U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

20–498 PDF 2017

COAST GUARD MISSION NEEDS AND RESOURCES 

ALLOCATION 

(114–44) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 14, 2016 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

JANICE HAHN, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Admiral Charles D. Michel, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard .................... 3 

Jennifer A. Grover, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 3 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Admiral Charles D. Michel ..................................................................................... 35 

Jennifer A. Grover ................................................................................................... 48 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Admiral Charles D. Michel, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, responses 

to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Duncan Hunter of California .................................................................. 40 

Hon. Don Young of Alaska ............................................................................... 43 

Hon Daniel Webster of Florida ........................................................................ 46 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio .................................................................................... 47 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 20498.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 20498.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 20498.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 20498.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 20498.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 20498.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 20498.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 20498.008
xii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 20498.009
xiii 


Insert offset folio 10 here 20498.010
(1) 

COAST GUARD MISSION NEEDS AND 

RESOURCES ALLOCATION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HUNTER. The subcommittee will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting this morning to review the Coast Guard mission needs and report released by the GAO reviewing how the 

Service allocates its resources. Under section 2, title 14, the Coast 

Guard is responsible for a wide range of missions, from search and 

rescue, icebreaking, and marine environmental protection, to port 

security and drug interdiction. The Coast Guard is using a strategic planning process which determines mission priorities based 

on risk and helps guide the Service in allocating resources among 

its statutory missions. 

GAO noted in its report that not all of the processes used by the 

Service to allocate its resources have been transparent. And I actually went through some of the stuff. The MNS and some of the 

other things that you use in the Coast Guard to determine what 

gets used where and how many hours are allocated as opposed to 

how many hours are actually used. And it was very complicated. 

But I’m not that smart, enough to actually see through it. So we’ll 

talk about that more today, and maybe find a way to dumb it down 

so that us mere mortals can understand how the resources are allocated and what the top lines are, and so forth. OK, good. Maybe 

you could translate it to us, please, Ms. Grover. 

As the Nation’s primary maritime response organization, the 

Coast Guard often must surge assets and personnel to respond to 

a hurricane, oil spill or other national or international emergency. 

As the Service did on April 10th—excuse me, April 2010, it moved 

over 150 assets and 7,500 personnel to the Gulf Coast to lead response efforts to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Coast Guard 

is also tasked with preventing maritime accidents, keeping our borders secure, and protecting our ports and waterways. In fiscal year 

2015, the Service conducted over 12,000 safety, security and environmental inspections of U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels, and 

interdicted 6,000 undocumented migrants, and 179 metric tons of 

illegal drugs. 

2 

The Coast Guard works hard to meet its missions. And this subcommittee wants to ensure that the Service retains its core competencies and acquires the assets needed for its response missions 

and day-to-day prevention work. However, it does seem at times 

that the Service presents a rose-colored glasses view of the capabilities and capacities of its assets. This subcommittee also needs 

to understand where current assets may be failing to support the 

Service’s ability to meet its mission demands. And how the Service 

then conducts risk assessment, to move assets around, to cover 

mission gaps, when it may not be possible to cover those gaps, and 

what missions are impacted. We’ll talk specifically about 

icebreaking, we’ll talk specifically about land, land-based UAVs too, 

when we get into the hearing. 

The GAO report notes that for the most part, Coast Guard assets 

are not reached in the allocated resource hours the Service includes 

in its planning documents. And its field units are not uniformly 

tracking data to show what missions are being supported by the assets when in use. This is another thing we’re going to—what I’d 

like your help on is this is, how do we not bureaucratize the Coast 

Guard to where everybody’s just simply filling out time sheets 24/ 

7, trying to track what their assets and doing are when. So you can 

actually go out and do your missions. But at the same time, kind 

of present a real, call a transparent or easily understandable view 

on what your assets are doing and how they’re being allocated. 

There are a lot of moving parts to understand how the Coast 

Guard manages its resources. For those of us trying to support the 

Service, the various documents, the Mission Needs Statements, 

Capital Investment Plan and Programs of Record can be less than 

helpful in revealing how the information they provide flows into 

the annual budget requests and influence overall decisions on asset 

use and acquisitions. We here are your supporters. It should not 

be this difficult to unravel the needs of the Service or to understand how existing assets are performing. The Coast Guard updated its Mission Needs Statement in 2015, and I look forward to 

discussing how that Mission Needs Statement will be used to establish an achievable asset acquisition plan. 

We have been at this, recapitalizing the services assets, since the 

late 1990s. John and I have been doing this for about, what, 4 

years now, specifically here. While the complexities of the world 

continue to grow, we need to make sure the Coast Guard is at its 

most capable, now more than ever. I look forward to having a frank 

discussion with our witnesses, and I thank you all for coming. With 

that, I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, for scheduling 

this meeting to assess the Coast Guard’s new Mission Needs Statement, and implications of how the Coast Guard allocates its resources. I’d first like to state my greetings to Vice Commandant of 

the Coast Guard, Admiral Charles Michel. Welcome. Delighted to 

see you and have a little conversation before we even started the 

meeting. And also welcome, Jennifer Glover, from the Government 

Accountability Office, who can answer all the questions that the 

chairman just raised. Thank you very much for being here. 

Even the most junior boatswain, mate, can tell you before you 

can accurately chart a course to arrive safely at any destination, 

3 

you first need to have a reliable compass to give you an accurate 

heading. Well, is that what the Mission Needs Statement provides 

for the Coast Guard? We’re going to find out. Is it a reliable compass to guide them forward? We hope so. And we’ll hear about it 

today. But we can all agree that far too much time has elapsed between today and when the Coast Guard’s last Mission Statement 

was developed in 2005. 

In many respects, the assumptions embedded in that analysis reflect a much different time and a much different Coast Guard. For 

example, the mix of assets available to the Coast Guard to meet 

its mission needs is now, the Coast Guard is now in the midst of 

the large recapitalization effort in the Service’s history, including 

a whole bunch of new airplanes they didn’t even know they’d ever 

get, like the 27s. Yet this transition is not without irony. For at a 

time when the Coast Guard is receiving the most modern and most 

capable assets in its 225-year history, missteps and delays in the 

acquisition of these assets have forced the Coast Guard to rely on 

its remaining legacy assets, which have become ever less reliable 

and ever more expensive to operate each year. So we hope the 

Coast Guard is prepared to get on with its future, with its new assets, in a timely and appropriate-cost way. 

Additionally, a changing global climate has accelerated the opening of the Arctic region. This circumstance has prompted new operational challenges for the Coast Guard, while simultaneously creating a shifting, uncertain geo-political environment for the Coast 

Guard to operate in. Most regrettably, the spectra and reach of 

nonstate terrorists or transnational criminal organizations continually place the Coast Guard in ever growing demands to ensure the 

safety and security of the United States. Our maritime commerce 

as well as our people. And it’s not just here in the Western Hemisphere, but it’s globally. 

I had the pleasure of seeing some of the Coast Guard ships stationed in Qatar, or excuse me, Bahrain, when I visited there a few 

months ago. And so the Coast Guard has a new compass, the Mission Statement. We’re going to explore that today. We know we 

must do our work to ensure that the Coast Guard uses this new 

analysis to best allocate its resources, and for Congress to provide 

the support necessary to carry it out. So if the Coast Guard is semper paratus, so too must the Congress. Your 11 Statutory Missions 

are your guideposts. The Mission Statement is how you’re going to 

get there. Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling the hearing. I 

look forward to the discussion. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the ranking member. Let me introduce the 

witnesses. They’re Vice Commandant Charles Michel. Admiral, 

congratulations on your recent promotion. And Ms. Jennifer Grover, Director of Homeland Security and Justice for the Government 

Accountability Office. And with that, Admiral, you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF ADMIRAL CHARLES D. MICHEL, VICE COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD; AND JENNIFER A. GROVER, 

DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Garamendi, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

4 

the opportunity to appear before you today to speak on behalf of 

the 88,000 men and women of the United States Coast Guard, 

serving around the globe today. I ask that my written statement 

be accepted as part of the official record, and I’d be allowed to summarize my remarks. 

This subcommittee has significantly advanced our long-term acquisition strategy and provided critical support for our Coast 

Guard men and women. Thank you for helping us build a 21st-century Coast Guard, capable of achieving national objectives, wherever American maritime interests may lie. We are operating in 

both polar regions, where human activity is increasing dramatically, particularly in the Arctic. We are managing emerging cyber 

challenges in our maritime industry. We are combatting 

transnational organized crime throughout our own hemisphere. 

And we are keeping pace with changes in the commercial maritime 

industry to ensure that we facilitate and not impede the vitally important industry that we regulate. 

Notably, our increased efforts, along with those of our interagency and international partners are contributing to significant 

disruptions against organized criminal networks, to include the detention of over 700 smugglers and over 190 metric tons of cocaine 

bound for the United States in 2015. And I just got the latest figures here. This year, we and our partners are on a record pace, 

having already disrupted over 245 metric tons and detained 391 

more narco-traffickers. And they told me the projections would be 

that we’re likely to see a 400-plus metric ton disruption year. And 

we can talk about the reasons for that. I just got those figures this 

morning, sir, from my intel folks. 

In very real terms, we are taking billions of dollars from the 

hands of illicit cartels. And each interdiction contains a treasuretrove of intelligence that we can use to exploit the gaps and seams 

in criminal networks that lead to even more seizures and arrests. 

Intelligence drive operations like they never had before. And we 

can talk a little bit about that, sir. And these successful interdictions do far more than just remove drugs from the stream of commerce. Dismantling criminal networks reinstates the rule of law, 

curtails violence, and brings needed stability to Central America. 

The widespread violence in our own hemisphere is directly related to illegal migration on our southern border, as we saw in 

2014, when over 68,000 unaccompanied minors arrived in the 

United States. To be sure, our own national security is challenged 

by cartel syndicates operating well inside our homeland, from 

Texas to New England and everywhere in between. Removing cocaine at sea strikes directly at their financial supply lines, and it 

remains vitally important that we continue to fight this fight. 

The appropriation you provided in 2016 and the President’s 

budget requested in 2017 will allow us to move forward with the 

recapitalization of our over 50-year-old Medium Endurance Cutters, with the Offshore Patrol Cutter. We are confident that we will 

down-select to a single ship builder and award OPC detailed design 

by this end of this fiscal year. Turning to the far north, cutter 

Healy began a deployment just last week to the Arctic, where she 

will further United States sovereignty interests by collecting seabed data that will directly support any U.S. extended continental 

5 

shelf claim. This is an area potentially twice the size of the State 

of California. 

We’re tremendously grateful for the President’s commitment to 

building new, heavy icebreakers, and for your support to get us 

through the critical design phase we are now undertaking. We look 

forward to continuing to work with you to accelerate heavy icebreaker acquisition. We’ve provided a Coast Guard Mission Needs 

Statement, and we are undertaking an updated Fleet Mix Analysis 

that will take into account operational data, technological advancements, and new assets, like the C–27J that Representative 

Garamendi mentioned, and a ninth National Security Cutter, that 

were not available during our last analysis. I took forward to sharing those results with you as we work forward, to determining the 

composition of our surface and air fleets. 

As important as these new platforms may be, investing in a 21stcentury Coast Guard is as much about people as it is about ships, 

boats and aircraft. Our 2017 budget request recognizes the critical 

importance of building the workforce of the future. This is not 

without challenges. Though we have the best workforce in Coast 

Guard history, we are seeing the impact of decreased retention and 

slowed accessions. Our increasingly uncertain and complex world 

requires high-end skill sets from an in-demand talent pool. Cyber 

intelligence, marine inspection, and other technically trained professionals have many options today, and we strive to be their employer of choice. I look forward to this committee’s continued support of our Coast Guard. Again, I thank you and look forward to 

your questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thanks, Admiral. Same here. 

