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

95–651 PDF 2015

THE FEDERAL RADIONAVIGATION PLAN; H.R. 

1684, THE FOREIGN SPILL PROTECTION ACT 

OF 2015; AND H.R. ll, THE NATIONAL 

ICEBREAKER FUND ACT OF 2015 

(114–26) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 28, 2015 

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 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

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 

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, including H.R. 1684, the ‘‘Foreign Spill Protection Act of 2015’’ and H.R. ll, the ‘‘National Icebreaker Fund Act of 

2015’’ ..................................................................................................................... iv 

WITNESSES 

Gary C. Rasicot, Director of Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast 

Guard, and Mary E. Landry, Director of Incident Management and Preparedness Policy, U.S. Coast Guard: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 35 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Don Young of Alaska ...... 41 

Karen L. Van Dyke, Director of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing, and 

Spectrum Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and 

Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Martin Faga, Former Chief Executive Officer, MITRE Corporation, and 

Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, accompanied by Charles A. 

Schue, President and Chief Executive Officer, UrsaNav: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi of 

California ....................................................................................................... 59 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. John Garamendi of California ....................................................................... 30 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ........................................................................... 31 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 95651.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 95651.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 95651.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 95651.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 95651.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 95651.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 95651.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 95651.008
xii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 95651.009
xiii 


Insert offset folio 10 here 95651.010
xiv 


Insert offset folio 11 here 95651.011
xv 


Insert offset folio 12 here 95651.012
xvi 


Insert offset folio 13 here 95651.013
xvii 


Insert offset folio 14 here 95651.014
xviii 


Insert offset folio 15 here 95651.015
xix 


Insert offset folio 16 here 95651.016
xx 


Insert offset folio 17 here 95651.017
xxi 


Insert offset folio 18 here 95651.018
xxii 


Insert offset folio 19 here 95651.019
(1) 

THE FEDERAL RADIONAVIGATION PLAN; H.R. 

1684, THE FOREIGN SPILL PROTECTION ACT 

OF 2015; AND H.R. lll, THE NATIONAL 

ICEBREAKER FUND ACT OF 2015 

TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND

MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HUNTER. The committee will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to review three topics, the Federal 

Radionavigation Plan, the Foreign Spill Protection Act that Mr. 

Curbelo is bringing, and the National Icebreaker Fund Act of 2015. 

The first item for consideration is the Federal Radionavigation 

Plan, or FRP, which is the Federal Government’s primary policy 

and planning document for positioning, navigation, and timing, 

commonly referred to as PNT. The plan describes the Government’s 

role, responsibilities, and policies regarding PNT systems and data 

and is updated every 2 years through the joint efforts of the Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Homeland Security. 

The Global Positioning System, or GPS, is the most recognized 

PNT system and is vital to U.S. national security, the safe operation and reliability of critical infrastructure, and economic prosperity. GPS signals have been incorporated into virtually every 

technology, from cell phones to financial systems, the power grid, 

and information systems. Marine transportation systems are also 

highly dependent on GPS. 

The vast majority of the millions of recreational vessels, fishing 

vessels, commercial vessels, and foreign vessels that call on U.S. 

ports rely on at least one, if not many, GPS-based systems for safe 

navigation, collision avoidance, and emergency procedures. With a 

growing dependency on GPS in this Nation, it is concerning that 

the Department of Homeland Security officials have called GPS ‘‘a 

single point of failure for critical infrastructure.’’ 

In 2004, the Department of Transportation began working with 

DHS [Department of Homeland Security] to acquire a backup system for GPS under a directive from President George W. Bush. 

President Obama continued the directive, and in the 2008 edition 

of the FRP, the signatory agencies outlined a plan to develop a 

2 

GPS backup system. However, the next two editions of the FRP 

failed to provide a backup system. 

The ranking member and I sent a letter last year to the Secretaries of Transportation, Homeland Security, and Defense asking 

that the 2014 version of the FRP outline the Government’s plan for 

addressing the problem. The 2014 edition of the plan was released 

in May and does not identify what action will be taken or the lead 

agency. It has been 11 years since acknowledgment of this problem, 

and we need to move beyond discussing GPS vulnerability and 

start addressing the issue of how to fix it. 

The second item for consideration is Mr. Curbelo’s bill, H.R. 

1684, the Foreign Spill Protection Act of 2015. The bill would include foreign offshore units where there is a discharge or the substantial threat of oil discharge reaching U.S. waters or shores within the liability section of the Oil Pollution Act. The foreign offshore 

units would be a responsible party liable for removal costs and 

damages in the same manner as a U.S. offshore facility. 

The 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico 

showed that technology can fail and that existing response policies 

can be inadequate. The impacts of that spill are still being felt in 

the region. BP costs for the spill damages are currently over $50 

billion. The size, scope, and cost of that spill raise concerns about 

foreign deepwater oil drilling operations that could impact U.S. waters and shorelines. 

The subcommittee held a hearing in January 2012 to review 

‘‘Offshore Drilling in Cuba and the Bahamas: The U.S. Coast 

Guard’s Oil Spill Readiness and Response Planning.’’ At the hearing, the Coast Guard discussed how through international conventions and frameworks the Coast Guard is working with Caribbean 

nations, including Cuba and the Bahamas, to coordinate to combat 

spill events. 

The Coast Guard also discussed its National Contingency Plan 

and the work of the National Response Teams and their planning 

and preparedness efforts with State and local communities. I am 

interested to hear today about what agreements the Coast Guard 

has with its international partners, what prevention actions are 

being adopted to prevent more spills in the future, and in the event 

that a spill occurs, what type of international response and coordination we can expect. 

The ranking member is here. That is always special for us. 

H.R. 1684 gets at a specific issue, that there be a responsible 

party to pay for cleanup and damages for a foreign sourced oil spill 

that impacts U.S. waters and adjacent shorelines. While the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund could be used when there is no responsible party, it limits all costs to $1 billion. Any spill even near the 

scope of the Deepwater Horizon spill would quickly overwhelm the 

fund. 

The U.S. taxpayer should not be on the hook for any costs not 

covered by the fund for a spill that originates outside of the U.S., 

especially if the foreign offshore unit has a known owner or operator. I understand the Coast Guard may have concerns with the 

legislation and look forward to talking and getting their take on it 

and talking about the bill today. 

3 

The last item for consideration today is a draft bill, the National 

Icebreaker Fund Act. The bill would create a funding source that 

could be used for the alteration or renovation of icebreakers and 

the lease or charter of private icebreakers. 

The Polar Sea, currently inactive, and the Polar Star are both 

beyond their original 30-year service life. The Polar Star was recently renovated and is working within an estimated 7- to 10-year 

service life extension. The Healy will reach its estimated end-ofservice life in 2030. This conservatively puts us 5 to 15 years away 

from end-of-service life for the two active icebreakers and for the 

Polar Sea, if it gets a 7- to 10-year extension in the coming years. 

The operational status—more accurately, the nonoperational status—of the icebreakers is creating mission gaps. The older the icebreakers get, the longer it takes the administration to come up 

with a replacement plan, the closer we are to end-of-service life for 

the icebreakers, or, worst-case scenario, where we find ourselves 

without icebreakers. Years are passing with no progress on the acquisition or charter/leasing of an icebreaker or on decisions to reactivate the Polar Sea. 

Congress has restricted the use of Coast Guard acquisition funds 

to the construction of an icebreaker that can carry out Coast Guard 

missions. U.S. icebreakers have supported numerous executive 

agency missions, and the Coast Guard should not bear the burden 

of the full cost of building an icebreaker because they simply cannot pay for an icebreaker. 

The draft bill, the National Icebreaker Fund Act, would provide 

funding for long- or short-term solutions for renovating the aging 

icebreakers or chartering or leasing an icebreaker to alleviate, to 

the extent possible, mission gaps. In addition, through further discussion and bipartisan cooperation, the bill has been modified to include construction as a use of the fund. The bill should be viewed 

as part of a broader solution for the Coast Guard and its icebreakers. 

I look forward to talking about that today, the icebreakers in 

general. No one is doing this yet, meaning this is the only and the 

first shot we have done on actually trying to get something built 

or leased or anything. And that is what Mr. Garamendi and I have 

been working on. So hopefully it will at least go somewhere or gets 

the ball rolling in the right direction. 

And with that, I yield to Mr. Garamendi. This is what happens 

when you have three different topics for a hearing. The intro is too 

long. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I can shorten mine and really come down 

to two different types of time. One is real time, which I suppose 

the GPS and the e-loran [enhanced long-range navigation] system 

would accomplish. 

The other is Federal time. Federal time seems to be the forever 

time, and we have at least two great examples of Federal time 

here, one the e-loran system, which was identified as a backup to 

the GPS system, gee whiz, almost 20 years ago—well, 15 years ago, 

anyway. And here we are, Federal time, making time, and not yet 

4 

done. And the other is icebreaker, which is also operating on Federal time, which seems to be forever. We ought to get it done. 

