue of Katrina, Secretary 

Chertoff, the acting director of FEMA, and it is time for us to do 

our oversight, and it is time for us to do it now. I will continue to 

raise this point consistently. 

Admiral how fast could you do the constructing the fourth national security cutter and acquiring the sixth maritime patrol aircraft with additional money? What is the timeframe for that now? 

Am I to see that in 2007 or what? 

Admiral COLLINS. The first national security cutter is under construction right now; 50 percent done; delivered in late 2007. It will 

go through an operational evaluation and so forth. So that is sort 

of the timeline of the first. And then—

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. And you have the money to make sure you 

stay on time? 

Admiral COLLINS. That is under discussion. There is a request 

for equitable adjustment by Northrop Grumman, the manufacturer, 

producer of that ship, that is being adjudicated right now. It has 

not been definitized, and there may be some cost impact. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. All right. With that in mind, that is another 

fight we need to be into. This budget cut is impacting us negatively. 

Secondarily, the sixth maritime patrol aircraft, what is the status of that? 
19

Admiral COLLINS. Of course, that is in our budget, the 2007 

budget. That will give us a total of six of those new planes that 

allow us to implement two air stations. We need three in each air 

station to have a set. And the associated sparing and so forth. So 

with the 2007 budget, we have two complete air stations that will 

be implemented. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. But you will be able to get it under this budget that we are putting forward here? 

Admiral COLLINS. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Lastly, I represent partly in the area of the 

Houston Port, and port security is key and the Coast Guard is certainly engaged in our port security. What is the impact on your 

cuts as it relates to being able to be engaged in ports around America, particularly the largest ports like Houston, Texas? 

Admiral COLLINS. We are full up at Houston, ma’am. That is a 

very, very important port. We are very active in Houston–Galveston, and we anticipate no cuts in terms of our operations in 

Houston–Galveston. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Lastly, I want to invite you down, Admiral, 

and we will engage on that point. 

Thank you very much. Yield back. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank the gentlelady. 

There has been a call for votes. We have 2 votes, one 15-minute, 

one 5-minute, but I would hope that we could finish before we 

leave. 

And so I would recognize the gentleman, Mr. Langevin, for the 

next 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be as brief 

as possible. 

Admiral I want to thank you very much for being here, and for 

your testimony. I have had the opportunity to review it, and let me 

just ask you this: in your testimony, you mentioned that the president requested $17 million for maritime domain awareness operating expenses, plus an additional $62 million for acquisition, construction and improvement. And I am certainly excited about the 

prospect of a fully integrated MDA system that will alert us to all 

ships within range of our shores, as I am sure you are as well. 

I hear that a renegotiated NORAD agreement with Canada, 

which could include a binational maritime domain awareness component, is under discussion. Is the Coast Guard participating in 

those discussions, and what role will the Coast Guard have in that 

effort? 

Additionally, who would be charged with monitoring the maritime domain, and would in fact the Coast Guard be the primary 

agency to respond to perceived threats? 

Admiral COLLINS. Great question, sir. We have, of course, a Maritime Domain Awareness Program Office that is a joint office between the Navy and us. The MDA plans is a subset of the National 

Maritime Security Strategy that was just signed by the president 

last September. 

There is an MDA plan associated with that and an implementation team that is working—interagency implementation team right 

now that is defining all the answers to the questions that you 

asked: What is the architecture, what is the system, what is the 
20

process change, the policy change, the authority change and the architecture to in fact build out competencies for maritime domain 

awareness? So that is playing out as we speak. 

NORTHCOM is involved in that, NORTHCOM, NORAD. We also 

obviously had a robust dialogue with the Canadians on a lot of this 

as well. 

So that team is looking at the architecture, looking at a technology plan, looking at an investment plan and looking at the respective jurisdictions and how we are going to put this together. 

And we are locking them in a room, putting pizzas under the door, 

and they are working hard to develop that game plan. 

I think one of the most important things we can do is clearly to 

get transparency of people, cargo and vessels in the maritime allows us to intervene well before an incident happen. And it is good 

for drugs, it is good for migrants, it is good for counterterrorism. 

Having good MDA, that is good intelligence, good senses in tracking, good information fusion, good command and control systems is 

the heart and soul of good performance. So it is a very, very important effort. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. And you are confident in the Coast Guard’s role 

being front and center? 

Admiral COLLINS. We are going to have a very robust role in that 

along with the United States Navy. We are joined at the hip with 

the United States Navy in all regards for maritime domain awareness. 

For example, for an intelligence function component of that, we 

are co-located at Suitland, Maryland, with ONI. Their headquarters, our headquarters. We are vetting all information intelligence together, collaboratively, and so it is a very, very close, 

close partnership with them. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. And the last part of my question is, would the 

Coast Guard still be the primary agency to respond to perceived 

threats? 

Admiral COLLINS. We will be one of the primary. How exactly 

that is divided up is still to be determined as part of the architecture. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. I think I will end there. I will have some other 

questions for the record. 

But, Admiral, thank you very much for your testimony. Thank 

you and the entire Coast Guard for the great job you are doing. 

Admiral COLLINS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. There are still 10 minutes left before the vote is 

over if any other members have further questions. 

Admiral I want to thank you for your testimony. I have a few 

written questions, as do some of the other members, as they have 

suggested. We will submit them to you, and we hope that you could 

respond to these in writing. The hearing record will be held open 

for 10 days. 

And, again, I would join with my colleagues in thanking you for 

your service and recognizing that your retirement date is not precisely on us but it is on the horizon. And we appreciate the work 

that you have done. 

You have led the Coast Guard through a very difficult time, and 

you have shown us how government ought to work and can work 
21

under extreme circumstances, and we appreciate that. As we spend 

a lot of time pointing out the problems, it is nice to point out where 

something has worked and worked well. 

And also you have built a record of accomplishment that will justify the requests for the asset modernization program that you 

have led and that I think you see how these members feel about 

that. 

So I thank you for that, and without objection, the subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

Admiral COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

FOR THE RECORD

QUESTIONS FROM MR. LUNGREN FOR ADMIRAL THOMAS COLLINS RESPONSES

Deepwater:

Question: The National Security Cutter (NSC) is currently scheduled to be 

delivered in August of 2007. Is it currently on time and on budget? 

Response: As of March 2006, the National Security Cutter (NSC) is approximately 40% complete. When the production contract was awarded in June 2004, a 

delivery date of May 2007 was established. Preliminary feedback regarding the impact of Hurricane Katrina indicates that approximately 4 additional months will be 

needed, changing delivery date from May 2007 to September 2007. 

The projected cost of NSC #1 was $391.6 million for full post-9/11 capability. 

Overall the NSC has not experienced significant cost changes between the budget 

estimates provided in July 2005 and the budgeted estimates provided in the fiscal 

year 2007 President’s Budget Request. 