Ms. Grover, you’re recognized. 

Ms. GROVER. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, 

Ranking Member Garamendi, other members and staff. As the admiral noted, the Coast Guard, like other organizations, is only as 

good as its people and assets. During our work, we find the 

servicemembers of the Coast Guard to be consistently hard working 

and talented. But one of the challenges facing the Coast Guard is 

making sure that it has the right mix of assets deployed to the 

right missions at the right times, to best equip its people to carry 

out those missions. 

My statement today will focus on two points. First, a call for the 

Coast Guard to make tough decisions about the mix of assets that 

it needs and can afford in today’s budget environment. And second, 

recognition that the Coast Guard is taking steps to enhance the effectiveness of its strategic asset allocation process, which will help 

ensure that its limited assets are deployed effectively and as intended. 

First, regarding those tough decisions about an effective, realistic 

mix of assets for today. The 2007 baseline stands as the official 

record of the Coast Guard’s plan for its intended asset mix. Yet it 

does not reflect the mix of assets that the Coast Guard has acquired since then. Since the baseline was developed, the Coast 

Guard has received additional assets beyond those planned, such 

as the C–27Js, and the ninth NSC. And some planned assets have 

been delayed or reconsidered, such as the unmanned aerial vehicles 

and the full component of the HC–144 aircraft. 

6 

Also, the Coast Guard’s understanding of its asset capabilities 

has evolved. In several cases, planned capabilities have been revised downward to reflect more realistic operational targets. For 

example, the fast response cutters are now expected to operate at 

2,500 hours per year, not 3,000. As a result of the delays in acquisitions and reduced operational capacities, the actual resource hours 

that were used during FY 15 fell short of what was originally 

planned for every asset type. 

For example, in 2015, a mix of legacy and new patrol cutters 

used 48 percent of the resource hours that were specified in the 

baseline. In addition, the cost of the acquisition portfolio has grown 

far beyond original expectations, which in part reflects optimistic 

funding assumptions. As a result, the Coast Guard has been shaping its asset acquisitions in a reactive mode, through the annual 

budget process. These short-term budget decisions may not lead to 

good long-term investments. A long-term Fleet Modernization Plan, 

that is affordable, would help the Coast Guard to ensure that they 

end up with the fleet that they need to optimize performance going 

forward. 

My second point, based on a new GAO report completed at the 

request of this subcommittee and being released to the public 

today, is about improvements that the Coast Guard is making to 

its strategic deployment of assets. The Coast Guard has taken several steps to improve its asset deployment, including collecting better data on asset hours used by mission, tracking how increased 

strategic commitments are affecting the hours available to field 

unit commanders, and incorporating more realistic information 

about asset capacities into strategic planning documents. 

On this last point, we found that in FY 15, Coast Guard units 

used only three-fourths of the asset resource hours that were allocated by headquarters through the strategic planning process. This 

is not a failure of Coast Guard personnel to make full use of their 

assets. Rather, the shortfall reflects an unrealistic statement of 

asset capacities, based on manufacturer maximums that are not 

adjusted for asset age or condition. Incorporating more realistic information from the field units will allow the Coast Guard headquarters to have greater strategic influence on how asset hours are 

used. 

In conclusion, the Coast Guard is taking positive steps to improve the accuracy of its asset allocation process. This will help ensure that its limited assets are used as effectively as possible. Yet 

more work remains for the Coast Guard to identify the costs, capabilities and quantities of the assets it needs for its modern fleet 

mix, as well as the tradeoffs necessary, given fiscal constraints. 

Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, this concludes my 

statement. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thanks, Ms. Grover. Thank you both. We’ll start 

taking questions now. I recognize myself. I guess the first thing is, 

let’s just touch on what you just talked about. It’s not that the 

Coast Guard, it’s not that they put the bar where it’s supposed to 

be, then they can’t reach the bar. The bar needs to be lower. Meaning, meaning, the bar needs to be lower in terms of what their assets can actually do. And that would make them actually look like 

they’re doing their job better, and in allocating resources correctly? 

7 

Ms. GROVER. In terms of the asset allocation process, that’s right. 

They’re using assumptions about asset capabilities that aren’t realistic with what the assets can actually do. 

Mr. HUNTER. So, Admiral, why, why would you set the bar unrealistically high, then say, every year, we can’t meet the bar? 

Admiral MICHEL. This is, it’s a complicated issue. 

Mr. HUNTER. And we talked about this, by the way. When I first 

got this job at some point 3 or 4 years ago, I said, you guys aren’t, 

by your own admission, reaching your full capacity. And it was— 

but you are, really. You are reaching your full capacity, it’s just 

that the bar is set too high in whatever formula you used to say 

what your capacity should be. 

Admiral MICHEL. Yeah. I mean, this, it’s a complicated issue, 

Chairman. It has to do with accounting. So when we, when we do 

our budget models and we figure out how many spare parts and 

our dry dock schedule and things like that, they’re based on baseline uses for that particular asset. And some assets, like our rotary 

wing fleet we operate within just a few percentages of what we allocate. And there are reasons for that. 

The vast majority of the operating hours that we have are down 

at our small boat stations. And there are very good reasons why 

our small boat stations don’t operate at 100 percent capacity. Part 

of it is our small boat stations need surge capacity for things like 

hurricanes. So they’re not supposed to exceed their—when they 

start exceeding their hours, then they’re burning the candle at both 

ends, and they’re taxing the logistic systems, they’re taxing our 

platforms. They’re ending the service lives of those platforms, because they’re operating above platform maximums. But they’ve got 

to plan all the way to the end of the fiscal year. I know you mentioned about surging 150 assets down to Hurricane Katrina. If you 

don’t have that capacity in the system to surge, then you’re going 

to exceed your—— 

Mr. HUNTER. But Ms. Grover is saying that you are operating at 

just about full capacity. It’s simply not reflected in where you have 

the bar. Meaning that gap doesn’t really exist. 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, if I lowered the bar artificially, I’d still 

have to take into account the maintenance schedules and budgeting 

and crew training and crew manning that come with that particular asset hour. And then what the guys at the small boat station will do, they’ll take another cut even below that, so they make 

sure they have enough surge capacity to come along at the end of 

the fiscal year. And regrettably, the end of the fiscal year is July, 

August and September, which is the height of hurricane season. 

And you’ve got to have some surge capacity. You can’t budget every 

single hour up to the maximum allotted, or you’re not going to have 

any surge capacity left. Or you’re going to exceed the operating 

hours on the platforms. And that has its own baggage, when you 

go beyond the operating hours. 

I’ll give you another example. For Great Lakes icebreaking, you 

can’t predict what type of an ice year you’re going to get up on the 

Great Lakes. A couple of years ago, we had so much ice up there, 

we had to rely on the Canadians and others to help us out, or we 

would have been in a real world of hurt. But last year we had 

hardly any ice at all. So how do you assign the operating hours for 

8 

those platforms with any degree of certainty? And that’s just one 

example. That goes across the entire enterprise. 

So it’s an accounting measure in some perspective. And I could 

lower the bar. The problem is, it’s going to end up lowering the bar 

again. So I would prefer to stay with the maximum operating 

hours. That allows us to budget so that we can determine the service lives for these platforms and allow our operational commanders 

to manage that surge gap. But I do agree with, and we did provide, 

back to GAO’s recommendation, that we would include better field 

input in trying to come up with realistic measures on this. And we 

agreed to do that. And I think we can close the gap to a certain 

degree. But I don’t want to give you the illusion we’re going to 

budget down to the last hour here. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. 

Admiral MICHEL. It’s just not possible. And not actually even desirable, Chairman, to do that. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. So let’s talk icebreaking then, since you 

brought it up, Admiral. The Senate just appropriated or is going to 

appropriate $1 billion for an icebreaker. Do we all know that now? 

It hasn’t been passed yet, but they’re going to do it. That’s a pretty 

big leap. That’s, that’s great that they are going to do it. So here, 

here’s my question. We’re going to give you—you’re now going to 

have the authority to buy lead materials. You’re going to have the 

authority to do block buys, multiyear procurement. You’ll have the 

ability to buy two or three icebreakers if you wanted to at one time. 

So let’s say that they do $1 billion—was sitting here and testified 

that if you build two, you can save $100 million. We’re going to 

need more than one. Would the, would you say, would you agree 

with that, we’re going to need more than one icebreaker in the next 

25 years? And this is all considering the fact that it’s going to take 

10 years to get this done probably. 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, first of all, when we talk about 

icebreaking, I talked about domestic icebreaking, which is in the 

Great Lakes, rivers and things like that. 

Mr. HUNTER. But I mean—— 

Admiral MICHEL. That’s its own, that’s its own world. 

Mr. HUNTER. Arctic icebreaking. 

Admiral MICHEL. So we’re talking about polar icebreaking. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. 

Admiral MICHEL. And we’re talking specifically about heavy 

polar icebreaking. 

Mr. HUNTER. Medium to heavy, right. 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, we need to talk about that, sir, because 

there’s different capabilities and different things that come along 

with medium and heavies. The Senate marked us for a heavy icebreaker. The President’s budget request isfor—— 

Mr. HUNTER. One. 

Admiral MICHEL. A heavy icebreaker, yes, sir. And the President, 

in his statement at the Glacier Conference, said, ‘‘We will begin 

construction activities on a heavy polar icebreaker, begin construction activities in 2020 and plan for additional icebreakers.’’ Our 

Commandant—heavy icebreakers. Our Commandant has also testified that we need self-rescue capability for our heavy icebreaker. 

And that includes the existing Polar Star that we have out there 

9 

now. So that means at least two. The high latitude study says 

three heavy polar icebreakers is what the Coast Guard’s requirement is. So that’s kind of what we’re talking about for heavy icebreakers. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK, so, right. So my question was, though, is the 

Coast Guard going to need more than one heavy icebreaker going 

forward in the next 25 years? 

Admiral MICHEL. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. Then why don’t we work with the Senate right now to work on saving $100 million and trying to build two. Or at 

least getting the lead materials and the designs for two instead of 

one. I would guess once you design one, you’re going to find flaws 

in that. Kind of like the NSC and some other, other ships that we 

have built. You’re going to find flaws in the first one. It’s going to 

cost money to fix those flaws in the first one. But that will set you 

up for success on your second one and follow on ships, right? 

Admiral MICHEL. Yes, sir. And I have staff looking at potential 

block buys of vessels of that, that are actively looking at that. 

Right now the President’s budget request is $150 million for the 

construction of a heavy polar icebreaker and I support that request. 

We need that request, and we need that on the schedule that it is. 

I understand the Senate also included in the Navy shipbuilding 

budget $1 billion for a heavy polar icebreaker. Obviously that’s beyond the President’s budget request. But I think it is a signal of 

at least on the Senate’s side, of interest in constructing a heavy 

polar icebreaker. And that, my understanding of that language, 

that is a single vessel. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. What would be the delivery time, if everything 

was on schedule? What would be the delivery time for the, a heavy 

icebreaker? 

Admiral MICHEL. So if the Congress were to approve the Presi- dent’s budget request for $150 million—I think it’s $147 million, 

but I’ll just use the $150 million request—that is designed, sir, that 

figure is designed to meet the President’s statement that he made 

at the Glacier Conference. So that would begin construction activities in 2020. And the estimated completion time to get that vessel 

online would be 2024 to 2025 is the best estimate that I have, having talked with my shipbuilding experts, and also having sort of 

traveled around the world to a certain degree, talking with icebreaker experts as well as domestic shipyard people. 2024 to 2025 

is my best estimate for getting that ship online. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. So let’s just for argument’s sake, for this hearing, so let’s say it’s say 2026. So let’s say it’s 10 years out from 

now. What is your plan to address the capability gap in the next 

10 years? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, and once again, we’re talking about 

heavy polar icebreaking. This goes to a discussion Ranking Member 

Garamendi and I just recently had right here before the hearing. 