I am going to submit my testimony for the record. But if we continue working on Federal time, we are going to have a very serious 

problem. And so my intention, together with you, Mr. Chairman, 

is to operate on real time and get something done. It has been way 

past time. 

We absolutely have to have a backup system. The GPS is vulnerable. I think we all know that for a variety of reasons, all of which 

are going to be discussed today. And if we do not get off the dime 

and get down to real time and get this thing done, there is going 

to be a world of hurt for this Nation and others. 

The icebreaker is similar. We could ponder and ponder, and 

eventually somebody is going to get stuck in the ice, and then 

somebody is going to wonder why was it not done. And the reason 

it was not done is that your United States Congress, House and 

Senate, together with the administration, was operating on Federal 

time—in other words, forever. So let’s get it done. 

Without objection, I would like to have my written statement in 

the record. 

Mr. HUNTER. So ordered. 

OK. Let’s introduce our witnesses today. First, we have—I am 

sorry. Mr. DeFazio? To the full committee ranking member, I yield. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thanks 

very much for holding this hearing. I think the introduction of the 

bill on the replacement of the icebreaker is absolutely critical. We 

need to move ahead. I have made known to the chairman and others my potential preferred alternative, which is after they haul the 

Polar Sea and Polar Star and take a look at the hull integrity, that 

the gutting stuff option holds a lot of attractiveness. And we will 

cede the cost-benefit analysis. 

And I have got to give Congressman Garamendi a lot of credit. 

He came to me I think it was a year ago or more on the radionavigation idea, the single point of failure, GPS. Incredible vulnerability for the United States of America and all of our national security and commerce in this country. So we need to move forward— 

no more delay—with a plan to have a backup system. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Just $40 million and we can do it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. $40 million? Yes. We can find that under a couch 

cushion. I mean, if Paul Ryan can find $8 billion under a couch 

cushion, there has got to be $40 million somewhere still under 

there. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the ranking member. No, it is funny. My 

uncle, who is a scientist, said, ‘‘Somebody called me and said, hey, 

do not get rid of GPS. It is really important.’’ I said, ‘‘We are not 

getting rid of GPS. We just want to make sure it is backed up so 

if it goes away’’—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Get the right message out. 

Mr. HUNTER. Right. Our witnesses today, we have Mr. Gary 

Rasicot, Director of Marine Transportation Systems with the Coast 

Guard. We have Ms. Mary Landry, Director of Incident Management and Preparedness Policy with the Coast Guard; Ms. Karen 

Van Dyke, Director of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing, and 

5 

Spectrum Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation; and 

our last witness and the gentleman who has accompanying him, 

Mr. Martin Faga, and he is accompanied by Mr. Charles Schue— 

which is Charles? There we go—Mr. Charles Schue, president and 

CEO of UrsaNav. He will be available to answer any Member questions we have. 

So I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here today, 

and first yield to Mr. Gary Rasicot, Director of Marine Transportation Systems for the Coast Guard. 

TESTIMONY OF GARY C. RASICOT, DIRECTOR OF MARINE 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, U.S. COAST GUARD; MARY E. 

LANDRY, DIRECTOR OF INCIDENT MANAGEMENT AND PREPAREDNESS POLICY, U.S. COAST GUARD; KAREN L. VAN 

DYKE, DIRECTOR OF POSITIONING, NAVIGATION, AND TIMING, AND SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND MARTIN 

FAGA, FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MITRE CORPORATION, AND FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 

AIR FORCE, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES A. SCHUE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, URSANAV 

Mr. RASICOT. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Nation’s icebreaking needs and the Federal Radionavigation Plan. My complete statement has been provided to the 

subcommittee, and I ask that it be entered into the record and that 

I be allowed to summarize my remarks. 

Mr. HUNTER. Without objection. 

Mr. RASICOT. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, as you just discussed, the ability to operate safely and reliably in the polar regions is critical to the Nation’s security and economic interests. We 

greatly appreciate your generous time and interest you have invested in our existing icebreakers. Our only heavy icebreaker, 

Polar Star, has had a very busy year. The crew has been away 

from home for nearly 250 days. 

As the ranking member saw firsthand, Polar Star is 40 years old 

and being maintained only by the dedicated efforts of her crew and 

shore support team. Having one heavy icebreaker for polar deployments means that extensive maintenance activities must occur on 

Polar Star upon her return to the United States if the cutter is to 

be ready for the following year’s deployment on Operation Deep 

Freeze and the breakout of McMurdo Station near the South Pole. 

Regarding Polar Sea, we recently signed a memorandum of 

agreement and provided funds to the Maritime Administration to 

initiate a preservation drydock on Polar Sea before the end of this 

fiscal year. This work will slow the deterioration of the hull and 

machinery and preserve the vessel for layup work, which is necessary regardless of how we do the disposition. 

In conjunction with this drydock, we have also taken initial steps 

in preparation for a full material condition assessment, as requested in the fiscal year 2016 President’s budget. Most recently, 

a preliminary evaluation of the project was completed last month 

6 

in Seattle by the Naval Sea Systems Command. This critical work 

must be done prior to making a final determination on whether to 

reactivate or decommission the ship. 

Regardless of the final determination on Polar Sea’s future, reactivation is only viable as a bridging strategy and it does not mitigate the need for recapitalization of the Nation’s polar fleet. 

Regarding the Coast Guard’s ongoing acquisition project, in January we completed the preliminary operations requirements document for the new polar icebreaker. We anticipate finalizing these 

operational requirements among all of our interagency stakeholders by the end of calendar year 2015. We are also in the process of finalizing an alternatives analysis, which we are on schedule 

to deliver to Congress this year. 

While the Coast Guard is the sole Federal agency operating the 

Nation’s polar icebreaking program, the Federal Radionavigation 

Plan is jointly executed and reflects the official positioning, navigation, and timing policy for the Federal Government, and is prepared by the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and 

Transportation. In support of DHS, the Coast Guard defines the 

need for and provides aids to navigation and facilities required for 

the safe and efficient maritime navigation. 

As previously noted, the majority of today’s maritime navigation 

is dependent on GPS positioning, navigation, and timing signal for 

their primary navigation. In addition, the Coast Guard provides a 

robust system of physical aids to navigation which mariners use in 

conjunction with their electronics to safely navigate coastal and inland waters. 

The Coast Guard continues to leverage technology to enhance 

mariners’ situational awareness. We have aggressively worked with 

our maritime stakeholders to establish electronic aids to navigation 

around the country. To date, we have almost 200 in place that enhance the current U.S. ATON [Aids to Navigation] system. We are 

also working steadily towards transmitting maritime safety information to the mariner for real-time display on his electronic charting system. 

In closing, the Coast Guard is striving to meet the Nation’s polar 

icebreaking and maritime navigation needs, and we are committed 

to working with the committee and the interagency on these fronts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for all you do 

for the men and women of the United States Coast Guard. I look 

forward to your questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you very much. 

Our second witness today is Ms. Mary Landry, Director of Incident Management and Preparedness Policy with the Coast Guard. 

Ms. LANDRY. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Coast Guard’s oil spill response capability, and 

thank you for your strong support of the Coast Guard. 

I have also submitted a complete statement to the subcommittee. 

I ask that it be entered into the record and I be allowed to summarize my remarks. 

Mr. HUNTER. Without objection. 

Ms. LANDRY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard is committed to proactive oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response 

7 

as the predesignated Federal On-Scene Coordinator for the Coastal 

Zone and the authority that originates from the Clean Water Act, 

as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and also by regulation 

in the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan. 

Our preparedness and response efforts involve coordination with 

numerous State and Federal agencies as well as international partners, private sector, nongovernmental organizations, science institutions, and academia. This collaboration ensures Government and 

industry have the necessary oil spill response equipment, capability, and contingency plans to address worst-case scenario discharges. 

In anticipation of increased maritime activities both domestically 

and internationally, we have focused recent efforts on the Caribbean and Arctic regions to mitigate the potential risks associated 

with oil exploration and production. Specifically, the May 2013 

Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Polution, Preparedness 

and Response in the Arctic, as signed by the members of the Arctic 

Council, focuses on Arctic-wide cooperation, coordination, and mutual assistance among parties on oil pollution, preparedness, and 

response. 

In March 2014, the development of the Wider Caribbean Region 

Multilateral Technical Operating Procedures for Offshore Oil Pollution Response, called MTOP, for offshore oil pollution response outlined a responder-to-responder network and framework between 

the U.S., Cuba, the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Mexico. This framework is for participating nations to work effectively in response to 

large spills threatening more than one participating nation’s waters. 

Additionally, arrangements are in place with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Control, and the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, to enable U.S. commercial oil spill removal organizations, or OSROs, to 

conduct oil spill response in foreign waters. This authorization is 

granted in the form of licenses, both general and specific, and are 

primarily utilized to enable responses to assist nations on which 

the U.S. has imposed economic and export sanctions. 