The Coast Guard has identified the following additional major cost drivers that 

have not yet been fully quantified:

• Hurricane Katrina: The Coast Guard received $20.2 million in supplemental appropriations for damage related to hurricane Katinra. The purpose of this funding 

is detailed below:

Main control system $4.0

Cable assemblies & connectors 2.2

Joiner equipment 1.8

Powered operated valves 1.4

Ship service generator 1.2

Exhaust plume cooling system 1.15

Auxiliary piping 1.0

Steel 0.8

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning ducting 0.6

Switchboards 0.6

Air Conditioning equipment 0.5

Prime mover exhaust ducting 0.45

TACAN antennae 0.375

Hangers, hydraulic systems, control valves 0.36

Equipment and Material Cost 16.435

Additional Labor for rework 3.8

Total $20.235

This cost estimate does not include any facilities, rolling stock or capital equipment that would remain at the shipyard after NSC #1 was accepted by the Coast 

Guard. Likewise, none of this estimated amount is related to any payment of Federal funds that would be the responsibility of Integrated Coast Guard Systems/ Northrop Grumman Ship Systems or their insurers. 
22

• Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) for NSC#1 is pending. The Coast 

Guard is in the process of determining if the budgeted amounts are sufficient for 

the REA or if additional funds above the current estimate will be required. • Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) for ship production exceeds inflation 

amounts above the allowed OMB amounts of 1.85 percent. It is anticipated that an 

annual cost increase of 3–4 percent will be realized through EPA. 

The Coast Guard is working with the Administration and will advise Congress as 

soon as further revisions to the cost estimates become available.

Question: How will the NSC provide improved homeland security capabilities over the High Endurance Cutters currently employed? 

Response: The National Security Cutter (NSC) will have inherent capabilities 

that are a vast improvement over legacy 378’ High Endurance Cutters. The NSC 

will conduct proactive and reactive patrols within its assigned operating areas, and 

will provide a robust Command and Control capability for duties as Commander, 

Task Unit and On-Scene Commander. These improved capabilities include the ability to: • Engage and defeat terrorists and ensure survivability from Chemical, Biological and Radiological threats in contaminated environments for up to 36 hours. 

• Carry and deploy multiple airframes, such as: 1 helicopter and 2 VUAVs, or 

2 helicopters, or 4 VUAVs or any DHS/DoD helicopters up to an including HH–

60 variants. 

• Carry and deploy multiple Over-the-Horizon (OTH) cutter boats. • Conduct boat and flight operations in higher sea states due to improved sea 

keeping capability. 

• Support the full range of Coast Guard missions and Coast Guard intelligence 

element operations through greatly improved intelligence gathering and C4ISR 

capabilities. These intelligence and C4ISR capabilities also enhance the NSC/

WMSL’s self-defense capabilities and facilitate operations with networked DHS, 

DOD, and national assets. 

• Operate of 230 days/year compared to 185 days/year for the legacy 378? High 

Endurance Cutter (WHEC). 

• Operate with US Navy Battle Groups with a maximum sustained speed of 28 

knots. 

• Have a NSC patrol an area of 56,000 square miles a day with its combined 

force package of cutter/helicopter and two VUAVs, vs only 13,500 square miles 

a day with the current WHEC 378/one helicopter package.

Question: Can you explain why the Coast Guard has decided to expedite 

its schedule for the Fast Response Cutter (FRC) and what are the advantages of doing so. 

Response: Increased post 9/11 operational tempo is causing the continued deterioration of the 110-ft patrol boat hulls and increased technical difficulties associated with the 123-ft conversions have necessitated the urgency to acquire the FRC 

earlier. Expediting the delivery of the FRC is in direct response to the current patrol 

boat shortfall in mission hours created by these technical challenges and homeland 

security operational responsibilities. 

With 58 FRCs planned, there will be more FRCs in the Deepwater system than 

any other single asset. The FRC is projected to be the workhorse of the fleet with 

3,000 annual mission hours per FRC. The total system impact of these one hundred 

seventy four thousand (174K) hours is critical for the Coast Guard to meet its homeland security operational responsibilities.

Question: Will the Coast Guard replace the FRCs on a one to one ratio 

with their current patrol boat fleet? 

Response: No, it is not a one to one replacement with the current patrol boat 

fleet. The current Deepwater plan replaces the forty nine (49) 110’ and 123’ patrol 

boats with fifty-eight (58) FRCs. While the final Deepwater plan has more patrol 

boats, it has less major cutters. The plan relies on more capable patrol boats taking 

over some of the missions major cutters now perform.

Question: Will your Deepwater budget address shoreside infrastructure, 

such as longer piers or additional storage? 

Response: Yes. Shoreside infrastructure is funded each year within the budget 

line for the Integrated Logistics Support Domain of Deepwater. For fiscal year 2007, 

$24.4 million in funding has been requested to: 

• Upgrade pier/shore ties in Panama City, FL. 

• Upgrade pier/shore ties and Fenders in Miami, FL. 

• Upgrade pier/shore ties and Fenders in San Juan, PR. 

• Upgrade pier/shore ties in Kodiak, AK. 
23

• Construction of the National Security Cutter Support building in Alameda, 

CA. 

• Facility upgrades for C4ISR equipment installations in CA. 

• Completion of Phase 1 of the NSC related C4ISR Training building at Coast 

Guard Training Center in Petaluma, CA. 

• Construction of the Simulator Training Building at Coast Guard Aviation 

Training Center in Mobile, AL for the CASA MPA (CG–235).

Question: Deepwater funds will test one ship control station (SCS) and 

one ground control station (GCS) for the Vertical Takeoff-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV). How far along is the VUAV development? 

Response: The VUAV system component production and subassembly phase is 

complete, and the project is now advanced to the system design and demonstration 

phase. The next project phase will be system assembly and demonstration, which 

will result in VUAV first flight and testing of two ground control stations. It should 

be noted that Bell Helicopter Textron, the subcontractor to ICGS, has funded development of their own VUAV program. Bell’s VUAV, the same as the Deepwater 

model, was successfully flown for the first time in January 2006.

Question: Has the VUAV designed by Integrated Coast Guard Systems 

(ICGS) been successful tested? 

Response: No, the Deepwater Vertical Takeoff-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicle (VUAV) has not yet been tested. The next phase of the project is system 

assembly and demonstration, which will result in VUAV first flight and testing of 

the two ground control stations.

Question: What is the status of the Research and Design phase? 

Response: The concept and technology development phase of the Vertical Takeoff-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV) project is complete. The project 

is now in the system design and development phase.

Question: How do you plan on working with the Federal Aviation Administration to address flight restrictions and operation of VUAVs in U.S. airspace? 

Response: The Coast Guard and Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS) are 

working closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop airworthiness standards and operator qualifications for the Vertical Takeoff-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV) known as the Eagle Eye. Most of the Eagle 

Eye operations will be in airspace outside of FAA jurisdiction. Nonetheless, all applicable FAA standards will be met by Eagle Eye.

Question: What role did Deepwater assets play in the Coast Guard’s response to Hurricane Katrina? 

Response: The re-engined HH–65C helicopters upgraded by the Deepwater 

project and Legacy cutters with Deepwater C4ISR upgrades were used to respond 

to Hurricane Katrina. On average, HH–65C helicopters were able to pick up 500 lbs 

more payload (3–4 additional people, depending upon the mix of adults/children) 

than their HH–65B counterparts. Additionally, the HH–65Cs were able to take off 

with more fuel than the HH–65Bs. This extended sortie lengths for the HH–65Cs 

by 42 to 48 minutes. Legacy cutters with Deepwater C4ISR upgrades immediately 

entered the Port of New Orleans and established an on-site federal communications 

site for command and control. These cutters were able to quickly sort out merchant 

vessel traffic movements using AIS and took advantage of enhanced communications with DoD assets.