Right now we have the Polar Star operating. It’s got about another 

5 to 7 years left of projected life, unless we want to take another 

recapitalization, like a rolling recapitalization of that vessel. And 

we have not made a decision to do that. We just had Polar Sea, which is inoperable currently, out of the water, at Vigor Shipyard. 

And an assessment is due to the committee on July the 24th, as 

10 

promised by the Commandant, a material assessment of that particular vessel. And we are on schedule to deliver that to you. 

But all those decisions on a rolling recapitalization for Polar 

Star, or what we want to do with Polar Sea, need to be judged in 

context. And I have underway an alternatives analysis that will 

take a look at how we want to bridge out to that new icebreaker. 

And that’s what I’d like to do is bridge out to that new construction 

icebreaker that I request the Congress’ support and assistance in 

the President’s budget request. 

Mr. HUNTER. So how do you plan to fill the capability gap over 

the next 10 years? So let’s say that oil goes up to 120 bucks a barrel tomorrow and then you get Shell and everybody else goes to the 

Arctic, they start trying to find oil there. It becomes very busy. 

What do you do? How do you fill the capability gap over the next 

10 years? 

Admirable MICHEL. Well, that’s a broader question said, sir. And 

when you’re talking about working in the type of work that Shell 

does, you’re not necessarily talking about heavy icebreaking capability. Heavy icebreaking capability is a sort of sui generis. It’s a 

world of its own. It provides you with 7 by 24 by 365 access to ice 

covered regions. That’s what heavy icebreaking capability does for 

you. Lesser types of vessels may be used, useful in seasonal areas 

or in less demanding ice environments than currently exist in Antarctica or certain types of conditions that they get up in the Arctic, 

with ridging. And during certain parts of the year. 

We also have the vessel Healy, which is a medium icebreaker, 

that is available. We’re going to have to take a look on, and we already have a group underway on serving and design work for a 

midlife program, or a service life extension program for the Healy. 

That vessel is usable for that type of work that Shell does, but it’s 

not usable in the heavy icebreaking environments. 

So for example, we took the Healy down in the early 2000s with 

Polar Sea and Polar Star. I can’t remember which one it was actually with. We took it down to Antarctica to see whether it could operate down there, during the summer in Antarctica, and it got 

stuck in the ice. And we had, we were lucky we had Polar Sea or 

Polar Star in there and break that thing out. So there are ice environments that are not—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Conducive? 

Admiral MICHEL. You can’t use medium icebreaking capability 

there. It ends up getting stuck. Like the Xue Long, if you remember the Chinese medium icebreaker got stuck, and the Akademik 

Shokalskiy got stuck. We cannot afford to get ships stuck. Right 

now where we are is we have the Polar Star operating, the Nation’s only heavy icebreaking capability, and there is no back up for 

it. 

Mr. HUNTER. I’ll pass this on to Mr. Garamendi. How do you 

plan on filling the capability gap until you get a heavy icebreaker, 

which is 10 years at the least, based on the best projections of Congress and everybody working together? You still haven’t answered 

that one. 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, right—the alternatives analysis will provide the answer to that, and it’s probably going to be either a rolling recapitalization of the Polar Star or to try to bring, let Polar 

11 

Star taper off and then try to bring Polar Sea back on and bridge 

out to the new icebreaker. I do not know which one at this point, 

which path we would want to take. I’m not aware of any other— 

we’ve looked out there for vessels to lease for heavy icebreaking capability. There’s nothing out there on planet Earth that you can 

lease in the heavy icebreaking area. So that’s kind of where we are, 

sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. Was it the Fins that just came into my office? I 

can’t remember whether we had the Norwegians or the Fins. I 

mean—have you—you’ve all looked at that, right? 

Admiral MICHEL. Yes. As a matter of fact, I traveled to Sweden 

and Finland. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yeah. 

Admiral MICHEL. And talked to them. And they do not have 

heavy icebreaking capability that will meet the needs as in the Fed 

Biz Ops. As a matter of fact, what I’m talking, Fed Biz Ops, there’s 

a technical package that Coast Guard put out for our heavy icebreaker. It kind of lays out our basic requirements, including the 

long pole in the tent, which is the icebreaking requirement. Which 

is 6-foot minimum at 3 knots, desirable 8-foot minimum at 3 knots, 

and then 21 feet backing and ramming. 

When I talked to the shipbuilders over there, they said there is 

not a vessel like that that currently exists that will meet those requirements in the Fed Biz Ops technical package. So you’d have to 

build a vessel like that. And that’s the type of vessel that we’re 

looking for. 

Mr. HUNTER. So the Fins, they have to break themselves out of 

their own sea every year. But that’s, that’s not the same type of 

ice that’s in the Arctic? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, it’s not as thick. It, medium icebreaking 

capability works in places like the Gulf of Bothnia, because the ice 

is only—I forget the, down there. But when you go down to Antarctica, for example, like first year sea ice is 6 to 8 feet thick. Multiple 

year sea ice is many times that. That’s why the Healy got stuck 

down there. 

Mr. HUNTER. So it’s good to—so the options that you’re telling us, 

you either take the Polar Star as it either tapers off, you recapitalize the Polar Sea and make it work again. Or you recapitalize 

the Polar Star and keep it going so it doesn’t taper off as it’s end 

of life. And those are your, those are your two options? 

Admiral MICHEL. Those are—those are—— 

Mr. HUNTER. And you’re also saying, and you’re also saying that 

zero capability is better than medium or heavy capability? Because 

you have medium-heavy icebreakers out there that are available 

for lease, but you want heavy only. And you’re saying that you’d 

rather have zero capability than 80 percent capability? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, I think you’re—I don’t think that’s a fair 

characterization. And that’s why it’s very important to hear on—— 

Mr. HUNTER. You actually spent 2 or 3 minutes saying how you 

don’t want medium icebreakers at all. 

Admiral MICHEL. I didn’t. 

Mr. HUNTER. How they do no—don’t do very well. 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, you—— 

12 

Mr. HUNTER. They get stuck. You gave a Chinese example. But 

so the question is then, to, to fill the capability gap over the next 

10 years or 20 years or however long it is, your only answer is the 

Polar Star or the Polar Sea. Leasing a vessel doesn’t, there is no 

vessel that exists in the world that could be leased by the Coast 

Guard to fulfill 75 percent of what you needed to right now. Is that 

what you’re saying? And you would rather not have those? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, what I said was, my options for heavy 

icebreaking capability, which is the only ensured global access to 

ice-covered regions, regardless of seasonality and otherwise—the 

only things on the table that I’m dealing with right now are Polar 

Star, Polar Sea, and a new icebreaker that we need to begin construction activities on. If you want to have a broader discussion 

about other icebreaking functions, then we can talk about that, sir. 

But that’s a different area, because that is not global ensured, 7 

by 24 by 365 access to ice-covered regions. 

Mr. HUNTER. It’s not a 100-percent solution. 

Admiral MICHEL. As one of our—it’s not a 100-percent solution. 

And in certain scenarios like down in Antarctica, it’s not only not 

a solution, it can potentially get you into real hot water. That’s a 

broader discussion, because that’s a different mission set. That’s 

why I used those words, heavy polar icebreaking. Because it is a 

world on its own. And we need to talk about that, because that is 

a national capability. That is a national sovereignty capability. A 

national defense function, to provide global ensured access to icecovered regions 7 by 24 by 365. And that only gets done by heavy 

icebreaking capability. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. So here’s my last question. Could you explain 

to everybody why it’s important to break ice? And then tell me this. 

If we’re looking for 7/24/365, what are we operating at now? 

Admiral MICHEL. So icebreaking in and of itself, there are times 

that you really do need to break ice, for flood control reasons or to 

escort vessels in and out. 

Mr. HUNTER. And tell us this. So let’s narrow this down. Why is 

it a national security strategic priority to break ice? On the national security side. I don’t care about, you know, some ship getting 

stuck who’s doing science stuff. Why is it a national security priority? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, if you cannot provide presence to an area, 

you cannot assert national sovereignty. 

Mr. HUNTER. Then what are we doing right now? 

Admiral MICHEL. The Nation’s only operating heavy icebreaking 

capability is the Polar Star. And that ship is current—— 

Mr. HUNTER. That operates 24—— 

Admiral MICHEL. That ship is currently operational. It requires 

a significant amount of maintenance just to keep the thing running. It has no self-rescue capability, unless we happen to call in 

some other country that happens to have a heavy—— 

Mr. HUNTER. That’s what I’m trying to get to. So what is our capability now, then? Right, right now? 

Admiral MICHEL. The Polar Star, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. And is it 7/24/365? 

Admiral MICHEL. It has the capability, but it has such a maintenance schedule that it gets pulled out of the water regularly. And 

13 

you’re going to have to button the ship back up in order to get anywhere. That’s the problem with having only one, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. So we don’t have—so what you’re saying is right 

now—how would you measure the capability gap that we have 

right now, that exists right now today? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, we have one, one heavy polar icebreaker. 

Mr. HUNTER. That operates how many days—— 

Admiral MICHEL. That ship does—— 

Mr. HUNTER [continuing]. Out of the year? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, that, that ship has the capability of accessing anywhere in the ice-covered regions, 7 by 24 by 365. It has 

that capability. Except for very shallow areas, where you may 

have—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Yeah, I understand the capability of it. How often 

does it do that, or how often can it? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, this is what the maintenance schedule— 

last year, that ship, that ship’s crew spent 305 days away from 

their families, either down in Antarctica or at the shipyards, which 

was away from their homeport, getting that ship prepared. So you 

can operate. 

Mr. HUNTER. So beyond getting it fixed, what is our capability 

right now in heavy ice? What is the capability right not today? If 

that—is it operational right now? 

Admiral MICHEL. The Polar Star is an operational vessel. Yes, 

sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. And what, so what is our capability like this 

year, for instance? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, we typically have that ship programed to 

operate 185 days away from home port. But it’s got such a significant maintenance load, it basically goes from the shipyard, and 

then it does its work down in Antarctica, then it goes back to the 

shipyard. And it gets refurbished, and we send it back down to 

Antarctica again. 

Mr. HUNTER. So here’s, so this is it. I’ve taken way too long. If 

it’s so important that the President has asked for this, that OMB 

has put it in, we don’t have the capability right now. So how can 

it be that big of a priority? If you don’t have the ability to do what 

we need to do now to match what the President is requesting, is 

it really that big of a priority? Do we really need an ice, two icebreakers, two heavy icebreakers? 

Admiral MICHEL. Absolutely, sir. And we’ve had that. 

Mr. HUNTER. If it’s so important, why don’t we have them now? 

Admiral MICHEL. That’s a very sad and long tale, sir, as to why 

it has taken so long to recapitalize this category of vessels. I don’t 

know how much time you want to take on that. But this, I used 

to be a Commander, and I used to work—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Zero. I’m going to—I’m hearing her talking in my 

ear. I’m going to yield to the ranking member here. 

Admiral MICHEL. I worked on this issue 15 years ago myself, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. We’re going to beat this horse more. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not sure we 

broke through the ice yet. But we know that we do have a hearing 

coming up on the 12th, and I think Admiral Michel has a pretty 

good idea of the kind of questions that’s going to be coming at him 

14 

on the 12th of June—July. And it’ll be a very, very important meeting. I did note in your testimony you said that you really need 

three heavy icebreakers to do the job that the chairman was trying 

to get to. That’s the Arctic and the Antarctic, in the most extreme 

environment. So the question for the 12th will be how do we get 

those three icebreakers, over what period of time. What is the 

schedule for them. And also the role of the Polar Star and the 

Polar Sea in the interim. So we’ll go at that in detail. In between 

now and the 12th, I’m sure that we’ll have some additional questions to ask. 

