U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–498 PDF 2006

COAST GUARD AMENDMENTS OF 2005

(109–19)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 12, 2005

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

VACANCY

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington,ViceChair

CONNIE MACK, Florida

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

BOB FILNER, California, Ranking Democrat

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Lederer, Calvin M., Deputy Judge Advocate General, United States Coast

Guard .................................................................................................................... 2

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Fortun ̃ o, Hon. Luis G., of Puerto Rico .................................................................... 14

Fosella, Hon. Vito, of New York ............................................................................. 16

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Lederer, Calvin M. ................................................................................................... 18

(1)

COAST GUARD AMENDMENTS OF 2005

Wednesday, May 12, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2167,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank LoBiondo [chairman of

the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Coast

Guard and Maritime Transportation will come to order.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the

Coast Guard Amendments of 2005. The Subcommittee, again, as I

said, is meeting this morning to review the Committee print of the

Coast Guard Amendments of 2005. The bill makes several changes

to laws related to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation

sector. It includes a number of provisions that will improve the

Coast Guard’s ability to enhance maritime security in U.S. waters,

in foreign ports and on the high seas. The bill directs the Secretary

to establish a pilot program to demonstrate technologies to track

vessels at greater distances from our shores.

It has been three years since the Long Range Vessel Tracking

System was authorized under the Maritime Transportation Security Act. While I understand the need to work through the IMO on

the issue, I don’t understand why the Coast Guard would not move

to set up a voluntary program in the interim. The Long Range Vessel Tracking System will enhance the Coast Guard’s ability to identify and target vessels of interest and will further push out our borders. I hope the pilot program included in this bill will encourage

the Coast Guard to field this system as soon as possible.

The bill also makes changes to existing law to improve the ability

of the Federal Government to prosecute individuals apprehended

as part of the Coast Guard’s illegal drug interdiction missions. It

authorizes the Coast Guard to provide technical assistance to improve the law enforcement and maritime safety and security training programs of our international partners, and it increases civil

penalties for vessel owners and operators who violate maritime

transportation security regulations.

The authorities granted by this bill will enhance the Coast

Guard’s ability to carry out its many traditional and homeland security missions. I hope that my colleagues will support these

amendments as we move forward with H.R. 889, the Coast Guard

and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, at full Committee later

this month. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the
2

Subcommittee this morning and I look forward to hearing your

views on the bill.

Now we will turn to Mr. Filner.

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

As you said, most of the amendments that have been proposed

have been submitted to Congress by the Coast Guard for improvements in the laws. Other amendments have been proposed by

members for inclusion in this year’s authorization bill, which include closing a loophole to ensure that ferries that do not charge

a fare are subject to all Coast Guard safety inspection and manning laws; requiring the Coast Guard to adjust the rate for pilotage

on the Great Lakes annually; establishing a Coast Guard history

fellowship program that will provide grants to doctoral students in

history to write their dissertation on some aspect of Coast Guard

history; and establishing a program in the Department of Transportation to promote the use of U.S.-flagged liquified natural gas

tankers.

If these tankers are going to enter our waters, it makes sense

that they be U.S.-flagged ships employing the best mariners in the

world, our U.S. mariners.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of provisions

in the Administration’s proposal that are not included because they

require more study by our Committee. For example, the Coast

Guard proposed to totally rewrite the laws related to issuing licenses in merchant mariners’ documents to U.S. mariners. But unfortunately, they never bothered to talk to the industry or the affected mariners in these proposals. It is a complex issue that affects thousands of jobs on U.S.-flagged ships. We will need to carefully examine these proposed changes to ensure that our waterways will continue to be safe and that the rights and benefits of

mariners are protected.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you

in a bipartisan way for the full Committee markup of the bill.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Filner.

Mr. Diaz-Balart, do you have anything in opening to say?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Boustany?

Mr. BOUSTANY. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Calvin Lederer, Deputy Judge Advocate General of the United States Coast Guard.

Thank you for being here.

TESTIMONY OF CALVIN M. LEDERER, DEPUTY JUDGE

ADVOCATE GENERAL, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Mr. LEDERER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to

you and to the distinguished members of the Subcommittee.

I am Calvin Lederer, Deputy Judge Advocate General of the

Coast Guard. On behalf of the Commandant, thank you for your invitation to appear here before you today.