Question: What damages were experienced at Coast Guard facilities and 

to Coast Guard assets in Hurricane Katrina? 

Response: The following table lists the damages to Coast Guard facilities and 

Coast Guard assets as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

Unit and location Storm Description of Damages 

USCG Fire & Safety Detachment, Mobile, 

AL 

Katrina Research Vessel State of Maine, moved from permanent mooring, substantial dredging required. Severe damage to pier, landing craft, 

test facility, utility building and other miscellaneous infrastructure.
24

Unit and location Storm Description of Damages 

Environmental Compliance & Restoration 

Fund 

Katrina Pump & recycle diesel & gasoline and perform 

environmental damage assessment at affected 

shore facilities. Costs primarily at Base Mobile.

Integrated Support Command (ISC) 

Miami 

Katrina Damages incurred as Hurricane Katrina passed 

through Florida include unaccompanied personnel housing facility water damage, administrative building water damage, blast booth 

building water damage, Station Miami Beach 

water damage.

Air Station Miami, FL Katrina Twenty percent of fixed wing hanger roof blown 

off as Hurricane Katrina passed through Florida.

Station Fort Lauderdale, FL Katrina Damages incurred as Hurricane Katrina passed 

through Florida include engineering building 

roof damage, and unaccompanied personnel 

housing water damage.

Sector Key West, FL Katrina Incurred miscellaneous exterior damage as Hurricane Katrina passed through Florida.

Station Destin, FL Katrina Minor storm damage.

Station Panama City, FL Katrina Minor storm damage.

Station Pensacola, FL Katrina Roof damage.

Aviation Training Center (ATC) Mobile Katrina Hangar roof and Gulf Strike Team roof severely 

damaged; communications spaces damaged.

Base Mobile AL Katrina Extensive wind and flooding damage to entire facility. All storage and HAZMAT buildings destroyed. Fuel farm jammed with debris.

Station Dauphin Island, AL Katrina One of two piers damaged, but both are useable. 

Severe flood and wind damage.

Station Pascagoula, MS Katrina Major wind and flooding damage to DECISIVE 

Storage Area, DECISIVE shore tie, MAT building, 

Station building (interior and exterior). All electrical systems to and from pier damaged. 

Units at this location include Station 

Pascagoula, MAT/ESDD Pascagoula, CCG DECISIVE, CGC SHAMAL & CGC TORNADO.

Station Gulfport, MS Katrina The entire station was completely destroyed by 

the storm surge. . .nothing functional remains. 

Estimate of required repairs: replacement of all 

station buildings including garages/storage facilities/HAZMAT & HAZWASTE buildings/guard 

shacks/boat houses; replacement of all pier facilities/utilities; removal of all storm debris; 

clean-up of spilled HAZWASTE; installation of 

security fences/equipment/external lighting; repairs/shoring-up of eroded shorelines; & significant dredging to entire basin required.

87’ CPB Equipment Storage, Gulfport, 

MS 

Katrina Two 87’ CPBs maintenance storage facilities destroyed, all spare parts and outfitting were 

lost.
25

Unit and location Storm Description of Damages 

Air Station New Orleans, LA Katrina Severe wind damage to facility. Fuel system out 

of commission. North side of hangar lean-to 

roof 50 percent destroyed. All spaces under 

lean-to damaged.

Station Grand Isle, LA Katrina Unit was heavily damaged by storm surge and 

wind damage. First floor sustained flood damage and second floor is saturated. 40% of roof 

is down to concrete deck. 26 housing units extensively damaged.

Station Venice, LA Katrina 90% of roof intact, with flood damage to first 

floor. 2nd floor dry, berthing and messing 

areas in good order. Boat house, mooring, pier 

and 87 moorings intact. Fuel tanks are in 

place, but fuel is contaminated.

Integrated Support Command (ISC) New 

Orleans (NOLA) 

Katrina Suffered extensive roof damage and severe flooding that renders the facility useless. ISC NOLA 

may not be able to return to its former location. The site is heavily damaged and maybe 

beyond economic repair. Over the past two 

years, planning proposals have been submitted 

recommending that the ISC relocate to NASA 

Michoud due to an Army Corps of Engineers 

project to enlarge the Industrial Canal adjacent to the ISC.

Sector New Orleans, LA Katrina Sector bldg roof damaged & ground level flooded. 

Office trailers flooded. Small boat shops & 

storage flooded. Temp storage bldg flooded & 

dislodged from foundation. Main building 

looted. Other leased spaces received damage. 

Rebuilt Sector Command Center (SCC) to be 

outfitted with capabilities necessary to restore 

full CG operational effectiveness in New Orleans.

Regional Examination Center (REC) New 

Orleans, LA 

Katrina Office has been displaced due to flooding.

Recruiting Office New Orleans, LA Katrina Leased facility, but damaged property/office 

equipment/records and two vehicles were damaged.

Vessel Traffic Service New Orleans, LA Katrina Equipment and infrastructure severely damaged.

Communications Station (COMMSTA) 

New Orleans, LA 

Katrina Severe wind and flooding damage.

District Eight Representational Facility 

New Orleans, LA 

Katrina Replace damaged siding, minor roof repairs, interior repairs from water intrusion, and exterior 

clean up/debris removal.

DGPS Sites Katrina Following DGPS sites were damaged: Bobo, MS; 

Vicksburg, MS; English Turn, LA; Mobile Point, 

AL

District Seven Aids to Navigation Katrina Many ATON assets destroyed or lost in Hurricane 

Katrina’s initial landfall in South Florida.
26

Unit and location Storm Description of Damages 

District Eight Aids to Navigation (AtoN) Katrina Many D8 ATON assets destroyed or lost in Hurricane Katrina. Replacement includes replacing 

destroyed high priority range towers and lights; 

ocean buoys (with chain & bridles); river buoys 

(including moorings), day markers, ranges, 

automated light structures, etc. Required to 

open all navigable waters to commercial traffic, including: Lower Mississippi River, Western 

Rivers, Intercoastal Waterway, approaches to 

Mobile, Pascagoula, and Biloxi.

Reconstitution of Distress Communications (OE) Katrina Following NDRS sites sustained various levels of 

damage: Greenville, MS; Vicksburg, MS; 

Marksville, LA; Plaquemines, LA; Pecan Island, 

LA; Grand Chenier, LA; South Bend, LA; 

Leeville, LA; Venice, LA; Gretna, LA; Van 

Cleave, LA; Pascagoula, MS; Weeks Bay, AL; 

Fort Walton, FL.

Coast Guard Property Katrina General property (GP), non SWS III & non vehicle, 

greater than $2,500 value from affected Coast 

Guard Units commensurate with the level of 

damage

Small Boat Operations and Damages Rita Coast Guard boats provided SAR, ATON, and marine environmental protection assistance and 

several have been severely damaged from the 

storm. Also extensive (near continuous) use of 

CG small boat fleet responding to multi-mission hurricane relief has resulted in numerous 

outboard engine replacements and overhauls, 

and increased unit and intermediate level 

maintenance requirements due to high operation hours; costs do not fall under FEMA mission assignments.