I also want to emphasize that the U.S. Government can directly 

support foreign governments by providing response experts or technical advisors to spill sites. A recent example of this: In January 

2015, the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, provided several oil spill 

cleanup professionals to the USAID mission in Bangladesh in response to an oil spill covering an estimated 3900 square miles. 

Here at home the national response system has proven its resilience through its 45 years of service. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon incident pushed the limits of the system as we fought to save 

an ecosystem and a way of life along the gulf coast. 

As a result of the lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon, 

the Coast Guard has taken a number of actions to enhance our 

spill preparedness and response posture, including working more 

closely with local communities through our area committees to better integrate their capabilities into our response. 

8 

The Coast Guard also established a full-time deployable national 

Incident Management Assistance Team as well as civilian Incident 

Management Preparedness Advisors in each of the Coast Guard 

districts. These advisors serve as Regional Response Team cochairs 

in their respective regions. And in addition, the Coast Guard has 

instituted a Federal On-Scene Coordinators course that provides 

junior incident commanders with the applied knowledge for directing smaller oil spills while enhancing major oil spill response readiness. 

The Coast Guard also conducts annual Spills of National Significance [SONS] exercises, which highlight responses requiring highlevel coordination and leadership across DHS, the Coast Guard, 

and the 15 National Response Team [NRT} agencies. Lessons 

learned from these seminars, including the recent last three sessions of SONS which focused on the Arctic, serve to establish critical guidance and policy for future spills. In 2016, the Coast Guard 

will support the EPA, our cochair to the NRT, as we focus the 

SONS exercise on an inland crude-by-rail incident to address this 

emerging threat. 

The oil spill preparedness and response mission area remains extremely diverse, and it includes a unique blend of authorities and 

capabilities that span across multiple Coast Guard mission sets. 

We have made substantial improvements in environmental stewardship through our interagency international partnerships, work 

to close gaps in personnel competencies, and increased sufficiencies 

across the entire mission area. 

As we move into the Coast Guard’s 225th year of operation, we 

will continue to explore every opportunity to improve on lessons 

learned from past incidents and further solidify and enhance our 

spill prevention and response activities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and for 

all you do for the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard. I look 

forward to your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Ms. Landry. 

Our next witness today is Ms. Karen Van Dyke, Director of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing, and Spectrum Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

Ms. VAN DYKE. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Radionavigation 

Plan and the importance of positioning, navigation, and timing systems to America’s national, homeland, and economic security and 

efficiency. 

Positioning, navigation, and timing, PNT, is critical for transportation safety, efficiency, and capacity-increasing programs, including major initiatives such as the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

air traffic control mission, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and 

Positive Train Control. 

The Global Positioning System in particular is used for every 

mode of transportation, and there are numerous safety and efficiency applications of this enabling technology to provide tremendous benefit to America’s transportation infrastructure. GPS is a 

key technology for vehicle collision warning and crash avoidance 

9 

systems while enabling shorter routes, increased time and fuel savings, and reduced traffic delays across all modes of transportation. 

As designated by the 2004 National Security Presidential Directive, NSPD–39, the Department of Transportation has the lead responsibility for the development of GPS requirements for civil applications for all United States Government civil departments and 

agencies. In addition to the transportation applications, GPS is essential for the safe and efficient operations of first responders, 

search and rescue, resource management, weather forecasting, 

earthquake monitoring, surveying and mapping, precision agriculture, telecommunications, and financial transactions. 

The Deputy Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Transportation cochair the National Executive Committee for SpaceBased PNT, known as the PNT EXCOM, which includes representatives from seven cabinet agencies, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Since 1980, the Federal Radionavigation Plan, the FRP, has been 

the official source of positioning, navigation, and timing strategy 

and planning for the Federal Government. It is jointly developed 

biennially by the Departments of Transportation, Defense, and 

Homeland Security. 

Section 5.1.2 of the FRP recognizes the need to mitigate disruptions to GPS. Like all radio-based services, GPS is subject to interference from both natural and human-made sources. A loss of GPS 

service due to either intentional or unintentional interference, in 

the absence of any other means of navigation, would have very negative effects on operations. 

As stated in the FRP, the U.S. Government encourages all GPS 

users to be aware of the impacts of GPS interference and incorporate or integrate alternative PNT sources where needed to ensure continued operations. The Federal Aviation Administration, 

for instance, currently maintains a ground-based navigation infrastructure for aviation. 

GPS enables the safe and efficient movement of waterborne commerce along the U.S. marine transportation system, and is especially critical as ports become increasingly congested with larger 

container ships, tankers, and passenger vessels. 

In the event of a GPS disruption, methods of conventional navigation may help maintain the flow of commerce along waterways 

and in ports. However, ports may have to reduce the number of allowed vessel movements, and port congestion may become even 

more problematic and costly, in addition to increasing the risk of 

maritime accidents. 

Service transportation agencies are working with industry to ensure that the safety-critical systems that use GPS and its augmentations consider the loss of these PNT services and are able to 

mitigate the effects. The Federal Railroad Administration encourages an integrated approach to technology by railroads that incorporate systems that are interoperable, synergistic, and redundant 

to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the railroad system 

during the loss or disruption of GPS. 

Signal availability from GPS may not be adequate for surface 

users experiencing canopy or urban canyon obstructions. The integration of complementary and/or alternate systems that support 

10 

continued operations in the event of degradation to the GPS signal 

will be employed in a multisensor configuration. 

The PNT EXCOM is currently investigating use of an e-loran 

system to serve as the backup PNT capability to GPS. In March 

of 2015, the Department of Transportation invited comment from 

the public and industry regarding consideration of an e-loran system as a backup PNT capability to GPS. 

There are approximately 200 responses to the Federal Register 

notice. Most responses were not application-specific, other than for 

maritime use. Discussion of a PNT backup capability is planned for 

the next meeting of the National Space-Based PNT Executive Committee in September. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Faga is now recognized. 

Mr. FAGA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thanks for 

the opportunity to speak with you today about the need for a complement capability for our Global Positioning System. 

I have been involved with GPS for many years in the Air Force, 

at MITRE, and as a congressional staff member. I serve on the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory 

Board, but I am not here as a representative. I am here on my own 

behalf. I am accompanied by Charles Schue, who is a former Coast 

Guard officer and is CEO of UrsaNav, which is a manufacturer of 

navigation and other equipment. 

Since becoming an operational system in 1995, we have seen 

GPS grow to be a major international public utility, and we have 

all experienced GPS navigation personally. What is less wellknown is that GPS has become a vital source of precision timing 

information for homework systems of all kinds—telephone, financial, other networks, including the Internet itself, require timing 

information, often accurate to one one-millionth of a second. 

GPS is the most practical and inexpensive way for network operators to get such accurate timing, and so of course they have used 

it and become dependent on it over these 20 years. This makes 

sense, but the risk is that disruption of GPS would cause disruption to many elements of our modern society. 

DHS reports that 13 of the 16 critical infrastructures of the 

United States are critically dependent on GPS, in many cases because of timing. Disruption to GPS could occur from a wide range 

of sources, including solar storms, errors by humans or software 

that operates the system, physical attack, or jamming. 

It is the very success of GPS which creates a call for a complementary system to reinforce it. Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security have recently called our reliance on 

GPS and its vulnerabilities ‘‘a single point of failure for critical infrastructure.’’ 

As you noted, Mr. Chairman, the importance of our dependence 

on GPS has been recognized by three Presidents since 1998. In 

2008, all of the concerned departments and agencies across the 

Federal Government identified a terrestrial system called enhanced 

loran as one that could be such a complementary system. The Government has never acted to build the system. 

11 

Loran stands for long-range navigation, and it has existed in various forms since World War II, and operated in the United States 

until 2010. It uses very powerful radio transmitters at very low frequency to transmit signals that receivers use to triangulate position and to get time. Like GPS, it provides timing accurate enough 

to operate networks. It is difficult to disrupt, and it has different 

failure modes than GPS, so the two would be a great pairing. 

The modern version, enhanced loran, is commercially available. 

A complete system of 19 stations in the United States would cost 

on the order of $300 million and $20 million a year, really big 

money. But we spend $1 billion a year on GPS. 

Perhaps more important and more practical is that a basic eloran system of four stations, costing about $40 million, including 

the use of existing towers and equipment, would provide nationwide timing for all fixed users, which is most users that require 

precision timing. 

The system could be a source of revenue. If a contract was properly structured, an e-loran system could generate enough income to 

pay for itself over 10 years. While not exact parallels, the FAA’s 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast system, where the 

Government and industry cooperate to build a system, generates 

revenue, and both FAA and the system provider share the income 

generated. In my written statement, I have offered some further 

thoughts on this. 

So first the administration must do two very important things. 

It must commit to addressing this important problem, and it must 

identify and empower a single Federal agent who can work with 

Government agencies and industry to implement a solution. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Faga. Thank all of you for your testimony. 