I also thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative Filner, for

your support and sponsorship of the Coast Guard and Maritime

Transportation Act of 2005, which authorizes full funding for the

Coast Guard for the coming year. As you know, the Coast Guard

is a multi-mission maritime service. Every day we simultaneously
3

lead the Federal Government in maritime homeland security and

perform our many other missions, such as fisheries enforcement,

search and rescue and environmental protection. Coast Guard men

and women are also still providing their unique maritime security

capability as part of the coalition forces in Iraq and other locations

distant from our shores.

On April 12th, the Commandant transmitted to you the President’s proposed Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2005. I would

like to highlight some of that proposal’s key provisions and ask

that you consider including them in the Committee’s bill to which

you referred earlier, Mr. Chairman.

The President’s proposals will enhance the Coast Guard’s ability

to effectively carry out our homeland security responsibilities and

also allow us to better carry out our traditional missions. The

President’s proposal does include a complete update of the merchant mariner credentialing statutes in Title 46 of the United

States Code. One of the legacies of the events of September 11th

is the urgent necessity to better control who is able to obtain Government-issued credentials. The 9/11 Commission report noted that

the hijackers used Government-issued identification cards like driver’s licenses, and recommended that forms of identification be made

more secure.

The changes we propose as an important step we can take to instill a culture of security within a system that has previously focused almost exclusively on safety and efficiency and better insulated vessels and maritime infrastructure from the threat of terrorist attack. These changes will enable the Department of Homeland

Security to heighten the security of all mariner credentials in partnership with the mariners themselves and the maritime industry.

In the area of marine safety, we can do more to protect the commercial fishing industry. In recent years, it has become clear that

the rate of fatalities in the commercial fishing industry is alarmingly high. In 2002, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that commercial fishermen working aboard uninspected fishing vessels died

at a rate of 71.1 per 100,000 workers, while the rate for the American workplace as a whole was 4 deaths per 100,000.

Between the years 1999 and 2003, the uninspected fishing vessel

industry reported 291 deaths and 528 vessels lost. The Administration’s proposal would authorize the Secretary to establish a limited

five-year pilot program in two geographic areas to examine two

vessels and their crews to ensure both that required safety equipment is on board and that the crew is trained and exercised in its

proper use. Data from our current voluntary program in which only

6 percent of fishing vessels take part indicate that these examinations reduce fatalities and vessel losses.

Turning to oil spills, the recent spill, such as the Athos-1 in Delaware Bay have highlighted the need for the Coast Guard to have

a capability to quickly meet large numbers of claims against the

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that was authorized in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The President’s proposal addresses this need by

providing for limited access to the fund to pay direct costs of processing claims.

We have listened to the Committee’s concerns with respect to

past proposals, and we have significantly narrowed the types of
4

costs that we propose be paid out of the no-year part of the fund.

The proposal would give the Coast Guard a surge capability to

quickly and efficiently get the relief Congress intended to those

who are damaged by an oil spill.

My written statement discusses these issues and others in greater depth, and I ask that it be included in the record for your consideration, respectfully.

The men and women of the Coast Guard meet extraordinary

challenges every day. I am honored to be here on their behalf, and

on their behalf and the Commandant’s, thank you very much for

your efforts to enact a Coast Guard authorization bill again this

year and for the opportunity to appear before you as well.

I will be delighted to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much.

I will start off with a couple. Concerning the Coast Guard headquarters, the Administration’s fiscal year 2006 budget requests approximately $38 million to begin the study and design work to

transfer the Coast Guard headquarters to the St. Elizabeth Hospital complex. The budget suggests that other Federal agencies, we

are guessing likely within the Department of Homeland Security,

will follow the Coast Guard to St. Elizabeth. But if I am correct,

I understand that no other Federal agency has been designated to

make that move, and the campus cannot be accessed from the I295 nor is it accessible by Metrorail.

So the question is, has the Coast Guard asked to be transferred

to St. Elizabeth’s? And is the Coast Guard in consultation with

GSA to oversee the site study and any design work to ensure the

area would be developed should any transfer? Does that meet the

Coast Guard requirements? And the last question is, is the Coast

Guard investigating ways to transport personnel from the Metrorail or improve access to I-295? I don’t know who is going to pay

for that access. I understand it can be a substantial amount of

money.

Mr. LEDERER. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard’s interest is in relocating from our current location, or at least finding a way to colocate all of our headquarters activities in one location, which our

current location does not appear to provide a solution. By fiscal

year 2008, we expect to have a 400,000 square feet shortfall in the

headquarters in terms of our overall needs.

