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

88–023 PDF 2014

FUTURE OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY MISSIONS 

OF THE COAST GUARD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER 

AND MARITIME SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 4, 2014 

Serial No. 113–49 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

VACANCY

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

DONDALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

VACANCY, Staff Director 

MICHAEL GEFFROY, Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairwoman 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

VACANCY

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas (Ex Officio) 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

PAUL L. ANSTINE, II, Subcommittee Staff Director 

DEBORAH JORDAN, Subcommittee Clerk 

ALISON NORTHROP, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Candice S. Miller, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Michigan, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security ........................................................................................................ 1 

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

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security ........................................................................................................ 3 

WITNESS

Admiral Robert J. Papp, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security: 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

APPENDIX

Questions From Honorable Steven M. Palazzo for Robert J. Papp ..................... 27 

(1) 

FUTURE OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY 

MISSIONS OF THE COAST GUARD 

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller [Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Palazzo, Jackson Lee, Sanchez, 

O’Rourke, and Gabbard. 

Mrs. MILLER. Good morning. The Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security will come to 

order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to examine the future of the 

Coast Guard’s Homeland Security missions, and our witness today 

is Admiral Robert Papp, who is the Commandant of the United 

States Coast Guard. We certainly welcome him. 

I am going to recognize myself for an opening statement and 

then I will give a more formal introduction of Admiral Papp. 

Being a life-long recreational boater, I have certainly a deep affinity for the Coast Guard and for the incredible work that they do 

each and every day, whether it is out on the oceans or in the Great 

Lakes, whether it is routine boating safety missions, search and 

rescue, or certainly keeping vital shipping lanes clear of ice in the 

winter and then helping commerce to flow through all of our channels. I often say that if it is cold and wet and impossible, you 

should send in the Coast Guard. So we are very appreciative, certainly, of the work that the Coast Guard does in service to our 

great Nation. 

Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has taken an ever-increasing role in 

the protection of our Nation. We have given the Coast Guard additional responsibilities. We have tasked them to specifically focus 

their limited resources on port and maritime security. This often 

calls for some difficult choices, and in this time of very restrained 

budgets, we have to prioritize the Coast Guard’s core missions, because the Coast Guard cannot be everywhere at once. 

When the Commandant was before this subcommittee in the last 

Congress, he stressed the importance of recapitalizing our aging 

cutter fleet, specifically how important the acquisition of the National Security Cutter was and is. Congress responded, we worked 

together, and it is on track now to fully fund all eight of the re-
2 

quired cutters, which I think certainly is vital to the homeland security missions of the Coast Guard. 

Again, the Commandant was a very vocal advocate for that, and 

I am glad that Congress listened to the men and women of the 

Coast Guard about that issue. However, as we all know, recapitalization of the fleet is long-term, it is a costly process, and in a time 

again of budget constraints, we have to balance the cost to acquire 

these advanced cutters against long-term capability needs. 

I certainly support the Coast Guard’s plan to develop the Offshore Patrol Cutter, or the OPC as it is called, because our older 

cutters are costing us far too much in terms of less mission readiness, lost operational hours, and higher maintenance costs. Just 

consider for a moment that major Coast Guard law enforcement 

cutters have an average age of more than 40 years, while at the 

same time our naval ships have an average age of only 14. Quite 

a discrepancy there. 

We in the Congress need to ensure that the Coast Guard, again, 

has the proper assets to safely and effectively carry out its operations. This committee is especially interested in hearing the Commandant’s thoughts on the trade-offs required to ensure that the 

Coast Guard has the capabilities required to secure the maritime 

borders, to combat terrorism, to interdict drugs, and to perform its 

other statutory missions. 

During the 113th Congress, this subcommittee held a series of 

hearings on what a secure border looks like. As we increase our efforts along the border, other threats have emerged, such as the 

growing threat from panga boats off the coast of California. 

No border security efforts can be complete without a serious examination of our maritime security, and how we measure success 

there as well, and it will take an ‘‘all of the Department of Homeland Security’’ approach to securing our borders—Northern, Southern, and our maritime borders. 

Thankfully, the Coast Guard is adept at partnering with and 

leveraging other Department of Homeland Security components in 

the critical maritime domain. Centers like the Operational Integration Center in Detroit continue to be a good model for cooperation 

amongst the various Federal partners, State and local stakeholders, in addition to our Canadian friends. We certainly welcome 

and appreciate the contributions made by the Coast Guard to this 

collaboration as well as their leadership role in the Regional Coordinating Mechanism, or RCM, as it is called. 

Sharing information helps secure the border, minimizes the duplication of efforts between agencies with overlapping jurisdictions, 

and keeps the maritime domain open for commerce and recreational boaters. One of the more interesting and valuable programs that leverages our partnerships is the Shiprider program, 

which we have talked about on this committee many times. We 

have very closely followed the progress of this integrated law enforcement program since it was first piloted in 2006. We were very 

pleased to see that the permanent authorization of the Shiprider 

program, that I actually authored and this committee passed, was 

included in the 2012 Coast Guard Authorization Act. 

As you know, this committee has a long history of strongly supporting the specialized maritime security teams that deploy to pro-
3 

vide security and protection in a maritime environment and specialize in counterterrorism tactics and is designed as a first responder to marine terrorist situations. 

We are very interested on getting the Commandant’s perspective 

on the future of these programs and what advice he might give to 

the new Commandant when it comes to Homeland Security missions of the Coast Guard. 

So, again, I want to thank the Commandant for appearing before 

us today. We certainly appreciate your presence here, sir. We look 

forward to hearing your thoughts on how the Congress can work 

with the Coast Guard to better assist all of the challenges that you 

have to secure our Nation’s ports and maritime borders. 

At this time the Chairwoman now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee, for her statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairwoman and thank our 

witness, Commandant Papp, for his leadership and the leadership 

that has been given by the United States Coast Guard. 

I am prone to the work that the Coast Guard has done over the 

years, and as a beginning and early member of the Homeland Security Committee, I felt that the Coast Guard was a strategic element of the war on terrorism and the prevention of any further attacks on the homeland, and I continue to emphasize both the civilian and military role that the Coast Guard plays, plays in commerce, but it also plays in the security of the Nation’s citizens. For 

that, I am eternally grateful and agree that the funding necessary 

for the Coast Guard to carry out its responsibilities should be an 

important responsibility. 