A 10th National Security cutter is in the works, at least the legislative works. That is two beyond the original call of eight. When 

those, when the ninth is added, which is not so far off, and then 

perhaps a 10th, that changes your force structure, your person 

power and your budgeting. Should we go there at all? Should we 

simply say that nine is quite enough? The 10th is a ship too far, 

too much? And that we should spend the time and the energy and 

money on the Offshore Patrol Cutter? Admiral Michel? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, sir, NSC 9, and if there is an NSC 10, 

none of those are in the President’s budget request. Those are beyond the program of record. I’ve testified on that before. Obviously, 

you know, if the Congress provides us with National Security Cutters, we’ll do our best to put them to good use. They’re a great ship. 

They’re delivering incredible results out there. But those are beyond the program of record. 

And right now my number one recapitalization priority, despite 

my urgency on the heavy icebreakers, which is you know another 

one of the burning fires I have to deal with, is the Offshore Patrol 

Cutter. And that is our number one recapitalization priority. And 

we need assistance from the Congress on the $100 million in long 

lead time materials in FY 17 for the Offshore Patrol Cutter. That’s 

where my focus is right now. Again, if, Congress gives us the National Security Cutters, we will try to make them work. They’re beyond our program of record. They’re much more expensive to operate than the Offshore Patrol Cutter is going to be. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Admiral, we’re going to have to be much more 

specific. I know you will do what Congress tells you to do, if you 

have the money to do it. But we’re going to have to make some decisions here. Do we do a 10th NSC or do we not? If we do then obviously there’s the capital cost of the ship and then there’s the ongoing operational costs, that have to come out of some other program. The other programs may be the OPC, maybe we’re going to 

delay the acquisition of the second or third heavy icebreaker, or 

maybe we’re not going to be able to use UAVs or whatever. 

So we need your help, very specifically. And the Mission Statement that came out in January of this year will help advise us on 

this. But somebody wants a 10th National Security Cutter. Do we 

do it or not? That’s going to be a decision we’re going to have to 

make in the next couple of months. If we make that decision, then 

something else isn’t going to happen. What isn’t going to happen? 

Perhaps it is the icebreaker. I want to really hone in on that. It’s 

something we must deal with here, without our two houses. 

The other questions really go to, we’ll come back to the icebreaker on the 12th, I’m sure. UAVs we talked about forever, but 

15 

not yet in place. What do we need to—is it important? Is it a critical mission asset that the Coast Guard needs? If so, how do we 

get it? What’s the cost? Where does it fit into the mission statement, UAVs? 

Admiral MICHEL. So another broad category of things. So on the 

small UAV front, I think you know, we’ve already deployed 

ScanEagle. A number of platforms are going to have ScanEagle, or 

the small UAS deployed on the NSC permanently here for the first 

time. So in that small category, I think we’re OK. We’re also in a 

partnership with CBP on their Predator—it’s essentially Predator 

B. They call it Guardian. As a matter of fact, it’s flying down in 

the transit zone today or it’s at least deployed down in the transit 

zone today. So we work with them on, on that mission set. The 

broader piece on the UASs, actually one of the pieces here from the 

2005 mems, that Jenny identified that we’re going to have to take 

a round turn on what our view is on these large UASs, land-based 

UAS or ship-based. 

We also have worked closely with the Navy on the Fire Scout, 

which isn’t really the right sort of platform for us, but I don’t know 

what the right answer to that is. I think the, both the land-based 

and the ship-based UASs or UAVs, the larger systems, are something I’m intensely interested in. When I was JIATF South Director, we would use platforms like this to provide wide-area surveillance capability. And that makes your assets a lot more effective. 

And the Coast Guard could definitely benefit from that. 

So we have an eye on working on all those programs. We’ve got 

some unique connections with DOD and also with DHS and CBP. 

So I think we’ve got the connections. We’re going to have to make 

some decisions right now. Our priority, our organizational recapitalization priorities are as laid out in the FY 17 and as in the FY 

17 to 2021 SIP, that I know you have a copy of. Those are our organizational priorities. And right now those larger UASs are not built 

in there. 

I can tell you as the Vice Commandant as the Coast Guard, same 

thing when I was a Deputy Commandant for Operations. I’m intensely interested in that area, because the technology gets better 

and better. At all times, get better and better. The sensors get better and better and smaller and smaller. And the back end processing pieces get better and better, and those can make our assets 

so much more effective. When I was JIATF’s South Director, those 

were great things and I loved having them down there. And I’d like 

to see the Coast Guard get into that game. But you know, we got, 

there’s only so much money out there, and our organizational priorities are currently as set forth in the President’s budget and SIP 

that we provided to you. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I appreciate your intense interest in this. Our 

task is to make choices. And we have one choice that’s coming 

down on us right now. A 10th National Security Cutter. Which is 

over half a billion dollars, not including the operational cost. And 

so the question for the Coast Guard, and we need an answer here. 

Do we do that, or do we spend that money on UAVs, UASs, and 

the like? That’s the question. What is your answer? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, sir, I mean, that’s a very easy question 

from the Coast Guard. Our organizational recapitalization priorVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:55 Feb 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\CG&JOI~1\6-14-1~1\20498.TXT JEAN
16 

ities are as set forth in the President’s FY 17 budget request, and 

then the SIP that we provided to you. If they’re not included in 

there, it doesn’t mean they’re not things of value. But our organizational priorities are as we provided them to you. And that’s our 

best judgement as operators and as stewards of the enterprise. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Does that include a National Security Cutter? 

Does that include a 10th National Security Cutter? 

Admiral MICHEL. No, sir. That is not, that is not currently in the 

SIP or in the present budget request. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thanks, Ranking Member. Mr. Gibbs? 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Admiral, for 

your service, and the nearly 90,000 men and women that help protect our country. Back in March, I submitted questions for the 

record to the Coast Guard regarding the icebreakers on the Grand 

Lakes. And the first question inquired about the Coast Guard’s 

memorandum. My understanding was the Canadian Coast Guard 

to provide icebreaking vessels. And the second inquiry was about 

the Coast Guard setting performance targets for keeping the highpriority waterways open on the Great Lakes and the eastern seaboard. During the ice season, 95 percent of the time, that’s, I 

heard, the Coast Guard’s goal. However, you only collected the data 

of whether you met the target in fiscal year 2014, at which the 

time the Coast Guard fell short of its goal by 10 percent. And I realize that was the bad ice year, I believe. Have not received an answer on FY 15 or 2016, which I think there wasn’t much ice last 

year. So that probably was not too much of an issue. 

But back on the memorandum of understanding, it’s my knowledge that Canada has gone from seven to two vessels for 

icebreaking on the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence Seaway. So 

I’m concerned about, you know, what’s in that memorandum of understanding. Because the peak demand for the upper Great Lakes 

opening up for the season would be probably close to the same time 

as opening up the seaway. And you know, what’s our situation with 

that memorandum of understanding of what we’re going to do to 

ensure that the Canadian icebreaker would be at the Soo locks for 

example, when, probably at the same time they need to be. You 

know, that, and the eastern part of the Great Lakes and the seaway. 

And so I don’t know. Usually the Coast Guard’s been pretty good 

at getting back to answering these questions. But I submitted these 

questions for the record back in March, and we haven’t heard back. 

And so hopefully you can provide them now or provide them in the 

future in a timely manner. 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, sir, I apologize in advance that you have 

not received that information. All that information should be available to you on both our agreements with Canada as well as our 

performance metrics on the, on the ice, which you rightfully noted. 

I mean, that’s an example of one of those problems that’s just very 

difficult to predict. I mean, some years you may end up with a 

large amount of ice. Like I said, in 2014, and we needed the Canadians’ help to do all that stuff. Whereas last year we hardly had 

any ice at all. So it’s difficult to predict. So you’ve got my commitment to provide you with all of that information. We have that inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:55 Feb 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\CG&JOI~1\6-14-1~1\20498.TXT JEAN
17 

formation on the performance data and we’ll definitely get you the 

information on our workings with Canada, which like I said, are 

essential. And we think we add a lot of value to the Canadians too, 

so we help them out. It’s a quid pro quo, and really a good arrangement that we have with our neighbors to the north. 

Mr. GIBBS. We really only have, well, on the Great Lakes, the 

Mackinaw, is that unavailable right now, or this past season? 

What’s its status with that? 

Admiral MICHEL. No, sir. Mackinaw is up and running. I think 

it’s actually in the dockside maintenance period. As a matter of 

fact, I had the commanding officer of the Mackinaw was in my office yesterday. He wasn’t there to talk about Mackinaw, he was 

there to get some career counseling from the Vice Commandant of 

the Coast Guard. But I talked to him about his vessel, and he’s 

really happy with it. 

That’s a really interesting vessel. And I’d bring that one to your 

attention. If you haven’t seen that, this is a modern icebreaking 

vessel. It’s got steerable azipods. It’s not a blunt instrument like 

the old icebreakers that we used to have. And we also have the 

225-foot WLBs, which do icebreaking, icebreaking up there. And 

the 140-foot harbor tugs, essentially icebreaking tugs, which work 

in that area. And the good thing about having a down ice season 

like this, we were able to get a number of those vessels down to 

the Coast Guard yard, and they got refurbished. So we’re actually 

in pretty good shape with our—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Let’s, let’s say we, let’s say next year we have, next 

winter season we have a big ice season like we did in 2014. I don’t 

know how many ships, how many icebreakers Canada had. But is 

that correct that they filed them down, from seven down to two? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, I’m going to have to get back to you on the 

status of their fleet. They’re in a recapitulation effort as well, but 

I’ll get you that information. 

Mr. GIBBS. Because I’d be, you know, concerned if they had, say 

they had five of those, five ships in operation in 2014 and now 

they’re down to two. And you know, I guess I’m concerned, since 

we had the memorandum of understanding to try to work together. 

Obviously Canada is a great ally. But we want to make sure that, 

if that’s going to be an issue. Because the Great Lakes, those will 

be opened up in a timely fashion. That’s, it’s interesting. We did, 

Mr. Chairman, we did the award in 2014, we put the Great Lakes 

as a unit for the Army Corps of Engineers. 

And what was interesting, we learned that when you add, put all 

the Great Lakes pushed together, it’s 25 percent of the economic 

activity of all the ports. And my good friend from California, the 

both of them from California, I know how big the ports are out 

there on the coast. But 25 percent, when you add—and it’s interesting what’s going on in the Great Lakes that’s unique, compared 

to the ports on the west, east and gulf coasts. 

There’s a lot of the stuff moving in between the ports. So if one 

port can’t, if you can’t, the Soo locks aren’t opened up, what that 

does to the Lake Erie and Ontario regions is, you know, a severe 

impact. Because so much stuff, we’re interdependent within the 

Great Lakes. It’s obviously moving stuff through, through the seaway. But we have a huge interdependency. So it’s important not 

18 

only to get the seaway open, which I think Canada is probably, you 

know, maybe they’re more principal in that. But also to make sure 

we have the Soo locks and the access up to Lake Superior. So 

thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Garamendi, for having this hearing. Admiral Michel, I am glad my 

colleague, Representative Gibbs, brought up the ports. I represent 

the Port of Los Angeles, and Long Beach is right next door. We’re 

America’s ports. Over 40 percent of all the trade that comes 

through this country comes through our ports. And since 9/11, I 

have been particularly concerned about the threat of our national 

security as it relates to our ports. 

While we have no ice in Los Angeles or Long Beach, I think the 

greater threat really revolves our ports. If there was ever something to happen at our port, it would not only cripple the regional 

economy, the national economy, it would cripple the global economy. Since FY 01, the Coast Guard’s largest percentage of funding 

for missions has been dedicated to ports, waterways, and coastal 

security. However, I’ve been troubled to see in recent years the percent share of funding for these vital missions has just decreased. 