I am going to start—I am going to skip myself and recognize Mr. 

Curbelo, if he is ready. The gentleman from Florida is recognized. 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to start by 

thanking you for affording the committee the opportunity to consider my legislation, the Foreign Spill Protection Act of 2015, or 

H.R. 1684. 

Prior to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, which by the 

way I was a congressional staffer and I saw firsthand the wonderful work done by the Coast Guard, the costliest oil spill in the history of the gulf was the Ixtoc I spill off the coast of Mexico in 1979. 

It took 9 months to cap. Oil polluted the shores of southern Texas 

and the Mexican-owned oil company agreed to pay $100 million to 

avoid litigation in U.S. courts. 

Following the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989, Congress passed 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA. The basic premise of OPA 

is that the party responsible for the spill is responsible for all the 

costs of cleaning up the mess. Under OPA, and I will paraphrase, 

an offshore facility is defined as any facility located in the navigable waters of the United States, and any facility of any kind 

which is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is located in any other waters, other than a vessel or public vessel. 

12 

However, because offshore facilities are limited only to the navigable waters of the United States under OPA, foreign rigs cannot 

be designated as responsible parties. Therefore, if there were to be 

a repeat of Ixtoc I, the most a responsible party would have to pay 

to clean up American waters and shores is $150 million. 

This issue is of particular concern to Gulf States. Mexico, Cuba, 

and the Bahamas are actively looking at expanding their offshore 

drilling operations. Of particular concern is Mexico, which is looking into ultra-deep wells exceeding 6,000 feet in depth. In 2012, 

Mexico’s top oil regulator said they were not prepared to handle a 

serious accident or major oil spill. 

But it is not just the Gulf States that could be negatively affected 

by a spill. On the Canadian side of Lake Erie, offshore energy exploration is being conducted for natural gas. While Canadian law 

prohibits oil extraction from the Great Lakes, the risk of a spill 

persists while drilling for natural gas. Again, under current law, 

the most the responsible party would have to pay for any cleanup 

is $150 million. 

In response to these concerns, my friend from Florida, Representative Patrick Murphy, and I introduced the Foreign Spill Protection 

Act, H.R. 1684. This important legislation would ensure that the 

responsible party, regardless of origin, pays for all American cleanup costs by applying OPA. Furthermore, the bill would apply Clean 

Water Act penalties on the responsible foreign party. 

I am proud that this legislation has broad bipartisan support and 

has been endorsed by environmental, fishing, and other groups that 

depend on the water for their livelihoods. Our coastal communities 

need peace of mind that if they are affected by a foreign spill, resources are available to clean up their shores and help them recover. American taxpayers should not have to foot the bill to bail 

out foreign companies. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity, and I look 

forward to further discussing the issue with all of you. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from Florida. 

I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to focus 

on the e-loran system and see if we can get this thing moving 

along. 

Mr. Faga and Mr. Schue, a few questions, probably with rather 

straightforward answers, just so we can get this stuff on the record. 

If I understand your testimony correctly, the former loran-C infrastructure could be rather easily repurposed to support e-loran. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. FAGA. I would probably have to argue with ‘‘easily,’’ but it 

could certainly be done. Of course, the existing infrastructure, 

which has not been operated since 2010, is decaying. So the Coast 

Guard would have to look hard at what it is going to take to bring 

it back. But what e-loran does is go from loran-C to more modern 

electronics, fundamentally. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. The technology, the greatest benefit of eloran, is it would provide a backup timing signal, which is then essential for the positioning and navigation. So if there are multiple 

towers, you would have both timing, position, and navigation. 

13 

Mr. FAGA. It takes more towers to do the navigation job. But I 

think, as Ms. Van Dyke pointed out, there are better backups for 

navigation and position than there are for timing. I have been in 

a number of meetings in the last few months with infrastructure 

providers, some of whom are surprised to learn that they have a 

dependence on GPS timing because they are getting it from a supplier who is dependent on it. Therefore, they are dependent on it, 

which is why DHS says 13 of our 16 critical infrastructures are dependent. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So just four towers could give us nationwide 

timing? 

Mr. FAGA. Timing for fixed items. Moving objects would not be 

able to educe timing with that few number of stations. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And what would be necessary to provide for 

moving? 

Mr. FAGA. Nineteen stations would give complete PNT coverage 

of the United States, and so some significant portion of that, 10 or 

12, would move toward that goal. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. The number $40 million has been tossed around 

today. That would be for the four stations for timing only? 

Mr. FAGA. And makes the assumption that some of the towers 

and stations and equipment would be used in the short term. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I understand one such station is up and operating in Mr. LoBiondo’s district. 

Mr. FAGA. In Wildwood, New Jersey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. New Jersey. Are there any problems with that 

operation? 

Mr. FAGA. Chuck is actually involved with that, so I will invite 

him to respond. 

Mr. SCHUE. Mr. Garamendi, the station is operating. It would be 

fully autonomous and unmanned in its fully operational capability. 

We have a caretaker that comes in and turns it on and turns it off. 

It is not set up to operate continuously 24/7 right now because it 

has been off since 2010, but it is fully capable of making that transition with a small investment. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I did see a demonstration of that system at the 

Naval Observatory last week, and rather impressive. 

My next question goes to Ms. Van Dyke. Your testimony is interesting, but it reminds me of so much testimony I heard: We are 

studying it. Could you be a little more precise in the timing of the 

study and the timing of when you intend to actually deal with this 

since this problem was actually noticed in 1998, and in 2008 the 

executive branch of Government made a decision that e-loran was 

the solution? So where are we now 7 years later? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. Yes. Thank you for your question, and perhaps 

Mr. Rasicot also wants to chime in. We are working with our partners in DHS and in DOD as part of a complementary PNT Tiger 

Team. That was associated with the Federal Register notice that 

we issued earlier this year, to have public and industry feedback. 

And as I mentioned in my testimony, we do have a Space-Based 

PNT Executive Committee coming up in September, which will discuss this topic. This will be one of the primary topics on the agenda 

with the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of 

Transportation. 

14 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Do you consider this to be a significant national 

security issue, that we could lose GPS, single point of failure? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. I do. I was involved back in 2001 with the Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center study on the vulnerability 

of GPS for transportation, so I have been well aware for a long 

time of the vulnerabilities of GPS and our significant dependence 

not only for transportation but also for the other critical infrastructure that has been mentioned. And I do think it is a problem that 

we need to address and resolve. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. When would it be addressed, if it is critical? So 

you have a study coming up. You have a meeting coming up in September to discuss what was discussed 7 years ago. 

Ms. VAN DYKE. The complementary PNT Tiger Team has really 

been looking at what has changed in the past 7 years, from increased dependency on GPS, to other technologies that have been 

developed, as well as increased threats to the GPS system. Again, 

this will be a major subject of discussion at that meeting with all 

of the information that we have collected. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. You just had a meeting. What was the outcome 

of that meeting? We should meet again? Was that the outcome? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. I am not sure which meeting you are referring 

to. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I think in your testimony you said you 

had a request for information that came out. Two hundred people 

responded. 

Ms. VAN DYKE. Right. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And the result was, let’s meet? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. We have a scheduled executive committee meeting in September that will talk about the results from the Federal 

Register notice, as well as the evaluation of technologies that have 

been developed. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Rasicot, your comments on this issue that 

I raised? 

Mr. RASICOT. Sir, we are moving forward. I mean, as Karen outlined—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. Well, the Earth is turning, too. 

Mr. RASICOT. Yes, sir. But we are taking some important steps 

to determine what has literally changed since we last looked at 

this. One of the things that was never looked at previously was the 

users’ input, the folks that actually will receive the signal. And 

that is what the DOT notice in the Federal Register asked. 

It is almost from a Kevin Costner thing: If we build it, will you 

come? Because one of the things that I think is important to notice 

is that even if we got the signal in the air tomorrow, it really would 

not change anything because the receivers are not there to receive 

it. And we are working through those issues. And that is what we 

are asking people: Is this a critical issue to you? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Schue, are the receivers available? 

Mr. SCHUE. Yes, sir. The receivers are available today. 

Mr. RASICOT. No, no. I understand that, sir, but—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. That is not what you said. You said they are not 

available. Are they available or not available? 

Mr. RASICOT. They are available, sir, but most people do not have 

them. 

15 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Because there is no e-loran signal. 

Mr. RASICOT. They are available in Europe and other places 

where they are used. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, what are the other places? Europe? Russia? 

China? 

Mr. RASICOT. I am not sure of all of them. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. They are available in Europe, Russia, and 

China. Is that correct, Mr. Faga? 

Mr. FAGA. Yes. And I think the Japanese are also building out. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, yes. The Japanese, too. U.S. maritime says 

they want the system. You are aware of that, I suppose? 

Mr. RASICOT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Why are we getting the runaround here? Mr. 

Rasicot, why are we getting the runaround? 