I, too, am glad of the funding of the offshore patrol cutters and 

realize that even though they may have a life of 40 years-plus, it 

is not the best to continue to utilize equipment that does not have 

the state-of-the-art technology, although the Coast Guard has been 

enormously effective in its efforts with the equipment that it has, 

and I believe that we should continue to seek full funding for the 

resources of the personnel of the Coast Guard and of the equipment. 

Admiral, let me make note of Polar Star, I believe one of our 

major assets of the Coast Guard, and know that if you had reached 

the Australian research ship, as you had been requested to do, and 

you were on your way to do so before mother nature took hold, all 

would have been well. So let me thank those who manned that and 

thank the Coast Guard for being ever-ready in its service. 

As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security and a Member of Congress representing the Port of 

Houston, again, as I indicate, I am well aware of the value of the 

Coast Guard to our communities and Nation. In my own backyard, 

the Coast Guard works to secure the Port of Houston, among other 

ports, which is imperative as it is the Nation’s largest petrochemical complex, supplying over 40 percent of our petrochemical 

manufacturing capacity. 

The Coast Guard also works to facilitate commerce, which is 

vital to our economy, as the Port of Houston handles nearly 230 

million tons of cargo annually, making it the No. 1 U.S. port in foreign water-borne tonnage and generating over 650,000 jobs at its 
4 

terminals. Without the Coast Guard, this would simply not be possible. Of course, these examples are just one small part of the service by U.S. Coast Guard men and women across 11 statutory missions both here at home and around the world. 

Given this committee’s jurisdiction, the focus of today’s hearing 

is the Coast Guard’s Homeland Security missions, including ports, 

waterways and coastal security, drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, defense readiness, and law enforcement. I am pleased to have 

the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, here 

to discuss the future of these Homeland Security missions. 

Personally, Commandant Papp, I want to thank you for 40 yearsplus probably of service and your true commitment to America’s 

goals, visions, security, and your service to your Nation. I know 

that the men and women of the Coast Guard have benefited from 

your long years of service, and it is my privilege to simply say 

thank you. 

Indeed, this is a particularly appropriate time for him to be before the committee as he completes his 4 years of service as Commandant in May. It is also a critical time for the Coast Guard, as 

budget cuts and recapitalization challenges force the Coast Guard 

to make some tough choices. The Coast Guard has been forced to 

cut back its hours on water and in the air, contributing to a reduction in mission performance. This is a troubling trend that must be 

reversed. The Coast Guard already provides the American taxpayers with an excellent return on our investment, and there is 

only so long we can ask them to continue to do more with less. 

Frankly, I believe that we should have a goal, as the Chairwoman has worked unceasingly on issues dealing with assets, that 

we should have a commitment of full funding of the Coast Guard. 

I am reminded of my own visuals watching the Coast Guard race 

up and down the Pacific and in the Caribbean area to track and 

find drug dealers who have taken to the waterways, and taken to 

the waterways in very large numbers. Other means of attacks on 

the United States are able to approach us through the waterways, 

and the Coast Guard is one of our first lines of defense. 

So I am here to hear from the Commandant and to thank him 

as well, and to commit to working to prepare the Coast Guard for 

its 21st Century multi-missions that it has. Again, I don’t think I 

miss a time when a Coast Guard is before me to say again, among 

all the things you have done, and you have done many things, I 

am very much reminded of the work you did in Hurricane Katrina 

in saving the lives of those stranded in the terrible aftermath of 

the hurricane and the breaking of the dam that faced the citizens 

of New Orleans, many of whom now live in Houston, Texas. 

Madam Chairwoman, I do want to acknowledge present Congressman Beto O’Rourke and Captain Gabbard, Congresswoman 

from Hawaii. Commandant, she is with the Hawaiian Army National Guard, Military Police, and she did two deployments in Iraq, 

but I take note of her because she was on her 2 weeks of military 

police training in Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. So we missed her 

for a while at this committee, and we welcome her back, having 

done her requirements to serve the Nation in more ways than here 

in the United States Congress. So let me thank all of you. 

With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. 
5 

Mrs. MILLER. I thank the gentlelady very much for her comments, and I certainly join with her in recognizing our colleague 

from Hawaii to be here and for her service to the country, as you 

say, in many, many ways. We appreciate that. 

I also want to join in and again thank the Commandant for his 

many, many years of service to the Coast Guard and to our Nation. 

I know your term as Commandant is coming to an end; is it the 

end of May or beginning of June? 

Admiral PAPP. May 30. 

Mrs. MILLER. Yeah. May 30. We certainly are going to miss him 

on this committee and miss your advocacy for the men and women 

of the Coast Guard. You certainly have done the service, your uniform, and the country very, very proud. 

Admiral Robert Papp began his service as Commandant of the 

United States Coast Guard in May 2010. The Admiral has served 

in numerous capacities within the Coast Guard, including the commander of the Coast Guard Atlantic area as well as the commander 

of the Ninth Coast Guard District, a district that includes the 

Coast Guard missions on the Great Lakes and the Northern Borders. His full statement will appear in the record. 

I would also remind the other Members of the committee that if 

they have any opening statements, we can include those in the 

record as well. 

At this time the Chairwoman now recognizes the Commandant 

for 5 minutes; actually for as long as you may consume. Please 

take your time. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, COMMANDANT, 

U.S. COAST GUARD, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you also, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and to the distinguished Members of the panel. Thank you for having me here 

today. 

It has just been an honor to serve in this service that I love so 

much for nearly 4 decades, but it is an even greater honor to come 

up here each time to talk about the men and women of the Coast 

Guard and to try to provide for the resources that they need to get 

their jobs done, and I am particularly mindful of those men and 

women today. 

I have attended three memorial services this past week as the 

keynote speaker. Each one of them drove home to me once again 

the dangerous work that we do and the selfless dedication of the 

people who do it. 