And I would like for you to share with me—and I know it’s going 

to be about resources and it’s going to be about priorities, but I 

would like to hear from you, Admiral, why the share of funding to 

our ports has decreased in recent years. 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, I think you’re talking about Coast Guard 

resource hours from September 11th. So if I can just kind of take 

you back to September 11th. Right after September 11th, the Coast 

Guard was at an all hands on deck evolution, and we threw whatever we could at ports, waterways and coastal security, because 

that was deemed to be the threat at the time. And there were a 

lot of Coast Guard boats that were operating out. There were a lot 

of hours, these operating hours that were being burned up by boats 

doing things. 

Today we’re in a much actually better position. Because of intelligence driven operations, because of programs like Protect, which 

is a randomization algorithm that we use that makes out assets actually more effective in deterrence, we’re able to, with less boat 

hours, actually provide more protection. Just like in the port of 

L.A.L.B. Think about the additional cameras and sensor networks, 

and the information sharing, and the command centers that have 

been put in place to actually inform operations out there. Rather 

than just throwing boats out there just to have kind of a cop on 

the beat. We’re so much better than we were back in September 

11th, and we can do things, Congresswoman Hahn, with less brute 

force, and achieve higher degrees of performance. 

Which, you know, we were talking about operating hours. I 

mean, operating hours are very interesting, and they’re important 

for spare parts and dry dock and stuff like that. But you want to 

get at the organizational performance. And an op hour, back in 

September 11th, was way less valuable than a boat op hour today, 

which is all informed by intelligence driving operations. Much more 

capable small boats that we have. Much better communications 

here. Better working relationship with the local authorities. I 

19 

mean, it’s just all there. We’re much, we’re much better than we 

were back then. 

Ms. HAHN. So you, you’re, you will say that the threat still exists? I mean, after 9/11, I know our ports were sometimes in the 

top 10 of potential targets. So the threat still exists. Is that what 

you’re saying? But you think you’re doing it smarter. 

Admiral MICHEL. We’re doing it smarter and we understand the 

threats much better. So back—— 

Ms. HAHN. And share with me how you do lever, since the resources seem in my opinion to be less, you may be working smarter 

and with algorithms, but that doesn’t make me feel any better. 

Share with me how you’re leveraging your limited resources with 

the Port Police, the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, FBI, some 

of the counterterrorism groups that are situated right there in the 

harbor. 

Admiral MICHEL. Sure. Well, there’s a whole piece there. And we 

have an Area Maritime Security Committee. 

Ms. HAHN. Right. 

Admiral MICHEL. So that, prior to—or after September 11th, and 

at least in its fullest form. And it brings together all those port 

partners, you know. They’re all brought together. And they deal 

even with this as sophisticated as cyber, it is on the AMSC agenda. 

And the Coast Guard chairs that. The Coast Guard is by statute, 

the Captain of the Port is the designated Federal maritime security 

coordinator. And he or she has that role. And they can bring all 

those people together and they can pool all those different assets 

and they can set together interoperable communications. They can 

set together combined operations. They do exercises. They build on 

all that stuff. So again, it’s a much more sophisticated enterprise. 

And I don’t want to leave you that you know, the Port of L.A.L.B. 

is just protecting L.A.L.B. You also have to understand that we’ve 

got mechanisms overseas that work on the cargoes—— 

Ms. HAHN. Right. 

Admiral MICHEL [continuing]. And the foreign nationals and foreign ships before they even show up in the Port of L.A.L.B. 

Ms. HAHN. Correct. And I understand that. And I know the layered approach to security. But let me just, if I may just take a couple, a little bit longer. You know the new—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Please take as long as you like. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. I’m—that was so good. Because if you’d 

have said anything different, I would have been really—I, you 

know, the CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin, the megaship, called 

both at Long Beach and Los Angeles, megaships can hold up to 

22,000 containers. You know that’s a lot of containers coming into 

our ports at one time. Much greater than you know, we’re used to. 

Explain to me how you know, the Coast Guard is ready for that, 

is prepared for that, you know. Hopefully it’s more than just algorithms that you’re using to consider that certain cargo could be at 

risk. 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, I mean, it’s a challenging question. It 

deals with not only the volume on a particular vessel, but I mean, 

you’ve just got more containers moving all the time. And that becomes a harder and harder risk. The Coast Guard works with CBP 

primarily, but also international partners. And we try to vet as 

20 

many of those shippers. I mean, the good part about 22,000 containers on a ship is you only deal with one ship. So you know, you 

look at that crew, you look at that ship. Instead of multiple ships 

where you got to look at multiple crews. But you got more containers. And all those containers, the, ideally you don’t want those 

ships to even show up in the United States before they’ve undergone at least some screening. 

So you deal with things like the Container Security Initiative or 

the Customs Transnational Partnership Against Terrorism. 

CTPAT. Whatever trusted shipper programs, which help a lot. So 

a lot of that box traffic that comes into L.A.L.B. comes from people 

like Walmart and things like that. And they have a vested interest 

in making sure that they provide global security chains. And that 

can help things move through the system quicker. So there are 

screening programs that start all the way overseas, with 24-hour 

lighting rules from the Customs service, and electronic manifesting 

that allows you to look at all these different electronic manifests, 

and try to screen those containers before they even show up. 

But it’s a challenge, Congresswoman, that increasing global trade 

and things like Panama Canal expansion are going to increase all 

these challenges. Because we love global trade and it brings all 

these great things from the outside, but for an agency like the 

Coast Guard it taxes our system. Because it’s just more volume 

that you have to be able to dig through. But we try to look at all 

that stuff. 

Ms. HAHN. And I appreciate it. 

Admiral MICHEL. That’s—— 

Ms. HAHN. I appreciate it. And I have had a long relationship 

with the men and women of the Coast Guard. And the Long Beach 

L.A. sector is just such a great place, with the wonderful men and 

women who—our commanding officer out there, Captain of the 

Port, Captain Williams, has been amazing in working with us. But 

I will tell you, I’m going to end by saying, I still think our port’s 

a vulnerable entryway into this country. And I don’t want for any 

second to feel like we’ve let our guard down. Because I think that’s 

what they’re waiting for. And they know. One incident of, you 

know, a mass explosion at that port complex could create havoc in 

this country and globally. So you know, pay more attention to the 

ports and less attention to ice. 

Admiral MICHEL. You’ve got my full attention, Congresswoman. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlelady. OK. Let’s go on a little bit 

more on the icebreaker. Because I get to ask that if I want to, because I’m the chairman. So here’s my question. We were looking 

back over time, after World War II, in the 1940s, we started making icebreakers. We didn’t build a heavy icebreaker until 77 or so. 

That was the Polar, s word? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sea and Star. 

Mr. HUNTER. Sea or Star, yeah. So, so we went through the majority of the Cold War, we went through 30, 40 years without a 

heavy icebreaker, but multiple medium icebreakers. So my question is what were they doing with those non-heavies during the 

Cold War when we had to be in the Arctic? And I’m guessing 

there’s a couple of reasons that we wanted to be in the Arctic. RusVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:55 Feb 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\CG&JOI~1\6-14-1~1\20498.TXT JEAN
21 

sia was the main one. How did we do that without a heavy? How 

did we go for 40 years of the Cold War with no heavy icebreakers? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, sir, it’s an interesting question, when you 

go all the way back in there. And it depends on how you classify 

things. Certainly, Polar Sea and Polar Star, by today’s, are heavy 

icebreakers. As a matter of fact, they’re the most powerful non-nuclear icebreakers that exist. They’re 75,000 shaft horsepower. They 

can operate independently. You’d like to have self-rescue capability. 

You can operate independently. What has happened is, when we— 

a number of these Arctic—we’ll only go back to World War II. So 

a number of these icebreakers were built in World War II. The Glacier is an example of that. The Island class, Burton Island and the 

different ones. Part of how they got around it was these were medium icebreakers. It depends on, Glacier, it depends on how you 

classify it. But these were medium icebreakers. Because you have 

a bunch of them. 

When the Commandant of the Coast Guard came in, we had 

seven polar icebreakers. When the Commandant came in. When I 

came in, we had five. We had Polar Sea, Polar Star, Glacier, and 

two Wind class icebreakers. And when you can send mediums down 

there, multiples of them, it buys down some of your risk for getting 

in a bad situation. 

Mr. HUNTER. But let’s, but let’s keep this simple, because I don’t 

want to go on about icebreakers forever again. I’m just curious. We 

didn’t have a heavy until the mid, or the late 1970s. So what did 

we do in the Arctic, if you had a sub or something that needed to 

get out of the ice. How would we have done that without a heavy 

at all? Because we didn’t have a heavy at all. 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, sir, it depends on how you classify those 

vessels. Glacier—— 

Mr. HUNTER. But Admiral, keep this simple for me. I’m not trying to use special words to try to—I’m just asking you, you didn’t 

have a heavy. OK, so how do you classify—but you said you have 

to have a heavy-heavy. Because I said medium-heavy, and you said 

no, it’s got to be a heavy-heavy. It’s got to be 365/24/7, heavy icebreaker, which we don’t have at all now. Or we do. They can work 

half the year or when it has to or when it’s not getting work done. 

You don’t have the capability now, you didn’t have the capability 

for 40 years, post-World War II. So what, what is different now to 

where multiple mediums or medium heavies can’t take the place of 

a heavy for the next 10 years to fill that capability gap? I’m not 

understanding now. Now, I’m totally perplexed because we didn’t 

have it until 1977. 

Admiral MICHEL. Clearly, we did not have a vessel as capable as 

Polar Sea or Polar Star. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yeah, but you’re going for the 100-percent solution. 

I’m asking, how did you not have a 100-percent solution but still 

get the job done for 40 years? That’s all I’m asking. How did the 

Navy do that, the Coast Guard? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, I don’t know. I’d have to, I’d have—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, there’s—— 

Admiral MICHEL. How they operated—— 

Mr. HUNTER. The answer is because they didn’t have a heavy, 

and they still got the job done. They were able to make do with an 

22 

80-percent solution, which you’re telling me is impossible and not 

what the Coast Guard wants. And you’re willing to wait till what, 

2026, 2030, for multiple heavies to come online, in our dreamline, 

when you and I are no longer here. And it’s the next Congress, 10, 

20 years from now, and who knows what’s going on. What you’re 

offering me is kind of a non-solution solution. Saying we got to 

have 100 percent. We didn’t have the 100-percent solution until, 

you know, fairly recently. So you know, help me out here. 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, I’m just giving you my best advice. And my 

best advice is to invest in the capability that provides you with that 

ensured global access. 

Mr. HUNTER. But how do you fill that gap right now? Without 

leasing multiple mediums, non-heavies, whatever you want to call 

them. The non-superperfect one that you’re talking about. 

Admiral MICHEL. You’ve got the Polar Star, and you’ve got the 

Polar Sea, are essentially what’s in my tool kit now for providing 

heavy icebreaking capability. 

Mr. HUNTER. The Polar Star is only kind of in your tool kit, 

when it’s, when it’s working. Polar Sea. Admiral MICHEL. No, Polar Sea is broken. 

Mr. HUNTER. Polar Sea is broken. Polar Star is kind of in your 

tool kit? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, it’s a declared operational vessel for the 

Coast Guard. It’s got, it’s got baggage because it’s an old vessel. 

But it is an operation vessel with the Coast Guard. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. But you understand my reasoning here, right? 

Does that, does it make sense to you? 

Admiral MICHEL. It makes sense to me, sir, but I don’t know 

what the mission sets were in 1955 and 1960. I’m only dealing with 

the present that I have now. 

Mr. HUNTER. I would guess it had to do with the Cold War and 

being in the Arctic. That’s my guess. Wouldn’t you assume that? 

Wouldn’t you assume that it had to do with the Cold War and the 

Soviet Union and breaking out subs or doing something in the Arctic? 