Mr. RASICOT. I do not have a good answer for that, sir. But I will 

tell you that the administration is pushing forward, and we are 

working through the Space-Based PNT Executive Committee to 

come up with the correct solution, and we hope to move forward 

on that. We look forward to the results. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. God help us, another committee. 

Mr. RASICOT. Sir, as established under the Federal Radionavigation Plan. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Can you give me some estimate of when a decision would be made by that committee? 

Mr. RASICOT. I will tell you that the next meeting of that committee is in September. I cannot speak for the leadership of that 

committee. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Who are the leaders of the committee? 

Mr. RASICOT. It is chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense 

and the Deputy Secretary of Transportation, as per the Federal 

Radionavigation Plan. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Ms. Van Dyke, are they expected to attend the 

meeting? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. Yes, they are. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. What day in September? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. September 3rd. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the ranking member. We will get back to 

that, too. 

Mr. Gibbs is recognized, the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Van Dyke, in your testimony you mentioned the possibility 

of backups at ports and increased access if the GPS technology is 

disrupted. Have we had any occurrences of backups, of our GPS 

shutting down? Can you give us what the situation was, the status? Can you tell me if we have had the incidents happen or how 

critical they were? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. Most of the incidents of GPS interference that we 

have had are actually testing the Department of Defense conducts. 

And for aviation, if you are a pilot, you will see a Notice to Airmen 

of areas of airspace where GPS is deemed unreliable due to the 

military testing, which again is why the FAA has maintained its 

ground-based navigation aid infrastructure. 

16 

There have been other unintentional incidents. There was one in 

San Diego with a Navy ship that caused interference in the Port 

of San Diego. And then on a lower power level, there are GPS 

jammers that plug into cigarette lighters and cause a smaller radius of interference. That certainly has been most notably experienced at Newark International Airport. 

Mr. GIBBS. So we need to have a backup complementary system. 

Ms. VAN DYKE. We do. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Faga, I am just curious. Maybe this is not the 

right question. But we hear so much about spectrum. Is spectrum 

an issue with trying to develop this e-loran system or not? 

Mr. FAGA. Spectrum is an issue in that there are more and more 

demands to use spectrum. There are interests in providing similar 

services with more spectrum, including spectrum that is close to 

where GPS operates. If some of these proposals are actually implemented, we may see effects on GPS service. 

To come back also to the question you asked a moment ago of 

Karen, there are thousands of events per day. But they are small. 

They are mostly these little jammers. There was a famous case of 

Newark Airport having a problem with the effects of a jammer. Finally, a person was caught and fined $32,000 for the violations. But 

that was day after day. 

These are people who are trying to hide their own movement, 

perhaps, from their own employer or what have you. They buy devices that claim they have a range of only 10 meters, and in fact 

have a range of 2 or 3 miles. 

Mr. GIBBS. So drug interdiction could be—— 

Mr. FAGA. Criminal activity, smuggling. Right. These are when 

these things get used. 

Mr. GIBBS. So the e-loran system would be harder to compromise 

or not? 

Mr. FAGA. I am sorry? 

Mr. GIBBS. The other system, the e-loran system, would it be 

harder—— 

Mr. FAGA. Oh, it would be much harder to disrupt because instead of generating 100 watts from 11,000 miles, it generates 

300,000 watts from 1,000 miles or less. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Rasicot—I hope I said your name right—the icebreakers in the polar caps, I am just curious if some represent the 

Great Lakes area. Can you tell me the status of icebreakers in the 

Great Lakes? 

Mr. RASICOT. Yes, sir. We have the 140-foot icebreakers and the 

Mackinaw up there working. And as you know, we have had some 

record ice years up there, and we have an agreement with the Canadians where we partner with them to use their heavy icebreakers when necessary. And in fact, we used two of them to keep 

the waterways open. 

We experienced minimal delays this year. I think it is accurate 

to say that we are at capacity for normal icebreaking years. When 

you get record years, we do work with the Canadians to bring their 

heavies in, and that works very well. 

Mr. GIBBS. What is the age of our icebreaker ships? 

Mr. RASICOT. The 140-foot icebreakers were built in the 1980s, 

and they are currently undergoing a service life extension program, 

17 

the first ones in there. And we have got them scheduled over the 

next few years. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to talk a little bit about drilling for oil, and particularly 

as it relates to offshore drilling. I have seen press reports that 

state the Coast Guard’s response to a spill in Cuban waters would 

take 14 days. Is that accurate? 

Ms. LANDRY. Without knowing the—Congressman Rouzer, I am 

not sure what you are referring to in terms of how long it would 

take us to respond. If there were a spill in Cuban waters, we would 

immediately react to whatever threat we might have to our exclusive economic zone. 

Mr. ROUZER. Sure. Tell me how that works when there is a spill. 

What transpires, exactly? 

Ms. LANDRY. For domestic or for foreign? 

Mr. ROUZER. Domestic. 

Ms. LANDRY. For domestic, we get an immediate notification 

through the National Response Center of a spill, and we launch assets from whatever location could be impacted. 

Mr. ROUZER. For example, the Deepwater Horizon spill, walk 

through that. What was the timeline there? 

Ms. LANDRY. The timeline there was an immediate call in to our 

command center in the Eighth District, where we initiated a search 

and rescue case, anticipated a potential pollution case, and also a 

marine casualty investigation because this was an explosion in an 

offshore rig in our waters. So it was an immediate notification and 

an immediate response to three areas of our responsibility, search 

and rescue, pollution response, and marine casualty investigation. 

Mr. ROUZER. Specific to the bill that has been introduced, the 

Foreign Spill Protection Act of 2015, have you all had an opportunity to take a look at that or have any preliminary thoughts on 

it? 

Ms. LANDRY. I know that some of our staff have looked at it. Our 

lawyers and our National Pollution Funds Center folks have looked 

at it. Yes, sir. We would love to give you a briefing on the existing 

structure of our laws. The National Pollution Funds Center would 

love to come and give you great detail on how we are structured 

to respond. 

If we have a spill in Cuban waters, in Arctic waters, from another country that could threaten our EEZ [exclusive economic 

zone], we have our fund to respond immediately. It does have limitations. It has the caps that we are all aware of. And we would 

have to work with Congress, absolutely, to continue with that response. 

Mr. ROUZER. So who is drilling off the coast of Cuba now? I have 

read reports from time to time where foreign entities are going 

through Cuba and using the fracking technology to come closer into 

our oil reserves, what I would consider off the coast of the United 

States. What do we know about that? 

Ms. LANDRY. I am not aware of current drilling in Cuban waters. 

I am aware a few years ago there was drilling, and we were very 

18 

involved in assisting, at the request of the company and the country, through the Department of State, to inspect the rig that was 

going to be drilling. And we work continuously in the Caribbean region on preparedness to respond. And we were able to do that 

through our existing treaties and agreements. 

Mr. ROUZER. Talk to me about the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 

I happened to read about that this morning. Give me the rundown 

on that. How much money is in it? How quickly would that be depleted? Who is eligible for it? Et cetera. 

Ms. LANDRY. All right. So there we worked for years with the oil 

pollution fund and OPA 1990. It is a great piece of legislation in 

terms of improving our preparedness to respond and our ability to 

respond, and it really has served us well, even in Deepwater Horizon, which was beyond the scale and scope of what might have 

been envisioned for what we would need. But it proved to be very 

valuable. 

We have a Pollution Funds Center set up. We have a fund that has approximately over $4 billion right now, but there are caps. In 

an immediate response, we have a $50 million emergency fund if 

there is no responsible party to attach to. So we can access that 

fund. Once the responsible party is determined, we can then work 

with the responsible party to begin paying for the response. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

Let’s get back on the e-loran thing. You know who Brad Parkinson is? 

Mr. FAGA. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Who is Brad Parkinson? 

Mr. FAGA. Often called the father of e-loran. 

Mr. HUNTER. The father of GPS. 

Mr. FAGA. I am sorry. The GPS. 

Mr. HUNTER. GPS. Here is what he said. ‘‘E-loran is the only 

cost-effective backup for national needs. It is completely interoperable with and independent of GPS, with different propagation and 

failure mechanisms plus significantly superior robustness to radio 

frequency interference and jamming. It is a seamless backup, and 

its use will deter threats to U.S. national and economic security by 

disrupting GPS reception.’’ 

Do you know who Brad Parkinson is? So he is going to be at this 

meeting on September 3rd? Do you think you will hear anything 

different than what I just said? Do you think he has changed his 

mind on e-loran? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. No. Dr. Parkinson is also heavily involved with 

the Space-Based PNT Advisory Board, serving as one of the vice 

chairs, and certainly has advocated for e-loran, as you have mentioned. 