Now, the first two were in Florida and they go back a ways, but 

we continue to remember our shipmates of the Coast Guard Cutter 

Blackthorn, which sank 34 years ago in Tampa Bay with the loss 

of 23 Coast Guardsmen. The third service was out in California, 

and it was a memorial service for Boatswain’s Mate Third Class, 

Travis Obendorf of the National Security Cutter Waesche. He was 

mortally wounded during a rescue operation in the Bering Sea, and 

then just around Christmastime, he succumbed to his injuries. 

Both these events were fresh reminders to me that downstream 

from every decision, every hearing, every piece of policy that we 
6 

produce here in Washington, it is young men and women who carry 

those things out, often when they are cold, wet, and tired, and who 

stand the watch to keep our homeland safe. 

So I am here today to discuss the Coast Guard’s homeland security missions, but before I begin, I would like to thank the Members of the subcommittee for their support in passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. This act will really help to relieve the erosive efforts of sequestration on our service. It will also 

restore front-line operations and badly-needed training hours for 

my people and ease many of the personnel management restrictions that we had to face over the past year. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our new Secretary. Secretary Jeh Johnson has been a tremendously enthusiastic supporter of the Coast Guard in his short time in the Department. I deeply appreciate his concern for our people and also his 

strong advocacy for our service’s critical recapitalization needs. 

America is a maritime Nation, we all understand that, and we 

rely upon the safe, secure, and free flow of goods across the seas 

into our ports and waterways. I have always firmly believed as a 

Coast Guardsman that one measure of our Nation’s greatness is its 

ability to provide safe and secure approaches to our ports. This system of uninterrupted trade is the lifeblood of our economy. For 

more than 2 centuries, the Coast Guard has safeguarded America’s 

maritime interests and kept those approaches secure. 

As the Nation’s maritime first responder, we protect those on the 

sea, we protect the Nation from threats delivered by the sea, and 

we also protect the sea itself. Every day the Coast Guard acts to 

both prevent and respond to an array of threats that if left unchecked would impede trade, weaken our economy, and create instability. These threats disrupt regional and global security, the 

economies of our partner nations, and access to both resources and 

international trade. All of these are vital elements of our National 

prosperity, which of course plays into our National security. 

In previous testimony, I have used the term ‘‘layered security’’ to 

describe the way the Coast Guard counters maritime threats facing 

the United States. This layered security strategy first begins in foreign ports, then it spans the high seas, because the best place to 

counter a threat is before it reaches our borders. 

It then encompasses our exclusive economic zone in territorial 

seas, which is the largest exclusive economic zone in the world at 

4.5 million square miles, the largest of any country, and then it 

continues into our ports and our inland waters. 

Now, starting overseas, our international port security program 

assesses foreign ports on security and anti-terrorism measures. 

Since the inception of the program in 2004, Coast Guard personnel 

have visited more than 150 countries and 1,300 port facilities. Vessels sailing from ports where effective counterterrorism measures 

are not in place force conditions of entry prior to entering our ports 

or we subject them to additional security measures and inspections 

before they arrive in our ports. 

Our Nation faces a range of risks and vulnerabilities that continue to grow and evolve. The global economy is spurring investment in even larger vessels to ship goods across the seas, and the 

Arctic is seeing exponential increases in vessel traffic and human 
7 

activity and we continue to see persistent efforts by terrorists and 

transnational criminal networks to exploit the maritime environment. 

It is Coast Guard’s responsibility to detect and interdict contraband and illegal drug traffic, enforce U.S. immigration laws, protect our valuable natural resources and counter threats to U.S. 

maritime and economic security worldwide, and it is often the most 

effective to do this as far as possible from our shores. 

A capable offshore fleet of cutters is critical to the layered approach, and this is the same area that has caused me concern, as 

I have mentioned in the past. I am deeply grateful that now we 

have 8 National Security Cutters in sight, but now we need to 

move on to our next large project, which is replacing our mediumendurance cutters which, as mentioned, they are averaging 46 

years old. In fact, the oldest one turns 50 this year. 

I sailed on one of those cutters, the Coast Guard Cutter Valiant, 

when I was a brand-new cadet. The ship was only 3 years old at 

the time, and Valiant has been sailing the better part—by the time 

I was commissioned in the service, it had been sailing for about a 

decade. Solely due to the determination of our sailors, our 

cuttermen, our naval engineers and our modernized mission support system, Valiant will still be sailing when I leave the service 

after nearly 44 years. 

So as good as our people are and our support systems are, it is 

no longer possible to sustain these vessels. In fact, 3 of these same 

cutters, sister ships, needed emergency dry docks for repairs to 

their failing hulls this year. 

Now, I am fully aware of the fiscal constraints we face as a Nation, but we must continue to support the development of the Offshore Patrol Cutter. I am committed to working with the Department, the administration, and the Congress to ensure we can 

achieve the Coast Guard’s critical recapitalization needs in an affordable manner. 

Closer to home, we work with the interagency, the intergovernmental and commercial partners to patrol maritime approaches, escort vessels, monitor critical infrastructure, and inspect port facilities. These partnerships continue to enhance our capability and effectiveness along our coasts and waterways. 

To maximize the effectiveness of our efforts, we are a member of 

the National intelligence community. We screen ships, crews, and 

passengers bound for the States before they reach our ports. Using 

our maritime intelligence fusion centers and intelligence coordination center, we work hand-in-hand with Customs and Border Protection to analyze arriving vessels and highlight potential threats. 

Last year we collectively screened more than 126,000 vessels and 

over 30 million people seeking to enter the United States. These efforts enhance maritime domain awareness, a key element that supports the Department of Homeland Security layered security strategy. 

As the Nation’s maritime governance force, the Coast Guard possesses unique authorities, capabilities, and partnerships. Coupled 

with capable ships, aircraft, and boats operated by highly proficient 

personnel, we maximize these authorities and capabilities to execute layered security throughout the entire maritime domain, and 
8 

our many partnerships facilitate the integration of Federal resources with State and local capabilities. 

We are a ready force on a continuous watch with a proven ability 

to surge assets and our people to crisis events when and where 

they occur. 