Admiral MICHEL. No, I would assume that. And my guess is that 

there was probably more presence up there and maybe more—— 

Mr. HUNTER. But then how were they able to do that without a 

heavy icebreaker? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, I don’t know if this is going to be productive, because I’m not sure what those mission sets were back in 

those days. And there was a lot more, there was a lot more just 

capability for self-rescue and other things that don’t exist, don’t 

exist today. It was a different world back then than it is today. All 

I can tell you is it’s my best advice as a sailor and a guy who’s actually been in Antarctica and been on Polar Star as it broke out 

that ice road, dealing with these huge chunks of ice. I mean, these 

things are the size of school buses. Trying to, trying to make, break 

its way through there. And the fact that we tried Healy down in 

the Antarctic. And Healy is a pretty capable vessel. It’s 30,000 

shaft horsepower, and it got stuck. 

I don’t want ships to get stuck. I want to buy capability that’s 

going to be enduring and lasting. We only get this recapitalization 

opportunity once every—it’s been a long, long time. And I want to 

23 

make sure that what we buy is good, because you may not see another one of these icebreakers for 40, 50 years in the Coast Guard 

budget. The last time the Coast Guard had money in its budget—— 

Mr. HUNTER. That’s what we’re going at now. We’re going to see 

zero. 

Admiral MICHEL [continuing]. For a heavy icebreaker was Polar 

Sea and Polar Star. Even the Healy was in the Navy shipbuilding 

budget. So we got to make sure that, all I can tell you is it’s my 

best advice, sir, that our best investment at this point for heavy 

icebreaking capability is to figure out what to do with Polar Sea 

and Polar Star to bridge out to the new icebreaker that’s in the 

President’s budget request. And I don’t think that that’s unreasonable. Do I wish this would have been solved earlier? Absolutely I 

do. And but it’s not. And you know, I’m the Vice Commandant of 

the Coast Guard. I got to deal with this problem now. 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, tell you what. We’re going to back and look 

and see how we were able to exist as a Nation that operated in the 

Arctic without having a heavy icebreaker. And then we’ll come and 

inform the Coast Guard on how we do that, OK? 

So here’s my second point here. I have a document. We asked 

CBP, we asked CBP how many requests from the Coast Guard did 

they receive for UAS, OK? Those requests come back here to the 

CBPs. Their marine operations, joint program office, CBP headquarters in DC, blah, blah, blah. Here’s the CBP’s answer: ‘‘The 

CBP conducted a careful review, and despite a well-established 

process, by which all Department of Homeland Security components request UAS support, cannot locate any prior requests from 

the U.S. Coast Guard.’’ It was dated April 25th. So according to the 

CBP, the Coast Guard has never requested UAS. And this is theirs. 

I just quoted them. OK. Can you, can you just talk about that for 

a minute. What’s—that’s kind of perplexing, right? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, sir, for our Coast Guard mission set, it 

actually doesn’t surprise me that we wouldn’t make a request to 

CBP. Most of those UAS hours that would be useful to us would 

be done through JIATF South. And JIATF South is the one who 

has lead responsibility. It’s a DOD entity, as you know, that has 

lead responsibility for detection and monitoring of drug trafficking 

in the Western Hemisphere transit zone. They provide us with the 

network. It doesn’t surprise me, because CBP is providing it to 

JIATF South. They’re not providing it directly to the Coast Guard. 

Mr. HUNTER. So we should rephrase our question: How many requests has JIATF South requested from CBP for the Coast Guard 

to use UAS? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, we’re not the only users of the JIATF 

South network. Like I said, the CBP Guardian is my understanding is down and working for JIATF right now, and works for 

a whole range of different partners, including international partners, who rely on those sensors that are carried by that UAS. So 

when I say intelligence driven operations, then the JIATF South 

AOR, the Coast Guard is a participant in that, but we’re not the 

only part of that intelligence driving enterprise. 

Mr. HUNTER. But you are the main interdiction, especially now 

that the Navy has left and gone west. You are the main interdiction agency that operates there, correct? 

24 

Admiral MICHEL. For maritime interdiction, the Coast Guard 

typically gets the lion’s share of the interdictions. But the entire intelligence network that backs that up doesn’t, actually most of it 

doesn’t belong to the Coast Guard. 

Mr. HUNTER. But you’re the operational agency that actually 

interdicts. I mean, you have the platforms. You have the cutters 

and the helicopters and the airplanes that interdict, right? So you 

don’t find it strange that not a single request was logged by the 

CBP from the Coast Guard? Once again, that is not strange to you 

in any way? 

Admiral MICHEL. No, sir. No, sir, it is not. When CBP goes down 

and works in that enterprise, they work for JIATF South, which is 

a DOD entity. And they contribute their platforms. 

Mr. HUNTER. Does JIATF South have a—— 

Admiral MICHEL. The Coast Guard wouldn’t make that request 

directly. 

Mr. HUNTER. So the Coast Guard wouldn’t request the asset at 

all? It would JIATF South requesting it and telling the Coast 

Guard where to go with it, or what to go look at or what? Explain 

it to me. 

Admiral MICHEL. JIATF South has tac-con of all the resources 

that are provided JIATF South, including Coast Guard cutters. 

And Coast Guard cutters have to actually chop back to the Coast 

Guard in order to do the law enforcement mission that they do 

down there. But the wider surveillance in the intelligence network, 

that’s not directly owned by the Coast Guard. I don’t know any 

other way to describe that. 

Mr. HUNTER. Do you think it would be a benefit to the Coast 

Guard to own its own UAS? You obviously said you were intensely 

interested. 

Admiral MICHEL. I told you, sir, I’m intensely interested in that, 

because I’d like to see the Coast Guard get an oar in the water and 

have its own organic capability for its own uses, as well as be able 

to contribute to these broader enterprises like JIATF South. And 

I think the Coast Guard brings unique experience within DHS and 

unique connections with the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, to be able to actually build out our own organic, 

systems capability. 

Mr. HUNTER. Let me ask you, if your requirements are being met 

right now, by JIATF South and CBP, why would you need your 

own organic capability? 

Admiral MICHEL. Once again, sir, I can envision. That’s not the 

only thing that we would use these for. I can envision these being 

used for remote areas of REEZ that are very difficult to monitor. 

And we probably wouldn’t want to you know, request that, of CBP, 

to provide that capability. I don’t know. But there are a bunch of 

other mission sets that the Coast Guard could use if we had capabilities like this. That’s why I’m very interested. 

Mr. HUNTER. But you wouldn’t spend the money on a UAS platform or system to go look at the far reaches of REEZ? I mean, you 

would use them for your, your main priority missions, I would 

guess, wouldn’t you? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, I think I and the rest of our enterprise, we 

do risk calculations on a daily basis. I’ve got 11 missions. 

25 

Mr. HUNTER. What I’m saying is, we’re not going to allocate 

money for you to get a UAS if the whole point of is to just go look 

at the ocean in the corners of REEZ to make sure that, that the 

coral is growing properly or something. Right? I mean, that’s not 

the point of getting the system. It would be used on interdictions 

so you could raise your numbers of drugs and ships that you interdict, coming up from South and Central America, right? 

Admiral MICHEL. That, that would be a priority mission. There’s 

actually infrastructure in place to do that. So you can actually get 

a land-based system. But, but I don’t want to—sir, I’ll give you an 

example. We get dozens upon dozens of illegal fishing vessel and 

drug incursions along our southwest border. On both the Texas 

side and near your district, we get those panga boats that come 

zipping by. And we get a bunch of illegal fishermen over on the 

Texas side. Both of those mission sets could use some additional 

maritime domain awareness. Which could be provided by long 

dwell sensors placed there by unmanned aerial systems. 

So there’s a whole bunch of different mission sets that the Coast 

Guard could use these on. For example, our Maritime Boundary 

Line. With, with Russia. We patrol that all the time to prevent 

Russian fishing vessel incursions. Perhaps you could use that unmanned aerial system in order to do that. And you know, we’re 

probably not going to request that from CBP, because I’ve got other 

fish I got to fry. 

But if we had our own organic capability that we could use to 

actually build on some expertise in our organization, we could use 

it across a whole bunch of different mission sets. Of which drug 

interdiction on the Western Hemisphere transit zone I’d assume 

would be a priority mission. But it’s not going to be the only one. 

I wouldn’t want to build it just for that particular mission set. I 

would want to build it so hopefully it’s multimission platform, and 

I can use it in all the different Coast Guard missions. Since even 

for, for counterterrorism, you can imagine different maritime 

counterterrorism scenarios where you might want to have something like that. 

Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely. Let me tell you, what you guys are saying down South. We have statements from multiple coastguardsmen about their requests being denied by the CBP when they 

asked for the assets. And I’ll be happy to share that with you later, 

off the record here. You—there have been Coast Guard requests for 

unmanned surveillance aircraft that have been denied by CBP. And 

I’ll be happy to share those instances with you at some other time. 

Admiral MICHEL. Yes, sir. I look forward to seeing that. I’m not 

sure exactly what happens all the way down at the tactical level. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. I yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to take 

this a slightly different direction here. There’s ongoing questions 

and one of your tasks is the maintenance of navigation. And specifically, does your plan call for recapitalization of the tenders, the 

buoy tenders? And if so, what’s it take? How serious is that problem? There are those who think that the buoy tenders are rusting 

out. Could you speak to that? 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, sir, again there’s a couple different classes of vessel. So there’s kind of the coastal buoy tenders, which are 

26 

225s and 125s. Those have, actually have an in-service vessel 

sustainment program. And they’re, they’re going—as a matter of 

fact, I think one up on the Coast Guard yard right now, they’re 

taking care of some of the—they had an engine control system that 

had some problems. They’re replacing that whole system. Those are 

actually in pretty good shape, for our coastal buoy tenders. But I 

think what you’re alluding to is our inland. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. It is. 

Admiral MICHEL. River tender fleet. A lot of that is really actually quite old. The good part about is the environmentals there are 

usually pretty benign. They’re in freshwater. They’re not exposed 

to, you know, the dangers of the sea, because they’re in a river system. So they tend to, to last a little bit longer. We did put some 

new engines in those craft. But those do need recapitalization. 

They’re not currently in our capital investment plan. You know, 

how we include those, it’s another area that needs to be recapitalized. Currently it is not in our organizational priorities to do that, 

but it’s on my radar, on my radar for sure. Because there are vessels in there that are 50-plus years old and need to be recapitalized. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I’d like you to have a little more detail about 

that in response to a written question we’ll get you about the recapitalization of the inland tenders, buoy tenders. I want to spend 

more time on the UAVs, UASs and the like. It seems to me that 

the technology, as you have said, is rapidly advancing. And if we’re 

able to move the Coast Guard more quickly into the utilization of 

these multiple types of assets. Some on the water, some in the air. 

The satellites. And particularly the coordination with the other, 

with the military. Some of which is operating—for example, the 

new naval systems, called the Poseidon, the Trident. The Trident. 

That they’ll be operating out there, for example, in the San Diego 

area. Part of it being their testing. And perhaps that information 

would also be available to the Coast Guard and to the multiple 

tasks. Some for the Coast Guard, some for the Navy. 

So I want to spend time with you on the future of this entire aspect, and also where the money is for them. I think that, you know, 

we said some of this earlier with the NSC, the 10th, half a billion 

dollars, how many UAS or UAV assets could we purchase. The personnel to go with it and so forth. I don’t expect an answer right 

now, but just some general philosophy from you. I think we’ve 

heard some of it. I want to go into it in more detail. So if you could 

expand on that. 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, it’s, I think—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. We got the book. We got the Mission Needs 

Statement. And we got the President’s budget. 

Admiral MICHEL. Yes, sir. And the President’s budget layout, our 

organizational recapitalization priorities, this is what I got to rack 

and stack. So I see great promises in unmanned aerial systems. 