Katrina impact to Coastal Patrol Boat 

Program 

Katrina Additional delivery costs associated with CPB 

project and impact to support personnel. The 

87’ CPB project has had cost growth since the 

shipping of the USCGC AHI. The cost growth is 

solely attributable to the market conditions in 

the Gulf Coast. Bollinger Shipyards had extreme difficulty securing an ocean going tug, 

barge and crane to load and transport the 

USCGC AHI from Lockport, LA to Honolulu, HI.

Katrina impact to Deepwater Program Katrina Damages to NSC1 and NSC2, FRC & OPC material, equipment and facilities and 123’ schedule delays. Costs to specific damages to the 

NSC production line were covered in the 3rd 

Supp. The contractor recently briefed the Coast 

Guard on expected cost increases on the Cost 

Plus contract (first ship), as well as modifications to the fixed price contract for the subsequent cutters. 

Question: How has Hurricane Katrina affected Coast Guard current operations 

on the Gulf Coast? 

Response: Coast Guard Eighth District commands along the Gulf Coast quickly 

returned to operations following Hurricane Katrina and are meeting mission requirements with some exceptions. Operational tempo for Eighth District units remains above normal due to storm related impacts. Several of our operational units 

were severely damaged by the high winds and storm surge and must be repaired 

or relocated. Workloads at many units have increased 15 to 25 percent due to exten-
27

sive marine debris and an increase in marine casualties. Unit workloads also remain high due to ongoing FEMA mission assignment work regarding pollution response operations. Adequate housing in the impacted areas remains in short supply, 

with 20 percent of personnel working from temporary trailers, and up to 25 percent 

of personnel having lived out of a hotel. Many normally contracted functions including security, maintenance and support, are being performed by unit personnel due 

to a lack of contract businesses.

Question: How has the Katrina supplemental funding been spent and 

what additional funds are needed for Katrina-related damages? 

Response: The enacted Coast Guard Hurricane supplemental funding ($132 mil- lion for Operating Expenses and $74.5 million for Acquisition Construction & Improvement) has been expended/obligated on the damages and costs that were included in the justification provided with the Third Katrina Supplemental. These 

costs include major and minor repairs of damaged facilities, temporary logistics, 

Coast Guard Reservists, replacement of Aids to Navigation, damaged and destroyed 

small boats, and the overall re-capitalization and initial construction phases at 

Coast Guard facilities throughout the Gulf region, with the exception of Integrated 

Support Command New Orleans, for which only survey and design funding was provided. 

The $69.5 million in the Fourth Katrina Supplemental request is broken down as 

follows: 

Operating Expenses ($7.3 million): The funding will enable Coast Guard Reservists currently serving in relief and supporting roles of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to serve beyond March 31, 2006, until the end of 

the fiscal year. This funding will support up to 200 reservists for the period of April 

through September 2006. Acquisition Construction & Improvement ($62.2 million): This amount is to partially fund the relocation and reconstruction of Integrated Support Command (ISC) 

New Orleans, severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina and its associated flooding. 

Initial funding of $9.8 million (provided in the Third Katrina Supplemental) has initiated the reconstruction process by providing for survey and design. The funding 

requested will allow the Coast Guard to continue to actively pursue construction of 

the ISC New Orleans at the NASA facility at Michoud, LA, as well as relocation 

of salvaged equipment from the current ISC New Orleans site.

Question: Does the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget account for any of the 

damages suffered to Coast Guard assets or to construction of Deepwater assets in Pascagoula, Mississippi? 

Response: No. Funding for damages is being addressed through the supple- mental funding request process. To date, the Coast Guard has received $20.2 million 

in supplemental funding to pay for damages to Deepwater projects.

Question: What are the challenges the Coast Guard is facing with the 

labor force in the Gulf region and how will these challenges affect timing 

and cost of Deepwater deliverables? 

Response: The primary impact on Deepwater program asset deliveries is for the 

National Security Cutter (NSC) being constructed at the Northrop Grumman Ship 

Systems (NGSS) facility in Pascagoula, MS. NGSS employment levels have returned 

to 90 percent of pre-KATRINA staffing levels. However, due to personal hardships 

associated with rebuilding efforts, NGSS is experiencing higher levels of absenteeism affecting day-to-day production levels. 

Many skilled laborers (electricians, joiners, carpenters, etc.) and contract laborers 

have been lured away by higher paying jobs in the emergent residential and commercial construction boom associated with KATRINA rebuilding efforts. This creates 

a ‘‘green’’ labor problem requiring NGSS to train new employees and slowing the 

completion of tasks that need to be done by an experienced work force. 

The delivery schedules of NSC #1 and #2 have been pushed out by approximately 

15 and 12 weeks respectively. The Coast Guard is working with the Deepwater contractor to understand the costs associated with this shift in the workforce.

Question: The Fast Response Cutter (FRC) will eventually replace the 

current 110 foot cutters. It was not scheduled to enter service until 2018. 

However, the FY 2007 budget request will fund the production of the first 

FRC. Please describe for us why the construction of the FRCs had to be significantly accelerated and describe for us what we can expect to see in upcoming Coast Guard budget requests for the FRCs. 

Response: Increased post 9/11 operational tempo, post 9/11 homeland security requirements, the advanced deterioration of the 110-ft patrol boat hulls, and increased 

technical difficulties associated with the 123-ft conversions have necessitated the ac-
28

celeration of the Fast Response Cutter (FRC) design and production. Expediting the 

introduction of the FRC will bring required capability into Coast Guard service 

much earlier than previously planned before 9/11. Once the production line is established the projected Coast Guard budget request will reflect construction of approximately two to four FRCs per year.

Question: Please describe the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for 

the existing 110 foot cutters and how is the SLEP is being revised to reflect 

the acceleration of the FRCs? 

Response: Per the Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan, many of the Coast 

Guard’s 110-foot patrol boats (WPBs) will remain in service for the next 17–18 

years. To ensure the WPB fleet remains capable and reliable for the duration of its 

planned service life, a WPB Mission Effectiveness Project (MEP) is needed to overcome the significant subsystem obsolescence and service life issues contributing to 

the high WPB engineering casualty rates. 

The WPB MEP is comprised of two tiers: (1) vessels requiring major hull repairs 

and (2) vessels requiring only minor hull repairs. Each WPB MEP work package includes extensive mechanical and electrical work. The MEP has three major objectives: (1) completion of hull and structural repairs; (2) replacement of obsolete, 

unsupportable or maintenance-intensive equipment; and (3) completion of depot 

level drydock maintenance. 

Each MEP will address WPB hull and subsystem issues on a hull-by-hull basis, 

taking in to account their expected service life to avoid over-investing in a particular 

hull. Therefore, actual WPB MEP costs will vary from hull-to-hull based on the 

physical condition of each vessel, the extent of previously completed work and the 

planned service life of the hull. The delivery schedule of the FRCs is accounted 

for in the WPB MEP schedule. Eighteen of the Coast Guard’s 49 WPBs will 

be decommissioned between 2008 and 2015 without receiving a MEP, as 

these hulls will be relieved by FRCs. 

The fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations, H.R. 1268, conference report included $49,200,000 to remain available until September 30, 2007 

for major refits, renovation, and subsystem replacement for these boats. This funding will enable the Coast Guard to conduct the first 6 WPB MEPs in fiscal years 

2006 and 2007, starting with USCGC TYBEE in March 2006. As future needs are 

clarified, the Coast Guard will request funding for additional WPB MEPs in the 

Service’s budget submissions to Congress. As stated in the February 2006 Patrol 

Boat Availability Report to Congress, the current WPB MEP plan summary is as 

follows:

WPB MEP Plan Summary Cost Schedule Funding Source 

110-foot WPB Hulls (18 ea.) N/A FY09–FY14 Decommissioned per Post 

9/11 Deepwater Revised 

Implementation Plan

123-foot WPB Hulls N/A FY24–FY26 Decommissioned per Post 

9/11 Deepwater Revised 

Implementation Plan

Lead Ship WPB MEP Cost $13M FY06 Fiscal Year 2005 Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations, 

H.R. 1268

110-foot WPB Hulls 2–6 $36.2M FY06–FY07 Fiscal Year 2005 Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations, 

H.R. 1268

110-foot WPB Hulls 7–23 TBD FY08–FY11 Deepwater Legacy Asset 

Sustainment 

Maritime Security Response Team: 

Question: To what extent will the Department of Justice participate in 

the Maritime Security Response Team program? 

Response: The Coast Guard and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are working more closely together. The FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) may 

provide training assistance to the Coast Guard, and the MSRT and Hostage Rescue 
29

Team (HRT) may participate in counterterrorism exercises together to ensure both 

units are interoperable.

Question: Will they exercise any operational control? If not, what chainof-command structure will the MSRT follow? 

Response: No, there are no plans for DOJ to exercise operational control. The 

operational and tactical control of the MSRT will be with the Coast Guard Area 

Commanders.

Question: Will they provide any particular training programs? 

Response: There is no formal training being provided currently, but it may be 

possible in the future.

Question: To what extent is the Department of Defense (DOD) participating in the program? 

Response: DOD is participating in the MSRT program by providing access to 

training, doctrine, and subject matter experts.

Question: How will this team interact with Northern Command? 

Response: The MSRT will participate in selected NORTHCOM exercises and can 

respond to homeland defense missions if required.

Question: Will the DOD provide special training to Coast Guard MSRT 

members? 

Response: Commander, Special Operations Command has issued direction to the 

units under his command to assist the Coast Guard as required in the development 

of the MSRT program.

Question: How rapid would this team be able to deploy? What kind of 

‘‘stand by’’ status do you envision? 

Response: Currently, the MSRT generally only deploys for planned events (e.g. 

National Special Security Events). However, the Coast Guard is working towards 

a 12 hour ‘‘stand by’’ status capability for the MSRT. The Fiscal Year 2007 President’s Budget Request will provide for a 7x24 response capability, dependent upon 

availability of adequate transportation and tactical delivery assets

Question: Where will they be situated initially? 

Response: The MSRT is currently located in Chesapeake, VA.

Question: The Coast Guard seeks to be on scene to any mariner in distress within 50 miles of coast in 2 hours. What will be its response criteria 

for the deployment of an MSRT? 

Response: The MSRT currently possesses a limited maritime counter-terrorism 

capability and is generally only available for planned events (e.g. National Special 

Security Events). The Coast Guard is working towards a 12 hour ‘‘stand by’’ status 

capability for the MSRT. The Fiscal Year 2007 President’s Budget Request will provide for a 7 by 24 response capability, dependent upon availability of adequate 

transportation and tactical delivery assets.

Question: Are there any plans to locate a second MSRT on the west coast? 

Response: Currently, there are no plans to locate a second MSRT on the west 

coast.

National Capitol Region Air Defense: 

Question: The Coast Guard has requested about $64 million in funding 

and transfers to fund this initiative. How will this impact the Coast Guard’s 

current mission portfolio? 

Response: Support of the President’s National Capital Region Air Defense 

(NCRAD) Fiscal Year 2007 funding and transfer requests will ensure no impact to 

the Coast Guard’s current missions as a result of assuming the NCRAD mission.

Question: Will this expansion of mission sets require a legislative change 

given the maritime nature of your traditional jurisdiction? 

Response: The Coast Guard’s role in the National Capital Region Air Defense 

will not require any legislative change. Title 10 and Title 14 US Code contain all 

of the authority required for the Coast Guard to execute both the national defense 

and law enforcement aspects of this mission.

Question: What are the advantages of Coast Guard performing this mission versus other Federal law enforcement agencies? 

Response: Defense of the National Capital Region (NCR) is a DoD responsibility 

under Operation Noble Eagle. Unlike other federal law enforcement agencies, the 

Coast Guard has Title 10 U.S. Code authority, allowing seamless integration into 

North American Air Defense command and control. 
30

A secondary mission is air security / law enforcement. Primary responsibility for 

this mission rests with the FBI and Secret Service. If released from its primary mission of Air Defense, the Coast Guard, under Title 14 U.S. Code authority, will assist 

these agencies with their air security responsibilities under Title 14 U.S. Code. 

The Coast Guard is working closely with all agencies in the National Capital Region Coordination Center (NCRCC) to ensure unity of effort and mission effectiveness within the National Capital Region. The Coast Guard’s entry into the National 

Capital Air Defense mission will benefit the NCR’s residents and general aviation 

pilots by providing a more efficient, safe and effective execution of the air defense 

mission.

Question: To the best of your knowledge, what other federal entities have 

an active airborne use of force mission? 

Response: The Coast Guard is not aware of any Federal agencies, with the exception of the Department of Defense, that have an airborne use of force mission.

Question: While exercising this new mission: Who will order the launch 

of the Coast Guard helicopters? Who will control the mission? Will the assets be armed? 

Response: NORAD will have tactical control (TACON) of Coast Guard assets 

supporting the National Capital Region Air Defense initiative. This tactical control 

includes launch authority and mission control. Some personnel in the helo will be 

armed with personal defense weapons. There is no current NORAD requirement for 

Coast Guard NCR helicopters to be armed.

Question: Will they shoot down an aircraft that enters the restricted airspace if ordered to do so? What if air intercepts are not able to respond 

in time—will they shoot if ordered to do so? 

Response: No. There is no current requirement for Coast Guard NCR helicopters 

to have shoot down capability. Other measures will be taken to respond to non-complaint aircraft. We suggest you contact DOD for more information.

Question: What is the specific date that the Coast Guard will take over 

the NCR mission? 

Response: The Coast Guard’s target start date for initial operating capability is 

during the last quarter of Fiscal Year 2006. That date is contingent upon the timing 

of Congressional approval of a DHS request to transfer $4M of Fiscal Year 2006 

funds to the Coast Guard. Approximately five months after approval of the $4M 

funds transfer request, the Coast Guard will be able to assume the mission.

Question: Where will the assets come from? 

Response: The President’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests funds to acquire and 

missionize five (5) new or used HH–65 helicopters to support the National Capital 

Region Air Defense (NCRAD) initiative. In the interim, NCRAD will be supported 

by existing fleet aircraft (HH–65Cs) normally dedicated to special missions/cutter 

support.

Question: How will the Coast Guard ensure that it can meet its other missions while the requested five helicopters needed to perform this mission 

are delivered? 