So I thank you for this opportunity to testify today and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Papp follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. PAPP

FEBRUARY 4, 2014 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss 

the Coast Guard’s homeland security missions. 

For more than 2 centuries, the U.S. Coast Guard has safeguarded the Nation’s 

maritime interests on our rivers and ports, in coastal regions, on the high seas, and 

around the world. The Coast Guard is at all times an armed service, a Federal law 

enforcement agency, a humanitarian service, and a member of the intelligence community charged with significant safety, security, and stewardship responsibilities in 

the maritime domain. Every day the Coast Guard conducts search and rescue, escorts vessels carrying dangerous cargoes, interdicts drug and migrant smugglers, 

patrols our ports and waterways, enforces fisheries laws, responds to oil and hazardous material spills, maintains aids to navigation, screens commercial ships and 

crews entering U.S. ports, inspects U.S. flagged vessels, examines cargo containers, 

investigates marine accidents, trains international partners, and supports Overseas 

Contingency Operations. This diverse mission set and authorities are vital to the 

safety and security of our Nation’s maritime transportation system and essential to 

our Nation’s economic growth. With 223 years of experience as the Nation’s maritime first responder, the Coast Guard provides tremendous value and service to the 

public. 

A LAYERED SYSTEM TO COUNTER MARITIME RISK

As a maritime nation, the United States relies on the safe, secure, and free flow 

of legitimate global commerce on the high seas, throughout the Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ)—the largest of any country in the world—and inside America’s ports 

and waterways. 

With more than 4.5 million square miles of territorial seas and EEZ, 95,000 miles 

of coastline, 12,000 miles of navigable waters, over 350 ports, and significant international maritime border interests with Canada and Mexico, the U.S. maritime domain is broad in its scope and diversity, requiring an integrated and layered system 

for security. 

The strategy of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Coast Guard 

is to increase maritime security through a layered system that reaches beyond the 

country’s physical borders. This system begins in foreign ports, spans the high seas, 

encompasses the U.S. EEZ and territorial seas, and continues into our ports. The 

Coast Guard’s mix of cutters, aircraft, boats, and deployable specialized forces 

(DSF), as well as international and domestic partnerships, allow the Coast Guard 

to leverage its unique maritime security authorities and competencies to reduce risk 

and improve security throughout the maritime domain. 
9 

Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) is one of the most important aspects of the 

Coast Guard’s layered security system and it supports all levels (strategic, operational, and tactical) of decision making. Effective MDA requires efficient information sharing and coordination among numerous participants at international, Federal, regional, State, local, territorial, and Tribal levels of government, as well as 

with maritime industry and private-sector partners. MDA is more than an awareness of ships en route to a particular port; it also entails knowledge of: 

• People.—Crew, passengers, owners, and operators; 

• Cargo.—All elements of the global supply chain; 

• Infrastructure.—Vital elements of the Nation’s maritime infrastructure, including facilities, services, and systems; 

• Environment.—Weather, environmentally-sensitive areas, and living marine resources; 

• Trends.—Shipping routes, migration routes, and seasonal changes; and 

• Threats.—Potential or indication of illicit or hostile activity in the maritime environment. 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Layered security begins overseas. The Coast Guard fosters strategic relationships 

with partner nations to detect, deter, and counter threats as early and as far from 

U.S. shores as possible. To achieve that end, the Coast Guard conducts foreign port 

assessments and leverages the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code to assess effectiveness of security and antiterrorism measures in foreign ports. The ISPS Code provides an international regime to ensure ship and port facilities take appropriate preventative 

measures consistent with our domestic regime under the Maritime Transportation 

Security Act. Through the International Port Security Program, the Coast Guard 

performs overseas port assessments to determine the effectiveness of security and 

antiterrorism measures exhibited by foreign trading partners. Since the inception of 

the International Port Security Program in 2004, Coast Guard personnel have visited more than 150 countries and approximately 1,300 port facilities. These countries generally receive biennial assessments to verify compliance with the ISPS 

Code and U.S. maritime security regulations. Vessels arriving in non-ISPS Codecompliant countries are required to take additional security precautions while in 

those ports and may subject to boarding and inspection by the Coast Guard before 

being granted permission to enter U.S. ports. In specific cases, these vessels may 

be refused entry. Furthermore, the International Port Security Program conducts 

targeted capacity building efforts to help countries that fail to meet ISPS Code 

achieve compliance, and to prevent countries with marginal compliance from falling 

into non-compliance. 
10 

SECURITY AND GOVERNANCE ON THE HIGH SEAS

America’s diplomatic strength and economic security depend upon the free flow 

of global commerce and a proper system of governance in the maritime domain. 

Coast Guard responsibilities on the high seas include detecting and interdicting contraband and illegal drug traffic, enforcing U.S. immigration laws at sea, and countering threats to maritime and economic security worldwide. A capable fleet of Maritime Patrol Forces (comprised of Coast Guard cutters and aircraft, and their crews) 

and DSF are critical to the layered security approach. 

Within the EEZ, the Coast Guard enforces our Nation’s living marine resources 

(LMR) and marine-protected species laws and regulations to ensure the integrity of 

the EEZ, and to ensure the continued viability of critical fish stocks. This enforcement involves the deterrence, detection, and interdiction of illegal incursions into 

the EEZ by foreign fishing vessels. As these incursions represent a threat to our 

Nation’s renewable natural resources and sovereignty, the protection of the United 

States EEZ contributes to another fundamental layer of the Coast Guard maritime 

security system. 

Coast Guard at-sea presence ensures compliance with international agreements 

for the management of LMR through enforcement of conservation and management 

measures created by Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs). Of the 

4.5 million square miles that comprise the EEZ, more than 75% is outside the contiguous zone of the United States. 

The Coast Guard maintains a strong at-sea presence to disrupt the maritime flow 

of illegal drugs and other contraband through the maritime drug transit zone. This 

presence supports National and international strategies to deter and disrupt the 

market for illegal drugs, dismantle Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) networks, 

and prevent transnational threats from reaching the United States. Through 45 established bilateral agreements, the Coast Guard facilitates coordination of operations and the forward deployment of boats, cutters, aircraft, and personnel to deter 

and counter threats as close to their origin as possible. By extending our law enforcement capabilities into the territorial seas of other countries, the Coast Guard 

is at the forefront in assisting partner nations’ efforts to reduce the production and 

transportation of illicit drugs within their sovereign boundaries. 