Mr. HUNTER. Are there any dissenters? Who is arguing that we 

do not need a backup system to GPS? I am guessing, because you 

are having the meeting, that there has got to be opposition, one 

side versus another side, different papers, different studies, different research. So who is on the side arguing that we do not need 

an e-loran system, that GPS is fine? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. I am not aware of that argument. I think it is 

really assessing which technology is right as a single national 

19 

backup to GPS, and again, going to the user needs in terms of user 

adoption of equipment as a backup to GPS. 

Mr. HUNTER. So what alternatives are you guys going to be discussing to GPS, then, besides e-loran? What are the other alternatives out there? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. There certainly are commercial techniques, local 

RF-ranging techniques. There are private companies that offer 

those services. 

Mr. HUNTER. You are saying there are alternatives for a national 

positioning system, ground-based, that does not involve satellites? 

And they are what, again? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. Yes. One of the challenges is looking at how to 

extend some of these local systems into a national system and what 

the cost tradeoff of doing that is. Also, it is looking at, again, what 

users will adopt. So that was really what we wanted to focus on 

in the Federal Register notice and have feedback. Right now, the 

Federal Aviation Administration operates over 1,000 VOR DMEs 

and 1,200 instrument landing systems, so the commercial aviators 

are equipped to use those systems. 

Mr. HUNTER. Let me ask you again. If you do not have GPS— 

let’s say that it goes down—what are the alternatives to GPS? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. They really vary in terms of positioning techniques and timing techniques. 

Mr. HUNTER. So what other system can do everything that GPS 

or e-loran does? Put it that way. If they all vary, which ones are 

as good as GPS and e-loran? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. They vary in terms of their performance characteristics. There is nothing—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Ms. Van Dyke, when you say ‘‘they,’’ I am just trying to get you to tell me exactly what you mean by ‘‘they.’’ 

Ms. VAN DYKE. Nothing is as good as GPS. GPS is a three-dimensional, highly accurate system. If there were another alternative—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Not underwater. Not inside buildings. Right? Does 

GPS extend underwater? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. No. 

Mr. HUNTER. No. So what do subs use? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. Inertial navigation systems. Sonar [sound navigation ranging]. 

Mr. HUNTER. And it does not go into buildings, either. Right? 

GPS does not? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. That is correct. 

Mr. HUNTER. So you have GPS. That is one. You have e-loran. 

That is another system. Right? Then what is the next system that 

would be competing against those two? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. There are local RF-ranging systems that can be 

deployed and have been deployed. The question is whether they 

make sense for a nationwide backup. There are inertial navigation 

systems that work with accelerometers and gyros that need to be 

calibrated but are very accurate systems. 

For autonomous vehicles, we are looking at the integration of inertial with lidar [light detection and ranging], so laser-ranging 

cameras, matching technology. There are integrated multisensor 

20 

capabilities. So again, it is looking at what the performance requirements are that the users need. 

Mr. HUNTER. How many e-loran ground systems already exist? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. I will defer to the Coast Guard on that. 

Mr. RASICOT. There are eight remaining towers. 

Mr. HUNTER. Eight? 

Mr. RASICOT. Eight remaining towers. 

Mr. HUNTER. Eight remaining towers. 

Mr. RASICOT. We have the one that we have a cooperative research and development with UrsaNav, which they are working out 

of Wildwood to—— 

Mr. HUNTER. So it would take 16 to cover everything? 

Mr. RASICOT. Those were his words. 

Mr. HUNTER. Or 19? 

Mr. FAGA. Nineteen for nationwide coverage, including navigation. Four for a minimal system that would provide only timing. 

Mr. HUNTER. So we have the minimal system now? 

Mr. FAGA. No, we do not. 

Mr. HUNTER. We do not? 

Mr. FAGA. There are no stations operating other than Wildwood 

on a test basis. 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. 

I yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see the Ice Man 

has arrived here, so we will get to icebreakers in a few moments. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GARAMENDI. But Ms. Van Dyke, I hear your testimony, and 

I am going, here we go again. Yes, there are undoubtedly alternative systems. But all of them are localized, and then coordinating 

all of those together is going to require some sort of overarching 

system. You know that. I think everybody who is interested in this 

has known this for at least 15 years. 

And you have just very well stated why there is a thing called 

Federal time. Maybe if we study this a little longer, we will be able 

to find some alternative. You talked about internal systems. Somebody can develop an internal cesium system that you can carry 

around with you that keeps times. Not likely to solve the underlying problem. 

I have had it. Several of us sit on the Armed Services Committee 

also. And I will tell you, this is a very significant national security 

issue that cannot be delayed any longer. There is a very good reason why Russia, Europe, and I suppose now Japan have decided 

they need an e-loran system of some sort. 

And it is high time for this Nation to put one in place because 

if we don’t, GPS is going to go down. And when it goes down, there 

is going to be a significant national security issue, to say nothing 

of a significant economic issue for this Nation. 

For $40 million we could set up a national timing system—not 

navigation, but at least timing, which is integral, absolutely essential, for the continued operation of our electrical grid, our financial 

systems, transportation systems including those FAA issues where 

there are probably several dozen companies that would like to sell 

us a new shake and bake opportunity for navigation. 

21 

But without an e-loran system in place ASAP, this country is in 

serious, serious jeopardy. And I am really interested in hearing 

what is going to go on on September 3rd. I am telling you now that 

if you guys don’t get your act together, then we must pass legislation that designates a specific Federal agency to get this done with 

a specific timeframe. 

Now, listen carefully to what I am saying. I don’t intend to back 

off. And so this is a message to the deputies, of which I happen to 

have been one in my past, and I understand full good and well the 

Federal time system. Let us study this but again. 

This goes to the Coast Guard also. You have had the original responsibility, and frankly, I think you have failed in that responsibility. You have gone round and round, and I happen to know that 

there are some folks at OMB who are a major problem in this. And 

I know who they are, and I am going to have a discussion with 

them. And if they happen to be in the audience, then maybe we can 

have that discussion right away. You put this Nation at risk. 

Now, do we need a single Federal agency responsible to get this 

done and a timeframe to get it done? Or are we going to have multiple agencies who are going to kick the ball back and forth? Mr. 

Rasicot? 

Mr. RASICOT. Sir, I think we await the results of our PNT 

EXCOM. That is the group that is designated to do this work, and 

I think they are moving towards a solution. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So we do not need a single Federal agency; we 

need multiple agencies? 

Mr. RASICOT. Sir, I yield to the EXCOM as to how to best implement the system. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, you are good. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I guess that is what you get paid for, obfuscation. 

Ms. Van Dyke, do we need a single Federal agency? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. We are working closely with the interagency on 

the way forward. And again, as Mr. Rasicot said, we do not want 

to presuppose the outcome of the EXCOM, which is cochaired by 

DOD and DOT. So we already are in a multiagency arrangement 

for GPS. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Faga, how long have you been involved in 

this issue? 

Mr. FAGA. I have been involved in GPS since the 1980s. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. PNT? 

Mr. FAGA. PNT. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Do we need a single Federal agency responsible 

for getting this done? 

Mr. FAGA. We will. And I think what will happen is once there 

is a determination to actually move forward, the interagency will 

decide who has to take the lead role and work with all the agencies 

and actually get it done, deal with the industry, work out a financing arrangement, and so on. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. We have not spent much time on a public-private partnership. There has been some discussion of the commercial application of e-loran, a brief discussion of public-private partVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:45 Oct 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\CG&JOI~1\7-28-1~1\95651.TXT JEAN
22 

nerships. And I think we had better ice this thing and talk about 

icebreakers. A public-private partnership. 

Mr. FAGA. Right. The idea there is that a private provider builds 

the system but has a federally provided funding mechanism available to pay it back. I will give you an example. 

I am on the board of a company called DigitalGlobe, which flies 

commercial imaging satellites. It built these satellites at private expense, but it operates half of them on behalf of the U.S. Government and gets an annual payment. So all the financing, construction, launch, the whole thing, was private, and the Government 

pays back with essentially a user payment. Imagine a similar situation here. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the Ice Man. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit records for changes to alternative planning criteria used in Alaska to meet oil pollution and response requirements. There are some things up there that I will submit 

questions for, with your permission. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

Let me get this straight, too. So Transportation and Defense are 

the two agencies working this. Right? It is Transportation and Defense, and the Coast Guard is kind of in the middle? Is that right? 

Those are the two agencies? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. The Space-Based PNT Executive Committee is 

cochaired by the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and Transportation. 

The complementary PNT program, we are working very closely 

with DHS. So it is a tri-led effort to determine a backup to GPS. 

Mr. HUNTER. So it is the space-based PNT. But we are not talking space-based stuff. Right? We are talking e-loran, which is 

ground-based. Does it matter? Are they all-encompassing? 

Ms. VAN DYKE. NSPD–39, which I mentioned in my testimony, 

does discuss a backup to GPS. So that is covered under the SpaceBased PNT Executive Committee policy. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. I am just trying to think. Is this a transportation issue? Obviously it has been going back and forth in Department of Transportation forever. So maybe it is not a transportation 

issue. Maybe it is a pure DOD issue. We just have them do it, and 

we tell them what to do, and we just get it done. Then you will 

not have multiple agencies discussing things forever, which is what 

seems like is happening right now. 