Response: The NCRAD mission will be initially supported by existing fleet aircraft (HH–65C) normally dedicated to special missions/cutter support. The Coast 

Guard will exercise the last year option on the current HITRON MH–68 helicopter 

service contract to provide an additional 1000 cutter helicopter days deployed at sea 

through January 2008 while five additional USCG HH–65C helos are procured and 

missionized. Exercising the last year option of the HITRON MH–68 armed helicopter service contract will ensure no negative impact to current USCG missions. 

Reclassification of Drug Interdiction as a Non-Homeland Security Mission:

Question: Is it fair to say that in your experience, drug smugglers and 

human smugglers often use the same transit routes? 

Response: Yes.

Question: How will this reclassification benefit Coast Guard operations? 

Response: The Coast Guard anticipates no benefit as a result of this reclassification.

Question: Please describe for the committee why the Office of Management and Budget is justifying this change. 

Response: To align with other Federal counterdrug programs, all of which are 

not classified as homeland security activities. Additional details are available from 

the Office of Management and Budget. 
31

QUESTIONS FROM HON. CURT WELDON

Question: How did the Coast Guard decide on using the HH–65 for National Capital Region response? 

Response: The HH–65C helicopter was the ‘‘aircraft of choice’’ for the National 

Capital Region Air Defense (NCRAD) mission due its (a) ability to meet NCRAD 

mission requirements, (b) relatively low operating cost, (c) the large number of HH–

65 helicopters in the Coast Guard fleet, and (d) the availability and comparatively 

low cost to acquire additional assets on the commercial market.

Question: Did you consider other options like the MH–68 that the Coast 

Guard currently uses for HITRON? 

Response: The Coast Guard did consider the HH–60J, HH–65C and MH–68 helicopters for the NCR mission. 

The HH–65C helicopter was chosen as the most ideally suited and cost effective 

airframe to meet NCR requirements.

Question: Isn’t the MH–68 already in service and authorized for Airborne 

Use of Force? 

Response: The MH–68 helicopter is Airborne Use of Force air-to-surface capable, 

and being used by the Coast Guard for counter drug operations. However, at 

present, DOD, DHS, and DOJ do not require an armed helicopter to support the 

National Capital Region Air Defense or law enforcement. Due to its maximum airspeed limitations, the MH–68 helicopter does not meet the NCRAD Rotary Air Wing 

Intercept requirements.

Question: Hasn’t the MH–68 successfully conducted similar missions at 

places such as political conventions and the G–8 Summit? 

Response: MH–68 helicopters have been used for port security missions during 

National Special Security Events such as the Republican National Convention, 

Democrat National Convention, and the G–8 Summit, where an Airborne Use of 

Force capability was required for surface threats. However, the MH–68 helicopter 

has never been used as a Rotary Wing Air Intercept platform, as is required for the 

NCR mission.

Question: What is your plan for fielding the HH–65’s for this mission? 

Response: The President’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests funds to acquire and 

missionize five (5) additional HH–65C helicopters to support the National Capital 

Region Air Defense (NCRAD) initiative. In the interim, NCRAD will be supported 

by existing fleet aircraft (HH–65Cs) normally dedicated to special missions/cutter 

support. The Coast Guard will exercise the last year option of the armed HITRON 

MH–68 helicopter service contract to provide an additional 1000 cutter helo days deployed at sea through January 2008, bridging the time until 5 additional HH–65C 

aircraft can be acquired.

Question: Will you take existing assets away from their mission to serve 

in this role? 

Response: The National Capital Region Air Defense mission will be initially supported by existing fleet aircraft (HH–65Cs) normally dedicated to special missions/

cutter support. The Coast Guard will exercise the last year option of the current 

HITRON MH–68 helicopter service contract to provide an additional 1000 cutter 

helicopter days deployed at sea through January 2008, while five additional USCG 

HH–65C helos are procured and missionized. Exercising the last year option of the 

HITRON MH–68 armed helicopter service contract will ensure no negative impact 

to current USCG missions.

Question: Is your plan the most efficient and cost effective option? 

Response: Yes, the selection of the HH–65C for the National Capital Region Air 

Defense (NCRAD) mission is the most efficient and cost effective Coast Guard option.

Question: Are you considering acquiring or leasing used HH–65’s for the 

Coast Guard, for this mission or any other mission? If so, how will you certify that these aircraft meet the Coast Guard’s safety standards? 

Response: The President’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests funds to acquire and 

missionize five (5) new or used HH–65 helicopters to support the National Capital 

Region Air Defense (NCRAD) mission. 

When the Coast Guard acquires and/or missionizes a new or used HH–65 aircraft, 

the helicopter will initially be inducted into the Coast Guard’s Aircraft Repair & 

Supply Center (ARSC). This induction will ensure aircraft standardization and certification. ARSC has a proven record for successfully modifying civil AS–365 (USCG 

HH65 like) airframes into Coast Guard HH–65 aircraft. 
32

QUESTIONS FROM HON. MARK E. SOUDER

New Definition of Homeland Security

When Congress created DHS in 2002, it combined some of the most important 

drug interdiction agencies in the Federal Government. While the Coast Guard’s 

homeland security missions are not new, they were statutorily defined in Section 

888 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–296) as follows: ports, 

waterways, and coastal security; drug interdiction; migrant interdiction; defense 

readiness; and other law enforcement. 

Contrary to this statutory definition of the homeland security missions that includes drug interdiction and other enforcement, the Administration’s 2007 budget 

request categorizes ‘‘Illegal Drug Interdiction’’ and ‘‘Other Law Enforcement’’ missions as ‘‘Non-Homeland Security’’ missions. (Coast Guard Budget in Brief document 

(page B–2). This proposed change clearly runs contrary to the organic statute establishing DHS.

Question: Who has authorized the change of definitions and therefore 

priorities for the Coast Guard regarding drug interdiction? 

Response: Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107–296) authorizes 

the Office of Management and Budget to compile estimates of funding related to 

homeland security consistent with the definition from the 2002 Annual Report to 

Congress on Combating Terrorism. That report refers to ‘‘homeland security’’ as 

those activities that detect, deter, protect against, and respond to terrorist attacks 

on the United States. Upon review of the Coast Guard programs for ‘‘Drug Interdiction’’ and ‘‘Other Law Enforcement,’’ OMB determined that these programs do not 

meet government-wide standards for the definition in section 889, and reclassified 

the funding to ensure consistency in reporting homeland security programs to the 

Congress. The ‘‘Other Law Enforcement’’ mission focuses on the enforcement of maritime fishery boundaries, primarily in the North Pacific ocean around the state of 

Alaska, and does not directly focus on terrorism or terrorists. The ‘‘Drug Interdiction’’ mission is nearly identical to the activities of the Drug Enforcement Agency, 

the funding for which is classified entirely as ‘‘non-homeland security.’’

OMB also closely reviewed section 888 of P.L. 107–296, which clearly states that 

categorizing ‘‘Drug Interdiction’’ and ‘‘Other Law Enforcement’’ as ‘‘homeland security’’ only applies to that specific part of the legislation, not the separate section 889 

which prescribes how OMB should report homeland security programs governmentwide. This interpretation was approved by the OMB Counsel’s office and accepted 

by the DHS Counsel’s office.