The Coast Guard also relies on joint, interagency, and international partnerships 

to conduct drug interdiction. More specifically, the Coast Guard leverages the availability of U.S. Navy and Allied Nation vessels to enhance presence and expand 

interdiction opportunities by embarking specially-trained Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDET). Coast Guard LEDETs employ their distinctive law enforcement authorities to stop threats and to gather critical information regarding vessels, crew, 

passengers, and cargo destined for the United States. Over the last 5 years, Coast 

Guard Maritime Patrol Forces and LEDETs have removed approximately 500 metric 

tons of cocaine, with a wholesale value of nearly $17 billion. 

The Coast Guard enforces U.S. immigration laws and international conventions 

against human smuggling through at-sea interdiction and rapid repatriation of undocumented migrants attempting to reach the United States unlawfully. The Coast 

Guard maintains a constant law enforcement presence at-sea to deter undocumented migrants and transnational human smugglers from using maritime routes 

to enter the United States, to detect and interdict undocumented migrants and 

smugglers far from the U.S. border, and to expand Coast Guard participation in 

multi-agency and international border security initiatives. The Coast Guard accomplishes this mission in conjunction with other Federal, State, and local agencies, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of State. While the Coast Guard leads the interdiction mission on the high 

seas, partnerships with CBP and ICE are critical for successful shore-side interdiction operations. 

The United States is also an Arctic nation, with significant interests in the future 

of the region. As oil and natural gas exploration in the Arctic attracts significant 

interest from the international community, the importance of the Arctic is more critical than ever. The Coast Guard, as the maritime component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has specific statutory responsibilities in U.S. 

Arctic waters. U.S. Coast Guard continues to assess its responsibilities in support 

of the emerging economic, environmental, and political issues, and will help advance 

our interests in that region. 

In the rapidly-evolving geopolitical landscape, the United States must maintain 

an offshore maritime presence to promote Maritime Governance and to protect 

America’s National and homeland security interests. Moreover, with renewed National focus on the Asia Pacific, emerging international interest in the Arctic, and 
11 

continuing obligations in the Western Hemisphere, a versatile U.S. Coast Guard offshore capability is an important component of the Coast Guard’s layered security 

strategy. 

SECURITY IN COASTAL WATERS

To address potential threats approaching our shores, Coast Guard ships, boats, 

aircraft, and DSF provide the ability to monitor, track, interdict, and board vessels. 

In addition, interagency partnerships have an increasing role in the layered security 

approach. Coast Guard Area Commanders receive support from the National Vessel 

Movement Center and Maritime Intelligence Fusion Centers (MIFCs), which screen 

commercial vessels operating within their areas of responsibility. The MIFCs focus 

on screening characteristics associated with the vessels itself, such as ownership, 

ownership associations, cargo, and previous activity. Coast Guard vessel screening 

results are disseminated to the appropriate DHS Maritime Interagency Operations 

Center (IOC), Sector Command Center, local intelligence staffs, CBP, and other 

interagency partners to evaluate and take action on any potential risks. Additionally, vessel screening develops a manageable set of targets for potential Coast Guard 

boardings and/or inspections by Maritime Patrol Forces, Shore-Based Forces, or 

DSF. Complementary screening efforts occur at the National and tactical levels. At 

the National level, the Intelligence Coordination Center’s Coastwatch Branch, which 

is co-located with CBP at the National Targeting Center, screens crew and passenger information. Through our partnership with CBP, we have expanded access 

to counterterrorism, law enforcement, and immigration databases, and this integration has led to greater information sharing and more effective security operations. 

In 2013, Coastwatch screened approximately 126,000 Advance Notice of Arrivals 

(ANOAs) and 30.7 million crew and passenger records of vessels before they entered 

U.S. Ports. 

SECURITY IN U.S. PORTS AND INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS

In the Nation’s 361 maritime ports, the Coast Guard, along with our Federal, 

State, local, and Tribal partners, working in concert with port stakeholders, patrol 

our waters and critical infrastructure, conduct vessel escorts, and inspect vessels 

and facilities. The Coast Guard utilizes data from its Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model (MSRAM) for prioritizing security escorts and patrols. MSRAM is a terrorism risk analysis tool and methodology used at all Coast Guard Sectors to perform detailed risk analysis of the Marine Transportation System (MTS), maritime 

Critical Infrastructure, and other potential targets, such as large congregations of 

people in the maritime domain. MSRAM offers an analytical interface capable of 

generating tailored results to support risk-based decision making at the strategic, 

operational, and tactical levels. 

Coast Guard Captains of the Port (COTPs), in their role as Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC), significantly enhance domestic maritime transportation 

security and preparedness through long-standing cooperation and coordination with 

their respective Area Maritime Security Committees. 

As the FMSC, the Coast Guard COTP works in partnership with Government and 

private-sector AMSC members to manage the Nation’s 43 Area Maritime Security 

(AMS) Plans. These plans provide Government and private industry port partners 

with a coordination and communication framework to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from a Transportation Security Incident or the threat thereof. 

The COTPs and their respective AMSCs validate their AMS Plan and ensure plan 

familiarity by conducting annual exercises, as required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA). In and around our ports, the Coast Guard also maintains robust multi-mission maritime first responder assets capable of saving lives, 

protecting property and the environment, and responding to disasters within the 

maritime domain. The Coast Guard leverages its broad COTP authorities and its 

role as FMSC and Federal On-Scene Coordinator to coordinate response to disasters 

such as BP Deepwater Horizon and Hurricane Sandy. The Coast Guard is also 

working with other components of DHS and with the maritime sector to determine 

how the critical infrastructure security and resilience guidance of Executive Order 

13636 and Presidential Policy Directive 21 should be leveraged by the community. 