Currently we are dispersed over five locations. So there is a need

to find a way to consolidate Coast Guard headquarters in one location to improve the efficiency of the headquarters.

With respect to the St. Elizabeth’s proposal, of course the General Services Administration is the lead agency for this. They have

a $24.9 million budget item, I believe, in their fiscal year 2006

budget specifically to engage in the kind of master planning that

is necessary to determine what St. Elizabeth’s can support or can’t

support.

They have entered into a contract, as I understand it, that will

require a master plan to be produced by September of 2006 that

will specifically address all of these issues that you have referred

to, Mr. Chairman, such as accessibility being a major issue which

is recognized, as well as what else can St. Elizabeth’s support in
5

terms of Federal Government activities in addition to the Coast

Guard.

So I think, sir, the answer is these issues are very much in our

mind and apparently are also in the mind of GSA, which has let

its contract for this master plan. We are confident that these issues

will be addressed by the GSA as it moves forward in the master

plan. We hope to work very closely with GSA as they move ahead

in their planning.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Do you have any idea of timing?

Mr. LEDERER. Yes, sir. The master plan, as I say, is the contract

that they have let with a company, Jones, Lang, LaSalle, it is expected, well, not expected, the requirement of the contract is to

produce a master plan in one year’s time. So that should be reported out in September of 2006. That I think will give us a significant amount of information to decide next steps.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Last month you proposed to rewrite the statutes

relating to the Coast Guard’s merchant mariner documentation

program. We have heard, though, numerous concerns that have

been raised by the maritime industry, and I’m just wondering if

you can talk a little bit about what the Coast Guard may be doing

to work with the industry to address some of these concerns and

generally where we stand with that.

Mr. LEDERER. Well, sir, first if I could address the nature of the

proposal. In large measure, this proposal does two things. One, it

simplifies and modernizes the existing provisions concerning merchant mariner credentials. But equally and in fact more important,

it addresses maritime security in a way that the existing rules do

not.

We have discussed this with MERPAC. They have taken it under

advisement, they have not taken a position with the Coast Guard

as yet. They wanted to look at the proposal more closely. We are

planning a public meeting in June to listen to concerns of industry

and mariners concerning these proposals.

The important point, sir, I think is that this proposal is a chance

to simplify in large measure, as I mentioned, and would lead to

regulation a great kind of the kinds of issues that we suspect that

the industry would be concerned about. So we would have significant amount of opportunity for input from the industry as we move

forward to further implement the statutory change once it takes

place.

But the issue of maritime security, that is a major driver in

terms of the timing of the provision. Currently, in terms of the

issuance of merchant mariner credentials, maritime security is not

one of the bases on which you can issue or not issue. So one of the

specific changes that we might like to do is to clearly indicate that

maritime security is a consideration, not only for suspension and

revocation of an existing credential but also for the issuance of

that.

So linking the whole merchant mariner credentialing system to

maritime security is a significant objective that we have here. The

specific changes that this proposal would work to existing practice

are actually rather few in number, but they are significant, as I

say, because they raise maritime security.
6

One of the issues which we have proposed, or one of the issues

we would like to address is, for example, temporary suspension of

the credential in the event of an incident. We would propose that

temporary suspension be permitted immediately. But we want to

balance that with due process of mariners. So we require in our

proposal that a mariner have the opportunity before a hearing, before an administrative law judge, within 30 days of the temporary

suspension.

This kind of provision addresses a situation like we had in Staten Island, where we had no ability to immediately suspend without

the benefit of an immediate hearing before an administrative law

judge.

So summarizing, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the very specific

things we are proposing here, there are very few specific changes

that would alter the terrain of the current credentialing system

and inject maritime security in a statutory fashion that advances

us on the road. It also puts us in a position where we can continue

to mutually develop with TSA and other agencies transportation

worker identify cards, but again without significantly or actually in

any way disadvantaging, in our minds, mariners or the industry.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you.

Mr. Filner.

Mr. FILNER. I would just like to pursue that issue a little bit

more, sir. As you know, this Committee, the Congress wrote the

standards for a transportation worker identification card in the

Maritime and Transportation Security Act. And that was a security

document to grant access to a secure area.

I think if Congress had wanted the merchant mariners document

to become the security card, we would have done that. So you want

to link the two, I guess, in one card. So what is wrong with the

way the system is set up now? That is, why do you need to duplicate the security background check that will be done for this TWIC

card in your evaluation of mariners?