I do not have any more questions on this. Do you want to talk 

icebreakers? I yield to the gentleman from California. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. The icebreaker thing has gone round and round, 

and I think a lot of the problem really lies here in Congress, where 

we have been unable to find the money to either buy a new icebreaker, build a new one, or repair the present one. 

My question, I think, is mostly a Coast Guard here question, Mr. 

Rasicot. A study is underway. Presumably we are going to take the 

Polar Star out of the water, look at it. You have described this. 

Could you go into a little bit more detail about the timing, when 

the study is going to be done and the scope of the study, so that 

23 

we can be prepared to pounce on whatever solution the Coast 

Guard finds? 

Mr. RASICOT. Yes, sir. There are actually two things going on. 

One is the preservation drydock, which will commence before the 

end of this fiscal year, and that is where we will pull the Polar Sea 

out of the water and take care of all the things that have been decaying and preserve what has been going on over the last 3 or 4 

years while she has been out of service. 

The next thing, which will start when we get the money from— 

it is in the fiscal year 2016 President’s budget—is what we call a 

material condition analysis or assessment. And we are going to go 

stem to stern on that ship and see what shape she is in. 

She has been sitting there for a while. She has been inactive. We 

need to know what systems are workable, what is still there. Many 

of these systems are actually obsolete. I was actually just talking 

to the skipper of the Polar Star this week, and believe it or not, 

they have to buy some of the fuses for their main generators and 

switchboards on eBay because they are not manufactured. 

Well, that is the same equipment that is on Polar Sea. So we 

need to take a look. We really cannot make any credible decision 

on reactivation/decommissioning until we get a good sense of what 

is really there and what the condition of that is. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. The ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, raised the 

issue of gut and fill, I guess is what it means, basically using the 

hull. Will that also be studied? 

Mr. RASICOT. Yes, sir. We will take a look at all—what we will 

look at is what is the condition and what is the viability of that 

ship. I have to go back to both the written statement and my oral 

statement, though. We only see the Polar Sea or Polar Star as a 

gap filler between now and the new icebreaker. We need to think 

about recapitalizing the icebreaker fleet as opposed to using 40- 

year-old ships. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Have you made any progress on working with 

the other Federal agencies and I suppose private agencies that are 

likely to use the new and the existing heavy icebreaker for their 

research? Any discussions about those agencies participating in the 

payment? 

Mr. RASICOT. Well, we certainly have a multiagency and multidisciplinary approach to developing the requirements for the icebreaker, as it is a national asset that serves many agencies. However, we have not had discussions regarding the payment structure 

or the funding structure between agencies. No, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. The chairman is about to introduce a piece of 

legislation that would set up a fund similar to the submarine fund 

in the Department of Defense where money can be collected to construct a new icebreaker, to refurbish one of the existing ones, extend the life of them. Does the Coast Guard have a position on that 

legislation? 

Mr. RASICOT. Well, sir, I think it is fair to say that we normally 

do not comment on pending legislation. However, the Commandant 

has said on numerous occasions that he looks forward to imaginative and innovative solutions. And we look forward to working with 

the committee staff on those type of solutions for this national 

problem. 

24 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think that introduction is pending probably 

this week? 

Mr. RASICOT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So then you can comment and be very specific 

about it. It also, as I understand the legislation, would allow us to 

find financial help from other agencies that might want to have 

space on either refurbished or a new icebreaker. So I draw your attention to that. 

Mr. RASICOT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And we look forward to hearing back from you 

and any organizations that would be interested in that matter. 

I yield back. 

Mr. YOUNG [presiding]. This is for the Coast Guard, and I would 

suggest to the committee and the ranking member that I still think 

we either have to pass legislation for an independent study for 

leasing a management-private partnership. I have argued with 

every admiral, every Commandant, for the last 40 years about this 

concept of having to own a vessel. 

I was here when we funded the Polar Star and the rest of those 

three vessels. There are a lot of reasons why they are not operating. One is a stupid law; we have to replace it with the cheapest 

product when there is something that breaks down. That is our 

fault. 

Secondly, though, is the money. I do not know whether even this 

fund that we are going to introduce will ever get enough money to 

build a Coast Guard icebreaker. I do believe we ought to have an 

independent study and see whether it can be done a cheaper way 

with a better result than we will have trying to appropriate the 

money for going through the Coast Guard. 

Now, what is the estimated cost of—you cannot tell me yet when 

you go through the Polar Star? 

Mr. RASICOT. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. YOUNG. The estimated cost of refurbishing? 

Mr. RASICOT. No. It is impossible to tell right now, it really is, 

because we have to get a look at the material condition. 

Mr. YOUNG. Did we not put money in the Polar Sea? Which one 

did we refurbish? 

Mr. RASICOT. We refurbished the Polar Star. 

Mr. YOUNG. We already did the Polar Star? 

Mr. RASICOT. Well, for a 7- to 10-year life cycle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. So what are you looking at this life cycle of the 

Polar Sea? 

Mr. RASICOT. Well, it really depends on how the acquisition progresses. And right now we need to just look at the ship itself and 

see what it is capable of. It has been sort of deteriorating while 

Polar Star has been available, and we have actually taken some of 

the stuff off of Polar Sea to make Polar Star work. 

So you are paying Peter to pay Paul, or whatever the right saying is there. So we just need to get on board, sir, and do an engineering analysis. I really cannot provide you an answer. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. I respect that. But I really suggest, respectfully, 

you are wasting your money. This is like trying to fix a brand-new 

house that is full of termites. It will cost a lot of money. You will 

25 

make a lot of studies, a lot of effort. And the end result will be it 

is going to cost us $100 million to try to refurbish this ship. 

And I really believe we ought to look. Is there a better way of 

getting icebreakers into our activity, especially when everybody 

else is involved? You see what China is doing. Russia has got the 

best icebreaking fleet now. Finland has always had a good one. And 

I don’t want to be leasing from them. 

I still think there ought to be a proposal. I don’t see why the 

Coast Guard cannot come out with—what do you call it—a projected suggestion on what would a shipyard charge us for a 35-year 

lease with a ship built to our specification and maintained by the 

shipowner. That is the beauty of it. 

Because you guys have done—not you personally or any of the 

Coast Guard—done a terrible job, I believe, in maintaining the icebreakers that we have. The hulls are not in bad shape. It is all the 

other nonsense—like you said, outdated. They have got fuses you 

have to put in like the old days that have got a clip on each end. 

I have been on a couple of these ships, and they were state of 

the art when we built it. But that was 35 years ago, 40 years ago. 

Forty years. And so I am just suggesting—if I can, I am going to 

talk to the chairman. We are going to see if we cannot get an independent study. And I may be wrong. Maybe you are right. 

I will yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think you hit upon something interesting. If 

I understand the Coast Guard, you have been studying the requirements for a new ship. Is that correct? 

Mr. RASICOT. We have had an interagency integrated planning 

team studying those requirements, yes. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. What is the status of the planning? 

Mr. RASICOT. We hope to finish it this year. As you recall, we did 

a preliminary operational requirements document, which we completed. You then refine that, get the stakeholders back in, and see 

if anything has changed. Did we get it right? And we are trying 

to get this right. This is a 40- or 50-year-old asset. We do not buy 

these every year. So we are trying to get it right. So we are looking 

to get this done by the end of the year, sir. Calendar year. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. My friend the Ice Man here. With that in hand, 

there would be information that a private company could then look 

at and come up with some answer to your question. 

Mr. YOUNG. And that is what I expect. What is your requirement? Put it out there. You have got quite a few shipyards now because the Navy is cutting back. The shipyards are available. We 

have a lot of private shipyards that are interested in this operation. 

They can look at this and give us an estimated cost of what would 

happen. 

Now, part of this is our fault because my understanding is— 

which agencies, once the lump is all lump sum? OMB. They want 

to say, OK, because it takes—let’s say the ship costs $800 million 

versus $1.4 billion. They want to charge us $800 million, charge us 

against the budget, and I am saying that is nonsense. 

We have to change that where it is the amount of money you expend to lease the vessel in that year. And that would solve some 

problem. That would solve a problem. This is all bureaucratic—it 

is a stupid way to do things. But the main thing is I have watched 

26 

this done before where if an owner of the vessel leases to a recipient with covenants from the recipient, and part of the contract is 

maintaining the vehicle, it is up to them to maintain it, so either 

you want to re-lease it or, in fact, it would be valuable as an asset 

at the end of the lease. 

That is all I have ever asked for the last 25 years is to try to 

look at—the last study I know of that was done by the Coast Guard 

is 1980. That was 35 years ago. And maybe it didn’t pencil out 

then. So that is all I am asking, is that you consider it. And every 

Commandant has argued with me over this and they say, do not 

do it. 