Coast Guard Maritime Security and Response Operations (MSRO) apply our authorities, competencies, capabilities, capacities, and partnerships to deny the use 

and exploitation of the maritime domain by criminal or hostile actors. The Coast 

Guard coordinates the activities of many Federal, regional, State, Tribal, territorial, 

and local Government agencies as well as the maritime industry to prevent, disrupt, 

protect, respond to, and recover from terror-related risks in the maritime domain. 

In 2013, Coast Guard forces conducted: 
12 

• More than 670 security boardings of high-interest vessels; 

• Close to 8,500 security boardings of small vessels; 

• More than 2,000 escorts of high-capacity passenger vessels, e.g., ferries and 

cruise ships; 

• More than 1,200 escorts of high-value U.S. naval vessels transiting U.S. waterways; and 

• More than 690 escorts of vessels carrying certain dangerous cargoes. 

Maritime Security Response Operations enhance the resilience of maritime CIKR 

and the MTS. As such, MSRO plays a critical role in the Coast Guard’s Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security mission by deterring adversaries, maximizing the 

probability of disrupting their pre-operational planning, and providing a response 

framework to prevent and respond to maritime transportation security incidents. 

MARITIME THREAT RESPONSE

When the Coast Guard is alerted to a specific maritime security threat to the 

United States that requires a coordinated U.S. Government response, the Maritime 

Operational Threat Response (MOTR) Plan is activated. The MOTR Plan uses established protocols and an integrated network of National-level maritime command 

and operations centers to facilitate real-time Federal interagency communication, 

coordination, and decision making to ensure a timely, unified, and decisive response 

to maritime threats. 

Coast Guard DSF are highly-trained, proficient forces that provide field commanders with the ability to rapidly respond to emerging threats throughout the 

maritime environment, including threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The Coast Guard has also established a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) program and has worked extensively with DHS’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and U.S. Special Operations Command to train and 

equip Coast Guard personnel to detect and respond to CBRNE threats in the maritime domain. 

CONCLUSION

The Coast Guard’s layered security regime is vital to the Nation’s security. Our 

authorities, capabilities, competencies, and partnerships provide the President, Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of Defense, and other National leaders with 

a ready force and the capabilities to lead or support a range of operations to ensure 

safety, security, and stewardship in the maritime domain. Through this interconnected system, the Coast Guard stands ready to meet offshore, coastal, and port 

threats that have the potential to impact our National security and economic prosperity. From our efforts to improve maritime domain awareness to our international 

and domestic partnerships, and investments in cutter, boat, and aircraft recapitalization, the Coast Guard continues to improve the maritime security system to 

counter maritime threats and facilitate the safe flow of legitimate commerce. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and thank you for your continued 

support of the U.S. Coast Guard. I would be pleased to answer your questions. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Admiral. 

As I mentioned to you before we began this hearing, coming from 

the Detroit sector, State of Michigan, from the Great Lakes region, 

I have to start off with a question about your icebreaking capabilities in the Great Lakes. We, as everybody knows, had a really particularly cold, frigid winter. I heard the other day that there is 

more ice cover on Lake Superior than has ever been recorded before. I am not sure if that is true, but certainly when you look at 

some of these aerials, there is as much ice as I can ever remember 

seeing. 

With the very bitter cold that happened, we have got—when that 

ice starts melting here in the spring, we are going to have some 

tremendous ice jams happening through some of the areas of the 

Great Lakes, through the St. Claire River, all these navigable waterways that make up our commerce shipping lanes. Obviously, 

maritime shipping commerce in the Great Lakes is a multi-billion 

dollar industry, so very, very critical. 
13 

I am just wondering, in fact, I have had an opportunity in past 

years of going out to accompanying on a mission for some 

icebreaking. It is interesting to watch that happen. I think next 

week I am going to be doing the same kind of a thing up in the 

Great Lakes basin, again just on a dedicated mission that you were 

already going on to be able to sort of observe some of those things, 

but I also was looking at the list of the icebreaking capability that 

you have in the Great Lakes, and it is a remarkable inventory, although probably never enough. 

So I guess I would just ask you first to comment a bit on your 

current resources that you have, because, as I say, I think this 

spring, we have the potential of having probably some of the biggest ice jams that have ever happened there, and so, sir, if you 

could a little bit, how would you sort-of try to keep ahead of that 

with the resources that you have? Do you have to move the 

icebreaking capability around the Great Lakes basin a bit? 

I know you are in the process of refurbishing some of your icebreakers there. Then are you, as far as authorizing additional, 

what is your thought on current and then going into the future 

there? 

Admiral PAPP. Madam Chairwoman, as you know, the Great 

Lakes are near and dear to my heart as a previous commander up 

there. I think even back now 4, 6, 8, almost 10 years ago when I 

went up there as the commander, one of the things I recognized 

was the 140-foot icebreakers were getting old, they were well past 

their mid-age, and we had not done any renovations on them. 

One of the things I was really proud of was that as the district 

commander, I put in a request to move an additional icebreaker up 

there. When I moved to be the area commander, I endorsed it and 

sent it on to Coast Guard headquarters. By the time I became 

Commandant, it got to my desk and I approved the extra icebreaker for the Great Lakes. 

Actually, it was good that we did that at the time. It was because 

they were becoming increasingly unreliable due to maintenance 

issues and age. 

I am very happy to report this year that we now have a program 

in place, it is called the in-service vessel sustainment project. In 

fact, Morro Bay, from Cleveland, will be the first ship to go into 

that. We estimate it is going to cost about $14 million per ship. The 

first one, Morro Bay, will take about 12 months as the Coast Guard 

yard goes through the process and learns lessons from it, and then 

we will subsequently put each one of the 140’s through there and 

it will take each one about 9 months. 

So there will be at times when we will go from 6 down to 5 up 

on the Great Lakes as we go through this process, but the end result is going to be more reliable icebreakers up there. Mackinaw, 

of course, is relatively new in Coast Guard terms, and the 2 225 

buoy tender icebreakers are relatively new in Coast Guard terms 

as well. 

So I am very pleased with what we have up there. This winter’s 

an anomaly. It will really test our resources, but I think we are 

well-prepared for it. 