Mr. LEDERER. Mr. Filner, we are not yet in the position of proposing that there be one credential and only one credential. But we

want to set the conditions so that is a greater possibility and to

modify the system or at least provide the basis for regulatory reform that might allow that down the road. So to make life easier,

in fact, for mariners, they can have a single credential that would

satisfy the requirements of the TWIC, satisfy requirements concerning qualifications for merchant mariner credentials as well as

security and at the same time, satisfy the notion of an international seafarer card that Congress has also spoken about.

So we would like to provide a potential for that. I don’t think

that we have a clear plan at this point to have a single credential.

Mr. FILNER. I am not sure why that necessarily would be simpler

or better for the mariner, in that whatever standards are used for

the security, somebody may lack for whatever reason, but still be

able to work on non-secure areas. It sounds like your one card

would, I mean, let’s say the person had visited the Middle East or

something and by some standard that became ineligible for a secure card. But now you’re going to deny the ability to work at all.
7

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, at this point, as I say, we are not proposing

a one card solution. But certainly that is one of many alternatives

at the Department of Homeland Security

Mr. FILNER. Well, what’s wrong with the existing law that you

want to, what different standards are you going to apply to that

security clearance that is not good enough? What is wrong with the

system that you want to change it?

Mr. LEDERER. Currently, with respect to merchant mariner credentials, there is no requirement for security background check

going in at all right now. That is a significant thing that I think

we need.

The focus of merchant mariner credentials, currently, as I understand it, is focusing on qualifications and not security. So

Mr. FILNER. Right, but then we set up this second card.

Mr. LEDERER. The TWIC.

Mr. FILNER. Yes, the TWIC. What’s wrong with that?

Mr. LEDERER. Potentially, that might be acceptable. But it would

seem to me that the potential of having a single round of security

checks that would satisfy both the needs of the TWIC and the

needs of merchant mariner credentials would be worthwhile.

Mr. FILNER. But then it’s like a truck driver, you know, a truck

driver gets a license that says they are able to drive a truck. And

if they need to get into a secure area, then they will have to go

under a TWIC thing. So you have separated competence in the field

versus a security clearance, which seems to me to be a better fit.

If you put everything in one, then somebody can’t even have the

competence in the field measured. Who knows what the security

thing is? We have had instances, since 9/11, of people, for a lot of

reasons, a lot of unjust reasons, being denied the security clearance

of something or other, maybe having the same name as somebody

else and not being able to get it.

So it seems to me with one card you get into all the problems

of a society which is going to a one-computer thing and if you screw

that up, if you make a mistake on your visa card, if somebody

makes a mistake and you’re going to be denied a driver’s license

because of that, that would be pretty disastrous for a lot of people.

I think you are moving into that direction and you ought to be very

cautions. That is why we are not prepared to do anything about it

yet.

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, if I could just make one comment in response.

While you raise valid concerns about what the level of security may

be required ultimately for the TWIC versus what we want in terms

of a mariner who is actually onboard a vessel and operating on a

vessel. Leaving that issue aside, with respect to merchant mariner

credentials, security needs to be an issue that we have to be concerned about in terms of giving a credential to a mariner to actually operate on a vessel when he is at sea.

Maritime security is a significant concern. We need to factor that

into the merchant mariner credential process as it exists today.

Leaving aside completely what the form of the TWIC may ultimately take and whether it might be one card or several cards, but

basically, merchant mariner credentials need to be tied to maritime

security as well as marine safety.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Reichert, do you have questions?
8

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A question, sir. Thank you for being here this morning.

Section 102 of this Committee print authorizes the Commandant

of the Coast Guard to provide technical assistance to international

navies during regular Coast Guard operations without a specific request from a third party to the U.S. Government. How will this

new authority assist the Coast Guard in your drug activities?

Secondly, have any turf war issues [audio gap].

Mr. LEDERER. First of all, good morning, Mr. Reichert, and thank

you for your question.

We think this would be a significant benefit really across the full

spectrum of Coast Guard missions as we operate internationally,

but in terms of our drug interdiction in particular. We operate

alongside and in cooperation with the navies and coast guards of

other nations. Those opportunities provide opportunity to train

them further in terms of boarding practices, for example, and so

this kind of a change would give us affirmative authority to be able

to go and engage in different types of training activities from our

normal operations.