Do you have another question? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. Just to follow up on your point, later this 

year there will be detailed information about what a new icebreaker will need to be. I suppose it will be not only the physical 

nature of it but also the kinds of scientific space that would be 

needed in it and so forth, so it would go into some detail. 

Perhaps it could be made available to the private industry to 

come up with a bid that might then be a lease. I suspect that it 

will take a couple of lines in some appropriation, or maybe in a 

Coast Guard reauthorization bill, that would require that that information be available to the private companies for the purposes of 

achieving your goal. You might want to look at that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I was just talking about the 

lease option, and apparently there is a study taking place, what is 

going to be required. And I think we ought to get an estimate because I do not want the Coast Guard to do the study itself. With 

all due respect, that gets kind of self-serving. 

I would either like to have an outside agency do it or give us the 

details of the requirement for what they seek and see whether we 

can get a vessel or a suggestion. Because again, it is maintenance. 

There is nothing wrong with those three ships we built other than 

they just wore out and the parts were not replaced correctly. 

And it was not your fault. We have a ‘‘buy American’’ clause. And 

we do not put modern stuff in. We place it with, very frankly, and 

that is one of the reasons—I do not think the hulls are hurt. The 

hulls have not been used that much, and hulls do not really wear 

out unless you run into a rock like we did up north. We didn’t 

know where that was. 

That is something we have to do, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know 

whether it is in our jurisdiction because this surveillance—or, excuse me, mapping of our sea bottoms in the Arctic is crucially important. We have no concept of what is out there, especially offshore. We still do not know where they ran into it. But anyway, 

it has nothing to do with drilling. It is lack of navigational aids. 

I think the last area was done in 1905, so we are really outdated. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any other questions. Would you like 

to ask some more questions? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. It seems like we are falling behind. You have 

all these other countries that we talk about here in disparaging 

ways sometimes—Europe, Russia, China—doing all the stuff that 

we are not doing right now, whether it is backup to GPS, whether 

it is building icebreakers. I would like to just get your general 

sense of what are we doing wrong? 

27 

Number two, when it comes to the icebreakers, I do not think we 

should presuppose that it should even be a Coast Guard icebreaker. 

It might be DOD-owned. It could be some kind of interagency. It 

could be a leased vessel that is run by merchant mariners where 

the Coast Guard is not even involved in it, where the ice gets broken. Because obviously, none of this stuff is getting done. 

I guess we are going to have meetings on it. September 3rd there 

is going to be a meeting on GPS backup stuff. There are going to 

be more meetings on icebreakers going forward, with no actual 

plan to implement anything. So we are falling behind. I am just curious. Why are we falling behind these other countries on these 

issues? Go ahead, go down the line. I am just curious. Please, speculate. 

Mr. RASICOT. Sir, I do not have a good reason as to why the perception might be we are falling—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Let’s not mince words. It is not a perception. We 

do not have any heavy icebreakers and they do. So I would call 

that purely we do not have icebreakers and they do. 

Mr. RASICOT. Yes, sir. And we do have an active program of 

record to recapitalize one heavy icebreaker. We are moving forward 

on that. We will have the operational requirements—— 

Mr. HUNTER. So my question is, why do you think we are falling 

behind? Even if we get one, we are still behind. Peer competitor nations, we are behind, even if we have one. So my question is, why 

are we falling behind? What do you think? 

Mr. RASICOT. I do not have a good reason for that, sir. I just do 

not know. 

Mr. HUNTER. Admiral? 

Ms. LANDRY. Competing national priorities. That is what I would 

say. 

Mr. YOUNG. If the chairman will yield for a moment? 

Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely. 

Mr. YOUNG. One of the things that I have been concerned over 

the years, we in the Congress—I was partly guilty of this—but 

OPA. Never had that responsibility before. Oil spill responsibility 

was given to you by the Congress, so we never really funded it adequately. 

When I first came to this body, you had navigational aids, search 

and rescue. Think of all the responsibilities that you have now. 

And we really do not fund the Coast Guard adequately. I am convinced that that is our biggest challenge. I cannot blame an agency 

as much as I do the Congress in not recognizing the importance of 

the mission and the importance of, very frankly, being an Arctic 

nation. And I am very prejudiced that way because I am the Arctic 

nation. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GARAMENDI. You are the Ice Man. 

Mr. YOUNG. Sometimes they do not think I am an Ice Man. They 

think I am a volcano. But I really think we have a responsibility. 

Because you talk about defense, and I am all for defense. Do not 

get me wrong. We talk about all these other things. And yet we 

say, here, Coast Guard, you have got this job to do but, by the way, 

we are not going to give you anything to eat, so keep running a 

mile. That is pretty hard to do. 

28 

So I think we ought to be talking that way to some of our Members of Congress, and this is a very serious issue securitywise, I 

think internationally. We have got probably 74 ships going through 

the Bering Straits this year, which you did not have before. It goes 

back oil spill liability. I know we had the oil spill liability bill here, 

and I worked on OPA when it passed. 

I still do not know how we are going to make other countries— 

China is going to be drilling up there. They do not give a rat’s tail. 

See, I was good. I kept my language straight. And we have to have 

the shipping channels in place, the GPSs in place, the lorans in 

place, everything expecting for the next 100 years because that is 

where the action is going to be. 

You have got 31 of the known minerals we use today above the 

Arctic Circle. They were never accessible before. You have oil beyond anyone’s imagination at the North Pole. And people look at 

me like I am crazy. I am not kidding about that. You talk to my 

geologists, at some time the North Pole did not have any ice. We 

did not have any climate change. It was a different time of the 

globe. 

And so we had better be prepared, and I think it is our responsibility to try to make that happen. So I am not blaming the Coast 

Guard for all this. I do not like all the agencies working against 

one another. Now, that concerns me a great deal. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a little case where this administration 

came out with the flood plain. This came out of the White House, 

the flood plain. They have got three alternatives—a 100-year status, a 1,000-year status, and then they have one that is going to 

be the future-thinking flood plain. And all the agencies have adopted a different policy. 

How do I get a permit? Do you have an answer to that? Anybody 

have an answer to that? That is what we have when we have agencies. One does this, one does that, and one does this. You know 

what? We do not go anywhere. It is like a dog team. I was an old 

dog musher. If we had all the dogs going in one direction, I got 

home. But if I had one dog going one way, another dog going the 

other way, and another dog going the other way, I killed them all 

because we did not go anywhere. So we figured out what we do. 

And I am not suggesting I do that to anybody in this room. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I am just saying we have got to get on the same 

page. We have got to go forward and not getting all this, it is my 

deal, it is my deal. That does not serve anybody. Mr. Chairman, I 

do not have any questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. This is way more fun when you are going. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Garamendi, any more questions? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I could have a lot of fun, but I think Mr. 

Young’s statement stands for itself. And we heard it earlier, and 

now the icebreaker issue. And also, Ms. Landry, you spoke the 

truth. It is a matter of priorities. It is a question of priorities. And 

we have to make those choices, and we often fail to do so. Mr. 

Young was speaking about it. I will let it go. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from California. I just want 

to note, too, congratulations, Ms. Landry, on filling the Coast 

29 

Guard USAA [United Services Automobile Association] board of directors coming up. Way to go. I use USAA sometimes. I think it 

is just homeowners or something, but anyway, congratulations. 

I yield back to the chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. I believe this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

30 


Insert offset folio 20 here 95651.020
31 


Insert offset folio 21 here 95651.021
32 


Insert offset folio 22 here 95651.022
33 


Insert offset folio 23 here 95651.023
34 


Insert offset folio 24 here 95651.024
35 


Insert offset folio 25 here 95651.025
36 


Insert offset folio 26 here 95651.026
37 


Insert offset folio 27 here 95651.027
38 


Insert offset folio 28 here 95651.028
39 


Insert offset folio 29 here 95651.029
40 


Insert offset folio 30 here 95651.030
41 


Insert offset folio 31 here 95651.031
42 


Insert offset folio 32 here 95651.032
43 


Insert offset folio 33 here 95651.033
44 


Insert offset folio 34 here 95651.034
45 


Insert offset folio 35 here 95651.035
46 


Insert offset folio 36 here 95651.036
47 


Insert offset folio 37 here 95651.037
48 


Insert offset folio 38 here 95651.038
49 


Insert offset folio 39 here 95651.039
50 


Insert offset folio 40 here 95651.040
51 


Insert offset folio 41 here 95651.041
52 


Insert offset folio 42 here 95651.042
53 


Insert offset folio 43 here 95651.043
54 


Insert offset folio 44 here 95651.044
55 


Insert offset folio 45 here 95651.045
56 


Insert offset folio 46 here 95651.046
57 


Insert offset folio 47 here 95651.047
58 


Insert offset folio 48 here 95651.048
59 


Insert offset folio 49 here 95651.049
60 


Insert offset folio 50 here 95651.050
61 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 51 here 95651.051