The other thing that I would add is that the Coast Guard 

reaches out internationally. We meet annually with the Canadian 
14 

Coast Guard. The commissioner and I hold a summit meeting, and 

part of what we do is work with our Canadian partners who have 

icebreakers as well. We have a command center that stands up 

every winter there so that we can balance both Canadian and U.S. 

needs. Oftentimes we are breaking in Canadians and Canadian 

vessels are breaking paths for us, and we get the best out of the 

resources of our two countries to keep the lakes open. 

Mrs. MILLER. I appreciate that, Admiral. Just another issue 

there, I suppose, as we have talked about the water assets that you 

have now in regards to the air assets that you have, it is my understanding with the types of helicopters that you have, to the Great 

Lakes basin again, that there is very limited amount, if any, of helicopters that have de-icing capability. 

Admiral PAPP. Right. 

Mrs. MILLER. If that is the case, it just strikes you as very odd. 

Obviously it limits your ability, I would think, depending on the 

weather conditions, if you don’t have de-icing capability. What can 

we do to assist with the—first of all, is that true, there is no deicing, and second, what could this committee do to assist to make 

sure that people are resourced properly there as well? 

Admiral PAPP. Right. Yes, ma’am. Our short-range recovery helicopters, the H–65s, both Air Station Traverse City and Air Station 

Detroit, that is their inventory, is H–65s. If you go back in history 

at Traverse City, there was a time where we had H–3 helicopters, 

which now have been replaced by the H–60, which is our mediumrange helicopter. The bigger the helicopter, the more powerful it is, 

the more equipment you can put in it; and when they become 

smaller, you conserve by the amount of equipment that you put in 

it in order to get endurance. The decision was made a long time 

ago to put H–65s at both those stations. I was an advocate 10 years 

ago to put the H–60 helicopter at Traverse City. 

It is not just the de-icing. H–60s do have de-icing, and that 

would come in helpful, but it is also the range that the helicopters 

have to fly up there. I literally was on a flight leaving from Traverse City to go down to Duluth. We had to stop and refuel before 

we got to Duluth in an H–65. You generally get about 2 hours of 

endurance in an H–65. You get about 6 hours of endurance in an 

H–60, plus greater lift and weather capability. 

It is not just to the western extreme in Superior. We also often 

had to rely upon the Canadians in Lake Ontario because we 

couldn’t get all the way over there from our air stations. 

So the H–60 if it was in Traverse City would give us much more 

capability both in weather and in range, and I think that is a wise 

operational decision. We have put that forward a number of times, 

but in order to do that, we would—and move helicopters around, 

we would need to close down the two air facilities that sit on Lake 

Michigan and Waukegan and Muskegon as a tradeoff in order to 

do that, but I think on balance, having the greater capability of the 

H–60 far outweighs having those two air facs. 

Plus, we have put increased surface assets, faster boats, more capable boats around Lake Michigan as well, which mitigates any impact that those air fac closures would have. 

Mrs. MILLER. I appreciate those comments, and we certainly will 

consider them here on this committee, as well as I also sit on the 
15 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on the Coast Guard 

Subcommittee there, and when we do the authorization for the 

Coast Guard, I am going to keep all those comments in mind as 

well. 

Just my last question as well, one of the things that this subcommittee has talked about extensively in the last number of years 

is how we can really advantage the various agencies as we draw 

down and return from theater with the types of equipment that we 

have had in Iraq, Afghanistan, et cetera, and really try to make 

sure that we get the best bang for the taxpayers’ buck on equipment that can be utilized, as I say, by other agencies. I do know 

that the Air Force gave the Coast Guard, or transferred, I should 

say, to the Coast Guard recently some C–27s, I think 14 of them? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. MILLER. Do you have those now or you are getting them 

now, and how do you anticipate you would utilize those? 

Admiral PAPP. So legislation has been passed for the transfer, 

and in the fiscal year 2014 budget, we received money to stand up 

a project office to facilitate the swap. It is tracking nicely. I don’t 

have the exact time line right now, but it will be in short order. 

We will be transferring all 14 over and start converting them to 

Coast Guard use. 

Mrs. MILLER. Okay. Good. We appreciate that. 

The Chairwoman recognizes the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me again thank the Chairwoman, and 

thank the Commandant very much. 

Let me say that as I pose these questions, I do so for establishing 

on the record that we have to listen to your counsel and advice. For 

someone who served for 40 years and spent his time among his 

men and women in the Coast Guard and seeing what their needs 

are, I think this should be a telling moment in your testimony as 

to how we move forward. So let me thank you very much. 

I just want to put on the record in confirming some of the statements that you made in your testimony this morning that in its annual review of the United States Coast Guard mission performance, the DHS Office of Inspector General found that the total 

number of vessel and aircraft resource hours available to conduct 

Coast Guard missions declined by over 6,600 hours for fiscal year 

2012. This decline was due to increased rates of asset failures, the 

decommission of obsolete assets before new assets are acquired to 

replace them, and reduced funding available to support operations. 

Now, I do agree that the work of the Coast Guard has been unparalleled with respect to keeping these assets going, but I think 

it is clear that we have to listen, and as the Chairwoman indicated, 

where we were able to get some new equipment, that we need to 

continue to build on the importance of restoring the Coast Guard’s 

very important equipment. 

So I would like to ask a few questions along those lines, making 

note of the fact that the Coast Guard has 42,000 active-duty, 8,200 

reserve, 8,000 civilian personnel carrying out 11 statutory missions. You in your earlier testimony indicated the importance of 

making sure the ship remains on course. So let me just ask one 

question as I lead into more specific questions. 
16 

If you could, Commandant, just tell us, where do you think the 

Coast Guard stands today? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, we have some of the best people, first of all. 

Let me start with the people. Of those 42,000, 8,200 and 8,000 active-duty, reserve and civilians, they are some of the finest people 

I have seen in my entire career. I recognized a number of people 

at an all-hands meeting last week. 

Three relatively junior enlisted people, all three of them had college degrees, in fact, one of them has a master’s degree and others 

are working on their master’s degrees. Our retention is the highest 

it has ever been. People want to serve. We are having to come up 

with extraordinary measures to reduce our workforce just to keep 

a healthy flow going through. So I could not be more pleased with 

the young men and women, the young Americans that are stepping 

forward now to serve in the Coast Guard. 