Like I said, I was JIATF South Director. I’m a buyer. But I got to 

put this in rack and stack against all my other priorities. And I’ve 

got sailors out there on ships that are going to be 55 years old. And 

it’s not a river tender fleet that’s on freshwater on a river somewhere. These are people who are out exposed in real perils of the 

sea. Putting out sailors out in 55- and 60-year-old ships, on that 

27 

210-foot class of cutters. Which by the way, got a big bust today 

down operating off—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me, Admiral. I’m going to try to stay 

within my allotted 5 minutes. 

Admiral MICHEL. Yes, sir. It’s just a priority. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Here’s what I need in order to make decisions. 

I see my task as basically choices. And it is not clear to me what 

the Coast Guard would like to have. There’s this thing called need 

to and like to. I’m willing to, the need to. I believe that we have 

to move towards these unmanned vehicles, both marine as well as 

aerial. And the integration of them into your operation. Presently, 

it is not, there’s a little bit of money in the budget. There’s a little 

bit of thinking about it. But it seems to me that it is not adequately addressed. So for the Coast Guard, for you, what would be 

the ideal situation, the integration of these types of assets into the 

ongoing operations? 

I understand that you’ve got men and women out there in the 

ships. The ships are old and there’s questions of safety as well as 

viability. But it, how much additional money would be necessary to 

ramp up and then integrate into the Coast Guard operation these 

new types of assets? They’re not really new, but new to the Coast 

Guard. I understand you’re doing some of it today. What would it 

be? Is it another $100 million, $200 million, half a billion dollars? 

What are we talking about here? So there’s that question. There’s 

one other. So I’m going to come back at you in future hearings to 

dwell upon that issue. 

I do have a question that was raised by Ms. Grover, and that has 

to do with the accounting. That it is not uniform within the Service. That there are some who are keeping score. And there are others that are not. And therefore the ability of the Coast Guard management to understand the deployment of assets is not as good as 

it should be. Is that right, Ms. Grover? 

Ms. GROVER. We found that the Coast Guard data on how the 

assets are deployed by mission is not reliable. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. So what are you doing about it, Admiral? 

Admiral MICHEL. Oh, boy. Well, first of all, we’re working with 

GAO, and we appreciate them brining that to our attention. This 

is part of the baggage of being a multimission organization. So 

when you send any, any Coast Guard platform out there, almost 

all of them are multimission in nature. And how do you account for 

an hour spent on PWCS and search and rescue and maritime law 

enforcement. And it goes all the way down. I mean, and the people 

who are reporting here, this is not captains or something. These 

are, you know, the coxswain of the boat who reports how many 

hours he or she spent doing something in a port. 

And we can certainly tighten it up. I think the call by GAO for 

additional input from the operational commanders will help us get 

the accounting issue. But we, it’s a difficult thing for a multimission organization to just pin every single hour accurately. But we 

got the challenge and we appreciate GAO’s highlighting in on that. 

We’ll continue working with them and see if we can close the gap 

here a little bit. Because I think there’s some money to be made 

here. 

28 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yeah. And I think you should also keep in mind 

what the chairman said at the outset in his opening statement. 

You can become very bureaucratic and waste a lot of time and energy. So there’s got to be some way in which. But the basic point 

here is the allocation of your resources. You’ve got a ship out there 

that’s, you know, just kind of sailing around and not really employed in migration or drugs or whatever. So I think that’s what 

you’re trying to get at. 

Ms. GROVER. Right. And there’s no need to overdo it and to make 

it excessively burdensome. The Coast Guard has data collection 

systems in place already. But what we found is that the districts 

are using different approaches, where in some cases they allocate 

all of their hours to one mission. And in other cases they make a 

concerted effort to do at least a rough divvy up between where they 

started out and where they ended up. And so I think it’s just a 

matter of some consistent direction about how that should be handled. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much. I yield. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Zeldin is recognized. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. For as long as he likes. 

Mr. ZELDIN. I don’t even know if I’ll use my 5 minutes, Chairman. How’s that. Admiral, thank you for being here. Ms. Grover, 

thank you as well. Admiral, I had a question for you. As we discussed the allocation of Coast Guard resources, one of the concerns 

that I hear from Long Island boaters is with regards to the 911 

calls that takes place when there’s an emergency on water. The 

Coast Guard has the expertise to deal with maritime search and 

rescue, yet in many cases 911 dispatchers aren’t properly trained 

and don’t know how to handle a serious maritime emergency. Or 

on the other hand, how to handle a non-emergency situation where 

a stranded boater might have the maritime equivalent of a flat 

time. 

We need to ensure that the Coast Guard resources are deployed 

when and where they’re most needed to save lives in emergency 

situations, but not misallocated by the deployment when not needed. I would like to commend the sector, Long Island Sound, which 

has a great plan working with local law enforcement, 9/11 call centers. My question for you is with regards to this issue on a national 

level so that all 911 dispatchers know how to properly respond to 

maritime emergencies. 

Some of the people who speak to me on Long Island have experience in other sectors. And there are different experiences elsewhere. And obviously the most extreme example is where a 911 

dispatcher might be contacting local law enforcement officials and 

you’re not getting notified until hours later, when it might be too 

late to successfully complete the recovery. 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, it’s an important issue, and it has to do 

with the way people communicate these days. First of all, I have 

to encourage boaters to use their VHF, FM radio. Because when 

they broadcast it out, it broadcasts out broadly to other people, including other good Samaritans who may be in the neighborhood 

and be able to render assistance to them. When they make a 911 

call, I’m not telling them not to, but when they make a 911 it just 

29 

goes to one person. And the other people who may be in the vicinity 

and be able to best provide assistance to them, if they don’t know 

about that, then they, they may be putting themselves at risk. 

So I’d encourage boaters, use your VHF radio. I’m not saying 

don’t use your cell phone, but use your VHF radio, because there 

may be people in the immediate vicinity who may be able to come 

and help you. But we understand people communicate in various 

different ways. They carry their cell phones with them. It is a 

known gap. I’m glad you point out the fact that at Long Island 

Sound—I know other sectors are dealing with the exact same issue. 

And we got the message. And I don’t know where we stand on national direction on this, because it’s been left down to the districts 

and the sectors to do this. I’m going to take a round turn on that, 

Mr. Zeldin, and I will get back in touch with you with exactly what 

our program is. But again, I encourage boaters, please use your 

VHF radio, because your nearest help may actually be very close, 

very close by. 

Mr. ZELDIN. And where you have a local law enforcement, fire 

department, EMTs, they have a maritime asset that they look forward to the opportunity to be able to utilize, obviously preferring 

a training setting than real life, I think that not only is there a 

need to better train that 911 dispatcher but also do more to encourage local law enforcement, encouraging those first responders to 

contact you sooner. 

Is this a real issue? Because I’ve heard these anecdotal stories 

from people who are actually in the industry. We have CTO is 

headquartered in my district. The First Congressional District of 

New York is a district almost completely surrounded by water, 

making it unique from that respect as well, and a heavy Coast 

Guard presence. But it just, it seems like there might be an issue 

where even that first responder, when they get the phone call, 

they’re not contacting you right away. They’re trying to go out and 

do it themselves. 

Admiral MICHEL. It doesn’t surprise me. And again, it’s the 

method of the communication. So sort of before the advent of cell 

phones, you had your radio, and everybody would monitor that frequency. You know, whether it’s the fire department or the Coast 

Guard or other boaters in the area. They’d be on channel 16 and 

they’d listen to things. Everybody got all of the information all at 

one time, and they could all sort of respond as needed to that particular circumstance. 

Now, you’ve got a point to point communication, where you’ve 

got, you know, a boater in distress, and they’re calling somebody 

who’s in some call center, in 911. And you’ve got a point to point 

communication. Then how do you build off that back end piece to 

get all of those people who under the old regime would have had 

access to that information real time? That’s, that’s a real challenge. 

And that’s again why I encourage boaters, please use your VHF– 

FM. But we need to build in that back end piece, Mr. Zeldin. And 

I need to get you a report on how we’re going to deal with that nationally. I know we’ve dealt with other similar issues in the past, 

like using some of the Star features on cell phones and things like 

that. But how do we really get that point to point communication 

to get to all those as real time as possible? It doesn’t surprise me 

30 

that you’re getting anecdotal information that it’s hard to convert 

that point to point communication, get that to everybody all at the 

same time. Because that, that network probably does not exist 

where it does on something like VHF–FM. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Admiral. Thank you, Ms. Grover. Thank 

you for the time. I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. I’m going to hit this one, 

one more time. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that 

the biggest threat to the United States right now is Russia. It’s not 

ISIS. They don’t have a Navy. They don’t have an Air Force. They 

have no nukes. They have nothing. It’s, it’s Russia. The biggest 

threat arguably to the United States, post-World War II, and to 

when the Soviet Union became Russia, was Russia, right? So let’s 

just call it Russia. 

So it went on for 40 or 50 years. And now it again, according to 

our chairman of the Joint Chiefs right now, Dunford, Russia is the 

biggest threat that the U.S. has. If a war is started with Russia, 

with our allies or with us, we would be unable to traverse north 

of them at all right now. Would you agree with that assessment? 

They would have—let’s put it this way. Would the Russians have 

free passage? 

Admiral MICHEL. The Russians have a very capable icebreaking 

fleet. I don’t want to speak for the Russians, but they, there are 

very few areas that I don’t think the Russians could go to. I will 

tell you this. And I testified to this before. That with the current 

icebreaking fleet that we have, we cannot as a Nation provide global ensured 7 by 24 by 365 access to ice-covered regions worldwide. 

We cannot do it with today’s fleet. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK, well, but I’m just trying to go down, why is it 

so important that we provide 24 by 7 by 365 global icebreaking capability? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, as I said before, if you cannot provide national presence, you cannot assert national sovereignty and national sovereign rights, whatever they may be. Whether they’re resource related rights, whether they’re freedom of navigation rights, 

whether they are national defense rights or otherwise. If you can’t 

get there because you’ve been area-denied by the environmentals, 

you cannot assert sovereign rights. And the United States has sovereign interests in both the Arctic ice-covered regions ads well as 

the Antarctic ice-covered regions. 

Mr. HUNTER. So, so during, so let’s go back to this. During the 

Cold War, when the Russians and U.S. submariners were chasing 

each other around the oceans, we had access to the Arctic north of 

Russia during that entire time without having a heavy icebreaker? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, part—I can’t go back and say why they 

built the fleet that they did. They may not have even had the capability of building a heavy icebreaker. 

Mr. HUNTER. They had the capability. 

Admiral MICHEL. I don’t know whether they had the capability 

in the 1960s to build a vessel like the Polar Star. As a matter of 

fact, to get the horsepower requirements necessarily to do what 

they did with Polar Star they needed to use gas turbines and controlled pitch propellers, which are very, for that time of environment—— 

31 

Mr. HUNTER. I’m not saying that—— 

Admiral MICHEL [continuing]. Probably not what you would want 

to choose. They may not have had global ensured access both in 

those days, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. Admiral, hang on. I’m not saying the capability to 

build the ship. We had the capability to break the ice in the Arctic 

above Russia during the Cold War without a heavy icebreaker. 

How is that possible? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, I don’t whether that is possible. With the 

fleet that exists in the 1960s, I do not know if they could have provided global ensured access. There may have been ice regions that 

they were incapable of getting to. I can tell you, my job today, and 

the Commandant said in the cooperative strategy that he signed 

with the CNO and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, that we 

will provide global ensured access. And the Coast Guard piece of 

that is icebreaking. Global ensured access, 7 by 24 by 365, required 

heavy icebreaking capability of which the Polar Sea and the Polar 

Star are capable of doing that. And we’ve, we’ve gone through that. 