One example, and also another issue I think that comes up occasionally is that some of the foreign navies and coast guards with

which we work are not as financially well off as we are. As a consequence, they may not be, their operations are hindered by equipment that sometimes is not functional. This would allow us the opportunity to provide some incidental assistance when we are conducting normal operations.

We have seen this happen with the Haitian Coast Guard, for example, where we were able to provide assistance to them in terms

of making sure their vessels are operational as we are actually in

the course of an operation. We saw that happen during the Haiti

operations in 2004. Of course, that gets to repatriation of migrants

and different areas of our world of work.

Getting back to drug enforcement, in terms of boarding practices,

case preparation, those kinds of issues, this should provide us the

opportunity to work more directly to support our international

partners, but again, only incidental to our normal operations.

With respect to turf, we have a very close positive working relationship with the Department of State. We think they are supportive of this modest increase in our authorities. In fact, the provision

does require us to coordinate with the Department of State when

we are undertaking that.

The Department of Defense is another agency with which we

work a great deal. That gets mostly away from the drug enforcement issue, more towards our overseas activities, or maybe working

with foreign navies.

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you. The second question has to do with

Section 201, that changed the definition, amends the definition of

a passenger vessel. In Washington State, we have quite a ferry system, as you probably know. I am just curious how this definition,

amendment of the definition will affect your ability, if it is affecting

the Washington State ferry system, if there is any change at all,

and working with the Washington State people to do that.

Mr. LEDERER. If you are referring to the Committee’s proposal to

change the definition or to include ferries within the definition of
9

inspected vessels, we welcome moving in that direction. We think

that the Committee’s proposal is perhaps a touch too broad as it

currently stands, because the language I believe that would be

changed is to have a ferry, would have any passenger on board.

With respect to the current inspection regime, we discern between

large vessels and small vessels. With respect to large vessels, you

have to exceed 100 tons and then be one of these types of vessels.

That probably addresses the point reasonably well with respect to

ferries, larger ferries, in other words.

But the Committee’s proposal would also change then language

with respect to small passenger vessels and include ferries within

that. That would then reach basically the smallest type of ferry, including if you can imagine one of those ferries that goes across a

river and takes one or two cars at a time. I don’t think we want

to get into the business of inspecting those and I don’t think that

addresses the objective that the Committee had.

So we would like to work with the Committee to address the

problem of larger ferries based either on tonnage or perhaps on the

number of passengers that vessel may carry.

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. We are going to take a brief break, and while we

do that, let me say that Congressman Vito Fossella had wanted to

be here today, and a last minute change made it impossible for him

to attend.

But I want to ask unanimous consent that his statement be

made a part of the record. Congressman Fossella has been involved

with this issue from the very instance of the terrible Staten Island

ferry accident and the whole issue of ferry inspections. We had a

hearing up in Staten Island and I wanted to thank him for his

leadership on this issue and ask for that unanimous consent request.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay, we’re set to go. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple quick questions. On Section 204, is the net result of that an anchor-handling

vessel is now subject to the Jones Act, has to be American-owned,

American-flagged?

Mr. LEDERER. Good morning, Mr. Taylor. That is our understanding of their proposal.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. Going back to 201, the small passenger vessel. If it is carrying passengers with or without charge, what are

the chances that suddenly every vessel is now subject to this? If

you think about every vessel that I know of is carrying, except a

barge, is carrying a passenger.

Mr. LEDERER. Yes, sir. That is another issue that is raised by the

Committee’s proposal. There is no definition of a ferry that is in the

Committee’s proposal nor is there a definition of ferry that is contained the law currently. There is a definition of ferry that is contained within the Code of Federal Regulations with respect to fees.

That would serve reasonably well in terms of trying to find some

kind of definitional basis for how we might regulate ferries for inspection purposes under Title 46.

So the absence of a definition of a ferry is an issue that we would

be happy to address in greater discussions with the Committee.

One thing I would mention, to the extent that we tied this provi-
10

sion to the size of the vessel or the number of passengers that it

carries, that would then limit the scope so that you are getting at

what I think the Committee was getting at, which is the Staten Island ferry type of case, which is truly a commercial ferry where you

are trying to avoid tragedies.

Mr. TAYLOR. Sometime between now and markup, if you could

get me the language of defining passenger vessel. I don’t want to

see the unintended consequence where every aluminum skiff, every

kayak, every dingy is suddenly held to the same regulations.