Question: Did lawyers at ONDCP, DHS and Coast Guard sign off on this abdication of duty? 

Response: Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107–296) authorizes 

the Office of Management and Budget to compile estimates of funding related to 

homeland security consistent with the definition from the 2002 Annual Report to 

Congress on Combating Terrorism. That report refers to ‘‘homeland security’’ as 

those activities that detect, deter, protect against, and respond to terrorist attacks 

on the United States. Upon review of the Coast Guard programs for ‘‘Drug Interdiction’’ and ‘‘Other Law Enforcement,’’ OMB determined that these programs do not 

meet government-wide standards for the definition in section 889, and reclassified 

the funding to ensure consistency in reporting homeland security programs to the 

Congress. The ‘‘Other Law Enforcement’’ mission focuses on the enforcement of maritime fishery boundaries, primarily in the North Pacific ocean around the state of 

Alaska, and does not directly focus on terrorism or terrorists. The ‘‘Drug Interdiction’’ mission is nearly identical to the activities of the Drug Enforcement Agency, 

the funding for which is classified entirely as ‘‘non-homeland security.’’

OMB also closely reviewed section 888 of P.L. 107–296, which clearly states that 

categorizing ‘‘Drug Interdiction’’ and ‘‘Other Law Enforcement’’ as ‘‘homeland security’’ only applies to that specific part of the legislation, not the separate section 889 

which prescribes how OMB should report homeland security programs governmentwide. This interpretation was approved by the OMB Counsel’s office and accepted 

by the DHS Counsel’s office. ONDCP was also aware of the change.

Question: Does the Coast Guard support the proposed new change in categories for its Drug Interdiction mission? 

Response: The Coast Guard supports the President’s Budget. Regardless of budget classification, the mission to secure and protect the maritime domain against all 

threats, including illegal narcotics, is critical to the security of the United States. 

The Coast Guard continues to have unprecedented success in the counterdrug mission. The Coast Guard, working with its interagency and international partners, re-
33

moved 338,206 pounds of cocaine (including nearly 303,662 pounds seized) during 

fiscal year 2005—a record year. This success will be maintained by pursuing the 

three principles of its 10-year Strategic Counter Drug Plan known as STEEL WEB: 

• Pursuing more tactical, actionable intelligence, then responding with flexible 

intelligence-driven operations; 

• Leveraging technology by fast tracking new tools and bringing more capable 

assets to the fight; and 

• International engagement with our counterdrug partner nations, which 

speeds up the seizure and disposition process and gains U.S. jurisdiction to help 

feed the intelligence cycle.

Question: How will the proposed change impact the administration, management, funding and operations of the Coast Guard’s drug interdiction 

mission? 

Response: The President develops his budget proposal annually to identify the 

highest-priority needs of the country. The change in homeland security classification 

of the Coast Guard ‘‘Drug Interdiction’’ budget was made to ensure consistent reporting of homeland security funding in the budget document, not to signal a revision to the President’s commitment to funding the effort to eliminate the illegal importation of drugs into the country. 

The revision to the homeland security classification of the Drug Interdiction budget will also have no effect on the Coast Guard’s ability to execute this mission, or 

on the agency’s effectiveness in reducing the illegal drug trade in the maritime environment.

Question: How will this change impact the Coast Guard Drug Interdiction budget? Will it impact out-year budget projections? 

Response: By design, the Coast Guard is a multi-mission, military service. While 

it has developed cost models that allow the allocation of asset hours and resources 

to its eleven mission-programs, it is appropriated dollars through general discretionary accounts (e.g., Operating Expenses; Acquisition, Construction and Improvements; etc.) that allow the Coast Guard to efficiently and effectively execute its 

broad mission portfolio and surge assets to meet maritime threats. Coast Guard cutters and aircraft rarely go to sea for a single purpose, but rather typically enforce 

all applicable laws and treaties and protect the safety and security of the maritime 

domain. For example, a Coast Guard cutter on patrol in the Caribbean or Eastern 

Pacific transit zone may in a single week make a maritime drug seizure, intercept 

undocumented migrants at sea, and respond to a vessel in distress. 

This multi-mission character makes the whole of the Coast Guard’s mission-programs much greater than the sum of its individual parts. It also challenges traditional budget classification. The Coast Guard’s multi-mission character is a trusted 

and tested operational model evidenced most recently in the service’s stellar response during hurricane Katrina. The last thing we would want is Coast Guard 

operational commanders limited in their ability to respond because of artificial 

budget ’stovepipes.? 

The Department and Coast Guard remain focused on effective mission execution 

and performance results. While I cannot speculate on future impacts, if any, to the 

Coast Guard’s drug interdiction mission, my immediate concern is that we fully 

fund the President’s Budget Request for the Coast Guard each year. Unfortunately, 

the trend is in the wrong direction. The enacted fiscal year 2006 budget was almost 

$150 million below the President’s Request, including more than a $33 million reduction to the Coast Guard’s primary recapitalization effort—Deepwater. Several of 

the reductions directly affect drug interdiction effectiveness, such as deploying airborne use of force capability and C4ISR improvements. Coast Guard capability and 

capacity provides a unique and effective instrument of Homeland Security. As a result, I?m confident that preserving Coast Guard readiness and capability to conduct 

all missions will continue to be an Administration budget priority. I ask for your 

continued staunch support to ensure it also remains a Congressional budget priority.

National Capital Region Air Defense mission 

The President’s 2007 budget proposes $62.44 million for the establishment of a 

permanent National Capital Region Air Defense (NCRAD) program, a function being 

transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard from Customs and Border Protection. On November 2, 2005, I requested detailed planning documents from the Coast Guard regarding the proposed new mission. To date, I have still not received any further information pertaining to these plans. 

Question: What is the Coast Guard’s plan to support the NCRAD mission? 
34

Response: In the President’s FY07 Budget, funding is requested to acquire, staff 

and operate five (5) HH–65 helicopters in support of the National Capital Region 

Air Defense (NCRAD) mission. These helicopters will be assigned to CGAS Atlantic 

City and conduct NCRAD missions from a Forward Operating Base (FOB) at Ronald 

Reagan Washington National Airport. Operating under NORAD tactical control, 

three of the five helicopters will be located at National’s Signature Aviation hangar 

with two crews on a 24/7 strip alert. 

The target USCG start date is late fiscal year 2006. Approximately five months 

after Congressional approval of a pending DHS request to transfer $4M in fiscal 

year 2006 funds, Coast Guard will take over the mission. Until additional HH–65C 

helicopters are acquired, existing fleet aircraft currently used to support special missions and cutter deployments will be used to support this mission. The Coast Guard 

intends to exercise the last option year of the HITRON MH–68 service contract to 

provide an additional 1000 Armed Helicopter Cutter Days Deployed at Sea as a 

bridging strategy, ensuring no impact to existing missions until the additional helicopters can be acquired and missionized.

Question: What is the implementation date? 

Response: The Coast Guard’s target start date for initial operating capability is 

late in Fiscal Year 2006. The exact date is contingent upon the timing of Congressional approval of a DHS request to transfer $4M of Fiscal Year 2006 funds to the 

Coast Guard. Approximately five months after congressional approval to transfer 

funding, USCG will be able to assume the mission.

Question: Where will the five aircraft funded in the FY 2007 budget come 

from? 