So I don’t know what the world was in 1960, where you could 

get everywhere in ice-covered regions. I can tell you the cooperative 

strategy lays that out as a task for the Coast Guard. And that’s the 

task that I have is to provide that global ensured access. And it’s 

our icebreaking fleet, heavy icebreaking fleet that does that primarily. There are roles for medium icebreakers, but they cannot 

operate on that type of a basis. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. Ms. Grover. I feel like I’ve ignored you. I don’t 

know, I don’t even know how to phrase this question, really. When 

you look at things beyond, beyond hours of service and allocation 

of assets, when you look at Coast Guard mission sets, and the 

prioritization of those missions, do you look at those things? Do you 

look at how the Coast Guard prioritizes its missions, and then how 

the assets are allocated to that prioritization? 

Ms. GROVER. Well, we have information about what the Coast 

Guard’s plan is for its prioritization of asset hours by mission. But 

I can’t give you an analysis of the extent to which that’s carried 

out, because of the problems with the data. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. So you can’t say whether the asset allocation 

matches overall the mission or by mission, because of the data? 

Ms. GROVER. That’s right. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. OK. Mr. Graves is recognized. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Admiral Michel, thank you for being here today. And I 

know that the chairman covered icebreakers a little bit. I had one 

question perhaps. And I apologize. I was missing for a few minutes. 

I wanted to make sure we got an answer on. The Healy at some 

point is going to be going through a SLEP, is that, is that accurate? 

And I understand that in the questioning earlier you discussed how 

a medium icebreaker perhaps provides an 80-percent solution. 

What happens when the Healy is in the SLEP? Because the 

Healy is going to be put in a SLEP, as I understand, within the 

10-year window that you indicated was possible to deliver a heavy. 

So we then have some significant deficiencies in regard to capabilities. 

32 

Admiral MICHEL. Now, that’s spot on and that, we’re going to 

have to figure out the timing on that and when we’re going to have 

to do a SLEP. You know, we’ve had some money. I think we had 

money in the 2016 budget and got some money in the 2017 budget 

to do this survey work. And we’re going to have to time that with 

the rest of the icebreaking fleet. It’s a medium icebreaker. It’s not 

going to meet requirements for things like Antarctica and stuff like 

that, but it’s going to have to be timed with the rest of the fleet. 

I think you’re spot on, Congressman Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. And so, Admiral, I think, I think 

along the lines of the chairman’s questioning, I certainly don’t intend to put any words in his mouth. I think the concern is on the 

part of many members of the committee is sort of the interim strategy. So I don’t think there’s any question here that we have need 

for additional icebreaking capabilities, especially when you compare out capabilities to other Arctic nations. We’re getting blown 

away right now. 

But for us to put all of our eggs in the basket of the heavy in 

the long-term strategy, it does leave a gap, particularly, that gap 

is exacerbated by the fact that the Healy’s going to have to go 

through a SLEP at some point during that 10-year window. And 

I think that the interim strategy is something that’s a concern of 

many folks here. So can you remind me, when is the survey or the 

report due back on the Polar Sea? 

Admiral MICHEL. So the, the—I had told the committee that as 

the Commandant promised, on July the 24th, we’ll have the material assessment on the Polar Sea. That will not include the entire 

alternatives analysis, which is kind of what we get, the broader 

context. But the material assessment is due to the committee on 

July the 24th. We had folks out there looking at it when it was out 

of the water, and I anticipate we’ll deliver that report on time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Great. Thank you, Admiral. I yield 

back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. Yeah, so we, we have a 

hearing on July 12th, but July 24th is when we’re going to get 

the—and we’re not going to be here. I’m not sure what, we come 

back, till like September, after the—so we’re not going to be here 

to hear what the update is on the Polar Sea. But we can get that 

out to everybody. When it comes in, we’ll push it out. So thanks. 

I’d like to yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Admiral Michel, thank you very much. We’ve 

gone into icebreakers in great detail. We’ll do that again on July 

the 12th and we’ll pick up the pieces of this. You’ve got an extraordinarily complex world, and many, many missions in which you 

have to deal. My fundamental concern is that we have the information necessary to give you the money and the resources necessary 

to carry out the tasks. I recognize those tasks, the prioritization, 

that changes over time. There are emergencies. There’s Deepwater 

Horizon. And suddenly you’re off to a different task. Or there’s a 

hurricane and whatever. So I understand that. I want to make sure 

that you’re positioned for the future. The icebreaker is a 10-year 

project. I understand that. Many of these other programs are also 

going to be long-term projects. 

33 

I want to make sure that you’re starting today or you’re underway today with the resources that you need for the future. Personnel. And the assets that they will need. We’ve talked some 

about unmanned aerial vehicles, or aerial as well as surface and 

marine. We wanted to go into that in much more detail. 

Of specific interest to me is the integration of the total American 

assets. So the Coast Guard is able to integrate with the military. 

I know you do much of this already in cybersecurity and in other 

areas, some of which are classified. But there’s much, much more 

that’s available there. I know the State Department is working on 

a program having to do with the fish in the ocean or the fish that 

are no longer in the ocean. And that’s another task that the Coast 

Guard has. 

So the integration across the whole of Government is of great interest to me so that we can better utilize and integrate the resources. So the next conversation we’re going to, that I would like 

to have with you, and the, some of this is in the icebreaking area, 

is the integration across the whole of Government. I don’t expect 

an answer today. I am going to have some questions if the chairman would allow that we could get in written form and get some 

answers back. And David will get those to you. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you for this hearing and Admiral Michel, Ms. Grover, thank 

you. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. Hey, thank you both for 

being here. As Mr. Garamendi said, we’re trying to, number one, 

you have the responsibility of breaking ice north of Russia. That’s 

right now a Coast Guard responsibility. You know, Mr. Garamendi 

and I are both on the Armed Services Committee. Maybe that 

needs to be a Navy responsibility. Because right now there’s a 

giant gap where we’re unable to break ice north of Russia. From 

the Bering Sea, north and west. We can’t do it right now. You don’t 

have the capability to do it for a sustained amount of time at all. 

So the question is, number one, should it even be a Coast Guard 

responsibility. If it’s a national strategic priority, should it be a 

Coast Guard responsibility, or should we just go, ‘‘Navy, do it. 

Build them, do it, make sure we have the capability to be up there, 

to break something out of the ice or to move to if we need to or 

want to.’’ 

We’re just trying to help you get there. Wars don’t come on our 

acquisition timelines. Wars don’t match our 12-year outlook. Wars 

happen when they happen, and right now we’re not prepared for 

one. This is a big gap. This is why the Navy’s looking at this finally. This is why the Senate just put in $1 billion. This is why 

the House, the stingy house, just appropriated $150 million. This, 

this is becoming more and more, it’s becoming clearer day by day 

that we have to be up there. And people are finally starting to understand that, right? So that’s the good side, I guess, is that we’ve 

been yelling loud enough and knocking on enough doors to where 

now it is a priority. So no matter how it plays out, at least it’s 

going to be there at some point going forward. 

When it comes to the unmanned aerial systems, any way that we 

can help you leverage your current assets, that’s what UAS does. 

It helps you leverage what you have. It’s not the be all end all but 

it makes the rest of your assets that much better at what they do. 

34 

Because instead of having to use a helicopter or a C–130, you can 

send that out there and you can do reconnaissance. You can do all 

kinds of stuff. I mean, massive leveraging of your assets, right? We 

just want to get there in this lifetime. On budget and on time. 

And anything that we can do to help you we will do, but we need 

to know from you what you want. And I know you’re doing analysis, but it’s not like unmanned aerial systems are new. They 

aren’t a new thing. Especially a land-based unmanned system. You 

talked about Predator B. General Atomics has given us a price 

sheet. Because we’ve asked them, ‘‘What would it cost the Coast 

Guard to maintain an organic fleet of two Predators, land-based? 

What would it cost?’’ Twenty million dollars for one. That’s what, 

with them operating, flying for you, doing, putting it out wherever 

you want. 

There’s an actual cost for you. If you get two it goes down. If you 

get three it goes down more. Right, that’s how it works. But these 

systems are out there and they’re available right now. It doesn’t 

take a whole bunch of research or analysis to go, ‘‘Man, what, what 

do we have now? What can we buy and put in our arsenal?’’ We 

have them out there. They’ve been tested, tried and true, right? 

So those exist right now. And they’re not super expensive. Twenty million bucks for one. When it’s operated by somebody else, 

you’re not going to incur any operation costs. No maintenance 

costs, no parts costs. That’s just General Atomics operating a Predator B for you. That sounds like a good deal to me. 

We could probably find 20 million bucks for that. We’re just here 

to help. So we’re going to keep pushing on these things. But we 

can’t help you unless we get the answers from you of what you 

need. And it seems like it’s always the analysis is being done. The 

analysis is being done, the analysis is being done. We’re finally 

going to get an answer on July 24th on one of these analysis. But 

we are here to help. You let us know what we can do and what 

we can provide you to make you better at your job. So thank you 

for your service. 

I just saw the movie on, by the way, what was the movie with 

the ‘‘Star Trek’’ guy, the guy who started ‘‘Star Trek,’’ what was— 

‘‘The Finest Hours.’’ Yeah, fantastic. Those, those cutters looked 

pretty old too, right? I think you’re always operating with less than 

you should operate with, but that’s, that’s what happens. That’s 

how we got to war. That’s how we fight. That’s how we go to sea. 

We just get the job done with what we have. So thank you very 

much to you and your men and women. And Ms. Grover, I’m sorry 

I didn’t have more questions for you. I got caught up in this whole 

national security thing today. But I appreciate it. And with that, 

the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

35 


Insert offset folio 11 here 20498.011
36 


Insert offset folio 12 here 20498.012
37 


Insert offset folio 13 here 20498.013
38 


Insert offset folio 14 here 20498.014
39 


Insert offset folio 15 here 20498.015
40 


Insert offset folio 16 here 20498.016
41 


Insert offset folio 17 here 20498.017
42 


Insert offset folio 18 here 20498.018
43 


Insert offset folio 19 here 20498.019
44 


Insert offset folio 20 here 20498.020
45 


Insert offset folio 21 here 20498.021
46 


Insert offset folio 22 here 20498.022
47 


Insert offset folio 23 here 20498.023
48 


Insert offset folio 24 here 20498.024
49 


Insert offset folio 25 here 20498.025
50 


Insert offset folio 26 here 20498.026
51 


Insert offset folio 27 here 20498.027
52 


Insert offset folio 28 here 20498.028
53 


Insert offset folio 29 here 20498.029
54 


Insert offset folio 30 here 20498.030
55 


Insert offset folio 31 here 20498.031
56 


Insert offset folio 32 here 20498.032
57 


Insert offset folio 33 here 20498.033
58 


Insert offset folio 34 here 20498.034
59 


Insert offset folio 35 here 20498.035
60 


Insert offset folio 36 here 20498.036
61 


Insert offset folio 37 here 20498.037
62 


Insert offset folio 38 here 20498.038
63 


Insert offset folio 39 here 20498.039
64 


Insert offset folio 40 here 20498.040
65 


Insert offset folio 41 here 20498.041
66 


Insert offset folio 42 here 20498.042
67 


Insert offset folio 43 here 20498.043
68 


Insert offset folio 44 here 20498.044
69 


Insert offset folio 45 here 20498.045
70 


Insert offset folio 46 here 20498.046
71 


Insert offset folio 47 here 20498.047
72 


Insert offset folio 48 here 20498.048
73 


Insert offset folio 49 here 20498.049
74 


Insert offset folio 50 here 20498.050
75 


Insert offset folio 51 here 20498.051
76 


Insert offset folio 52 here 20498.052
77 


Insert offset folio 53 here 20498.053
78 


Insert offset folio 54 here 20498.054
79 


Insert offset folio 55 here 20498.055
80 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 56 here 20498.056