Mr. LEDERER. We welcome the opportunity to provide you drafting assistance to work with the Committee’s proposals that exist

now and to recraft it in a way that we think would not reach those

types of vessels and at the same time, avoid the kinds of tragedies

that the Committee is seeking to avoid.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. Lastly, you do have an explanation, but I

would like to hear it from you, explain the changes in Section 205.

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, I am sorry, I don’t have the Committee’s bill

in front of me, 205 referring to?

Mr. TAYLOR. Amends the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act

to allow the Coast Guard to certify a foreign nation’s response to

an inquiry of a vessel’s nationality without notifying the Coast

Guard

Mr. LEDERER. Okay. This relates to our drug enforcement activities, sir. Currently the way it works is that when we are engaging

with another vessel, or I should say when we believe there is a suspect drug vessel, we will make a right of visit boarding or address

the master of the vessel and say, so what nation are you from.

Then the individual will say, I am from Colombia, let’s say.

We then will contact the flag state and either confirm or deny

the nationality of the vessel. If the country confirms that yes, this

vessel is of Colombian registry, then we ask Colombia for permission to board and potentially seize the vessel, which we get in due

course, where it is clear that the vessel’s nationality is Colombian.

The difficulty that this addresses, and I might add furthermore,

that when that case is then brought to prosecution, there is a certification that is easily done that is accepted in court which simply

says, we contacted the Colombians and the Colombians said, this

is our vessel. They confirmed nationality.

Therefore, the boarding that proceeded thereafter was in accordance with international law and the rest of the case goes just fine.

The difficulty is that in the go-fast situation, which is the majority

of our cases, not necessarily all or even a very large majority, but

a majority of our cases, in the go-fast situation, the vessel may

make a claim of nationality and then the purported flag state really can’t confirm or deny. So this very simple change in the law will

allow us to make a certification to the court that simply says, we

spoke to Colombia and Colombia could neither confirm nor deny,

and that therefore gave us a legal basis to declare this vessel stateless, board it, seize it, and that’s why this defendant is in front of

you today.

So it is a very small but very significant change. Currently we

probably, a couple of dozen times a year have to bring Coast Guard

watch standers into court, sometimes multiple watch standers, to

testify concerning the content of their communications with the
11

flag states or at least the purported flag states. This would avoid

that and simply make it easier to just file one certification.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. I think that’s it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Diaz-Balart?

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. And I apologize. Section 106, you are making some

changes to the section on Coast Guard reservists to active duty for

not more than 60 days in a full month period, not more than 120

days in a two year period. What is the present law?

Mr. LEDERER. The present law, sir, is essentially half of that. We

can recall reservists, really only in a consequence management

kind of a role, but as there is a major man-made or natural disaster, in response to that disaster, we can call people up. Currently,

we can only call up for 30 days within a 4-month period, and then

60 days within a 2-year period.

So this provision makes two very significant changes that are important to maritime and homeland security. First, it expands the

number of days to 60 days within a 4-month period that we can

call somebody up, and then for a total of 120 days in any 2-year

period. So it doubles essentially the amount of time we can call a

reservist up.

But the other thing is that we can call that reservist up in advance of an incident occurring, that is to say in the situation I have

posited, where have intelligence suggesting that there may be a

transportation security incident in the offing, we can call up reservists in advance of that occurring so that we can bolster our maritime homeland security posture. So that’s essentially what we are

proposing and what the existing law is, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. That I would think is extremely broad language. I

would think this is going to give you extremely broad language. We

think something is getting ready to happen, so therefore we are

calling you guys up. That is basically the only justification you

need?

Mr. LEDERER. Well, sir, if the homeland security alert level was

to go to orange or if we have an indication we are to go to red, the

ports in that area that we presume are threatened are going to

have to go to a higher state of security, going to MARSEC2 with

a potential of MARSEC3. In that situation, we need to augment

our forces, both by moving active forces and potentially by augmenting with reservists.

We are very conscious, very conscious of the necessity not to

interfere or disrupt the lives of our reservists. At the same time,

the Secretary needs the flexibility to call up reserve when he believes they are necessary to address a potential incident that we

have to at least conjure up.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Mr. Diaz-Balart? Questions?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Mack?

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wondered if you could just talk briefly about, in the Deepwater

program, what kind of cost savings there may be and continuity of
12

equipment if the time line was changed from 10, 15, 20 years to

5, 10 years, something like that, if you have any kind of analysis

done on that.