Response: An open market acquisition competition will be used to procure five 

(5) HH–65 helicopters. The supplier must either provide missioned HH65C helicopters, or 5 new or used AS–365 N3 airframes which USCG can modify at the 

Coast Guard’s Aircraft Repair & Supply Center (ARSC) to USCG specifications. The 

decision to buy new aircraft or buy airframes and missionize them will be based on 

information received from a pending Industry Request for Information. 

HH–65C helicopters are required for fleet standardization, which ensures efficiencies in logistics, reduces maintenance costs, and standardizes training for pilots 

and aircrew.

Question: Will the Coast Guard purchase new aircraft, or will aircraft be 

diverted from drug interdiction missions and in subsequent years be replaced by new acquisitions? 

Response: The President’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests funds to acquire and 

missionize five (5) additional HH–65 helicopters to support the National Capital Region Air Defense (NCRAD). The NCRAD mission will be initially supported by existing fleet aircraft (HH–65C) normally dedicated to special missions/cutter support. 

The Coast Guard will exercise the last year option of the current HITRON MH–68 

helicopter service contract to provide an additional 1000 cutter helicopter days deployed at sea through January 2008, while five additional USCG HH–65C helos are 

procured and missionized. 

Exercising the last year option of the HITRON MH–68 armed helicopter service 

contract will ensure no impact to current USCG missions.

Question: The FY 2007 calls for the procurement of five helicopters to 

support the NCRAD mission, but a DHS Budget Officer has said the program needs seven. Where will the other two aircraft come from, and will 

they be diverted from interdiction efforts? 

Response: The acquisition of two additional HH–65 helicopters to support the 

National Capitol Region Air Defense (NCRAD) mission will be requested in future 

Coast Guard budgets. These last two aircraft will be used to support increased 

training needs at Aviation Training Center Mobile, AL and to add an additional 

depot level support aircraft. In the interim there will be no need to divert operational aircraft to fill these needs.

Deepwater Recapitalization 

This year’s budget proposal includes $934.43 million for the Deepwater Recapitalization project. The 2007 Coast Guard Budget in Brief describes this funding as supporting the ordering of additional cutters of varying abilities, additional maritime 

patrol aircraft, and the completion of the engine upgrade program for the HH–65 

helicopters. The Coast Guard’s ability to perform interdiction is spread very thin by 

the limited number and age of its assets. 

Question: Will these new cutters arrive in time to alleviate the down time 

caused by deteriorating legacy cutters and aircraft? 
35

Response: As explained in the Patrol Boat Availability Report, the schedule does 

not alleviate the gap in required cutter hours until at least 2009. Other interdiction 

platforms are similarly affected, however, and the Coast Guard is committed to 

maintaining the operational capabilities of its legacy assets and minimizing any 

downtime caused by traditional long-lead construction times and deteriorating legacy assets, through legacy sustainment projects. These sustainment projects are designed to maintain existing legacy asset capabilities and ensure the reliability of 

these assets until they are replaced by their Deepwater counterparts. The Coast 

Guard has additionally taken steps to mitigate the impacts of these projects to the 

largest extent possible. For example, the Coast Guard has limited the number of 

cutter sustainment projects in each fiscal year to maintain sufficient operational 

asset capacity.

Question: Will the Coast Guard experience significant ‘‘gaps’’ in capabilities due to the current Deepwater production schedule? 

Response: The Coast Guard’s Operational Gap Analysis Report details forecast 

gaps in cutter and aircraft operational hours during the transition to its new deepwater fleet. Because of increased efficiencies that have resulted from Deepwater upgrades to legacy equipment, Coast Guard hopes to minimize the effect of these gaps 

on mission performance. The transition schedule minimizes gaps in operational capabilities, but some gaps are unavoidable as some legacy assets are taken offline 

for sustainment projects. Also some delays are encountered while newly delivered 

assets and crews are being trained and tested before becoming fully operational. The 

Coast Guard has taken every effort to minimize fleet impact during this transition, 

but some unavoidable operational gaps remain. Full funding of the Deepwater 

project within the annual President’s Budget Request is also critical to minimizing 

these gaps.

Maritime Patrol Aircraft 

DoD maritime patrol aircraft hours operating in the transit zone have drastically 

decreased over the past three years, for various reasons, from a high of 5,964 hours 

in 2002 to only 1,500 hours in 2005. The Coast Guard, CBP, and allies have tried 

to fill this gap, but simply do not have the additional assets needed. To respond to 

this situation the FY 2007 includes the acquisition of three CASA 235 aircraft to 

augment MPA for Deepwater. 

Question: Are three aircraft included in the FY 2007 budget enough to 

meet the Coast Guard’s and JIATF-South’s immediate need for aircraft to 

perform the MPA (detection, monitoring, and interdiction) mission? 

Response: The President’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests $77.6M for the acquisition of one aircraft, which would be the Coast Guard’s sixth CASA. In addition, 

this request funds logistics, spare parts, and support for CASAs four through six. 

The Fiscal Year 2007 budget would also fund two quarters of operations for the 

third CASA aircraft. Operating funds for the first two aircraft were contained in the 

Fiscal Year 2006 budget. 

The first three CASAs are forecast to be fully operational late in Fiscal Year 2007. 

Until that time the CASA flight hours will be dedicated to training, Design Testing 

and Evaluation and Operational Testing and Evaluation flights that must be done 

prior to introducing these new aircraft to the Coast Guard fleet. Once fully operational, each CASA aircraft will provide 1200 MPA hours per year.

Question: What type of palletized radar and sensing equipment will be installed on these aircraft? 

Response: The sensors on the CASA CN235 Maritime Patrol Aircraft include: 

• EDO ALR–95(V) 2 Electronic Support Measures (ESM), 

• Saab R4A Automatic Identification System (AIS) Airborne Transmitter, 

• FLIR Systems Star Safire III Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR), 

• Telephonic APS–143B(V) 3 Multi-Mode Radar (MMR), and 

• Rockwell Collins DF–430F Direction Finder (DF).

Question: How do these aircraft and their sensor packages compare to 

the U.S. Navy and Customs and Border Protection P–3 aircraft and the current sensor package utilized in the HC–130? 

Response: The U.S. Navy and CBP P–3, Coast Guard HC–130, and the Coast 

Guard CASA 235–300M aircraft, with some variances, have the same basic sensor 

capability. All three aircraft types have surface search radar and an Electro Optical 

/ Infrared package. The Coast Guard’s CASA aircraft will additionally have 

connectivity to the Common Operating Picture (COP) and will be able to display the 

local tactical picture, increasing situational awareness. The local tactical picture simultaneously blends electronic inputs from the Automatic Identification System, 
36

surface search radar, an Electronic Surveillance Measures / Specific Emitter Identification package, and the COP with aerial charts.

The FY 2007 budget also includes funding to missionize and upgrade the sensors 

in Coast Guard HC–130 MPA aircraft. 

Question: What type of palletized radar and sensing equipment will be installed on these aircraft? 

Response: The HC–130H has a mission pallet that receives sensor data from a 

surface search radar and an electro-optical infra-red (EO/IR) sensor. The fiscal year 

2007 President’s budget request includes funding to replace the aging surface search 

radar and obsolete avionics suite.

Æ