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, we have looked extensively at the issue of

time line and advancing the time line for Deepwater, I don’t think

quite to that level. I think the Commandant would like to hear a

five-year time line.

But with respect to what specific economies we might get, depending on how you shorten the time line, I do not have that data

with me, sir. Of course, that’s a matter that’s been under significant discussion, both with this Committee and also with the appropriators. We believe that are getting close to providing some additional data that will be of use both to this Committee and to the

Appropriations Committee.

I would not want to misstate myself by suggesting facts and figures that I don’t have a good handle on.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Fortuna.

Mr. FORTUNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to delve a little bit further into the certification of

the vessel nationality process and how does the different steps and

perhaps additional requirements impact the court’s ability to prosecute fully illegal drug smugglers, in your estimation.

Mr. LEDERER. Good morning, Mr. Fortuna. The benefit of this

change is really, it is a resource issue. It will just give us the ability to simply certify to record that we were unable to identify the

nationality of the vessel, and therefore we could assimilate the vessel to a vessel without nationality, and therefore in accordance

with international law, we properly boarded it.

So really it is a matter of reducing the burden down to simply

preparing a simple certification that could be presented to the court

without having to bring in multiple Coast Guardsmen off other duties. Kind of like the situation in traffic court where we have to

bring in the police officer to testify concerning the case. This avoids

that, at least in terms of the nationality issue. So it keeps watch

standers in their stations doing the kind of work they ought to be

doing, rather than flying to Tampa or Miami or wherever to testify

in court.

Mr. FORTUNA. Will this provision affect other vessels other than

just smuggling vessels coming into the U.S. waters at all?

Mr. LEDERER. No, sir, this will only be effective with respect to

counter-narcotics work, because it would deal with the maritime, or

I should say the Drug Law Enforcement Act.

Mr. FORTUNA. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Boustany.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the provision dealing with liquified natural gas and authorizing the Merchant Marine Academy to train aboard foreign-flagged

vessels, do you have a pilot program set up, or in mind for this?

Mr. LEDERER. Good morning to you, sir. These are provisions I

believe that were proposed by the Committee. We have no pilot

program of that sort currently. With respect to both the merchant

marine issue and the LNG tanker issue, we would have to defer

those issues primarily to the Department of Transportation.
13

I think that’s about the best we can do on that right now. Although of course we have an interest in, for example, documents,

going back to the issue of merchant mariner credentials, we have

foreign cadets in our various maritime academies around the country and we do have a desire, for example, to make sure they can

train on vessels with ease. That is getting beyond the scope of your

question, though, sir.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Sure. Thank you.

Also, current law authorizes the Coast Guard and under certain

circumstances the Navy to control the movement of vessels in U.S.

waters, to protect safety, security of naval vessels that are anchored in those waters. The bill would extend this authority to a

distance of 12 nautical miles from shore, to be consistent with recent Presidential proclamation that expanded our U.S. territorial

waters.

Can you talk a little bit about the effect this is going to have on

other Coast Guard authorities and are there other Coast Guard authorities or missions that are restricted currently to a zone extending to three rather than twelve?

Mr. LEDERER. With respect to most of our other authorities, actually, through the good offices of Congress, our authorities have

been extended out to 12 in the context of several statutes. Of

course, the Coast Guard’s authority, law enforcement authority is

worldwide. But there are a number of statutes that give specific

authorities that have in fact been expanded out to 12 through prior

Congressional action.

The effect of this provision really is to protect the Navy. And it

doesn’t really advance Coast Guard authorities more generally. In

essence, we currently have two naval protective zones, one on the

east coast, one on the west coast. And the existing law allows the

senior naval officer to essentially exercise the authorities of the

naval protective zone, that is to keep people away from his vessel,

standing essentially in the stead of the Coast Guard.

Currently, the Navy only has the authority to protect its own

vessels out to three nautical miles. So the effect of this provision

would be to allow the naval commander to protect his vessel all the

way out to the end of the territory at sea without relying on Coast

Guard vessels. So the incidental advantage to the Coast Guard is

that since we have other authorities that will allow us to protect

that naval vessel between three and twelve, then this avoids the

necessity for us to provide escorts in all cases.

As it is right now, the Navy prefers to provide its own security

more often than not. So this essentially provides additional flexibility to the Navy to protect its own vessels.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. That’s all I have.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. I think that’s it, Mr. Lederer. We thank

you very much for being here today and the Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:48 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22Æ