Where I perhaps feel I am letting them down from time to time 

is that I have had a focus on proficiency. One of the things that 

really concerned me when I became Commandant was we had lost, 

in a 2-year period, we had lost 14 aviators due to accidents, and 

we had a number of boat accidents, in fact, one resulted in the 

death of an 8-year-old child, a civilian, and other associated accidents, but the rate of Coast Guard people dying in operational situations was just deplorable. 

So we have restored a focus on proficiency, a focus on mission excellence, but where we start to let those people down, who are intent on becoming the best they can be, is when we get into measures like sequestration where the money has to come out of our operating funds, it comes out of the flight hours, the boat hours, the 

cutter days underway, where our people gain that proficiency. So 

we are shortchanging our people to a certain extent, and that has 

me worried. 

That is why the fiscal year 2014 budget as passed is a relief for 

me, because the effects of sequestration will be long-term, but you 

get lagging indicators for that in terms of training and proficiency. 

I didn’t want to go back to a time when we weren’t focused on proficiency, so restoring these hours through the 2014 budget are 

going to help us quite a bit. 

We have recapitalized almost our entire boat fleet due to the administration and the Congress. Our in-shore portion of the Coast 

Guard is the best I have ever seen it. We have put more people at 

our stations, we have deployable specialized forces. We have practically brand-new boats, 500 boats throughout the Coast Guard and 

they are all practically brand-new. 

But having said that, that is very well-defended, the coastal portion and our ports, but in football terms, that is doing red zone defense, that they are inside the 20-yard line when they get to that 

point in our ports. 

So the one area that is really deficient is the offshore portion of 

our fleet. Those ships that I spoke of that are—we now have the 

replacements, the National Security Cutter, for our high-endurance 

cutters that we are retiring. 

The next thing is to turn to replacing those medium-endurance 

cutters that are, as I said, 46 years on average and some now that 

will be going over 50 years old this year. That is a very expensive 
17 

proposition, but it is needed, because we can’t continue to run the 

old ships. I also as Commandant need to look out 10, 20, 30, and 

40 years from now in terms of what tools will the Coast Guard 

need then, because they have to be built now. 

So people-wise, we are in good shape. Our shore is in relatively 

good shape, our forces close to shore. It is the off-shore fleet that 

takes care of that largest exclusive economic zone in the world that 

we need to pay our attention to. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So the NSC is fine, but we need to do work 

on the OPC and the fast response as well? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, the NSC is working fine, the 3 that we have 

out there are great. No. 4 will be out there in October, the Hamilton, and we have 6—5, 6, 7, and 8 paid—I am sorry—5, 6, and 

7 paid for. We have long lead money for No. 8, and I am hopeful 

that the construction cost for 8 will be in the 2015 budget. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me give you two quick questions, and I 

will just say them together, if you don’t mind. 

Admiral PAPP. Sure. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then if you could just—I went to Mumbai 

soon after the attack in Mumbai, India, and although they were not 

fancy boats, they were attacks coming off water, and obviously 

without protection. My interest would be, how equipped are we to 

prevent terrorist attacks from offshore vessels, water vessels? Some 

of our beaches and areas are equally unprotected around America. 

The other is, too, I have watched the TWIC card, I am a TWIC 

card holder, I think I may be on an expiration point right now, so 

I need to get in line, but I have witnessed the implementation and 

we have discussed it and your members have discussed it. In May 

2013, the Government Accountability Office released a report calling into question the current Government-centric approach to port 

security credentialing, which DHS is responsible, for the enrollment card issuance and security vetting is the best option. Should 

this Government-centric permits to the TW—to TWIC card be revisited, and what do you think needs to be done? So two questions, 

on the terrorism ability and this issue dealing with the TWIC card. 

Thank you very much. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. I would never sit here and tell you 

that a Mumbai-type attack could not happen in the United States, 

that would be foolish, but we are doing everything we can to prevent a Mumbai-type attack. Given that we have the broad expanse 

of the Pacific and the Atlantic, generally we will have warnings, 

and it would probably have to come from a ship that is offshore if 

it happened. 

Two things on that. First of all, you have to have good intelligence, and that is why it was so important for the Coast Guard 

to be included in the intelligence community, because we can leverage the Department of Defense and the other intelligence agency 

partners to keep track of potential threats that are coming towards 

our shores, learn about them in advance, and interdict them as far 

off shore as possible. 

Once again, validation, justification, why we need an off-shore 

fleet so we can interdict anything coming towards our shores, so 

that we can have a persistent presence out there. 
18 

If it does get close, we have a robust partnership, we have area 

maritime security committees that are run by Coast Guard captains of the port in 44 areas of our country that work with Federal, 

State, and local partners and intelligence community and others to 

keep track of what is coming into our ports, to screen and vet any 

potential threats, any ships and passengers that are coming into 

our ports, and I think that is working well. As I say, we have our 

conventional forces within the ports, and we are allocating them 

through risk-based measures to do random patrols to make sure 

that critical infrastructure is taken care of. 

The other aspect that I would like to point out is, that I am 

proud of is that our deployable specialized forces, the MSST’s and 

the MSRT that were created after 9/11, we got the resources, we 

put them together, they were overseen by what we call the 

deployable operations group, but we didn’t have strategy, we didn’t 

have doctrine on how we were going to employ them. 

One of the things we set to work immediately on is first of all 

doing a stem-to-stern review of all our deployable specialized forces 

and how we employ them and then get the doctrine out there. We 

started with first of all a new publication, Coast Guard Pub 3.0, 

which describes how we conduct Coast Guard operations, but 3.1 

talks about how we integrate deployable specialized forces and why 

do we need deployable specialized forces. 

That is in Pub 3.2: short notice maritime response, advanced 

interdiction, picking people up before they get into our ports, and 

that is what we have been training and directing our deployable 

specialized forces, the maritime safety and security teams, and the 

maritime security response team to be prepared to take on those 

challenges. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Admiral. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mrs. MILLER. The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman 

from Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Admiral Papp. 

Admiral PAPP. Good morning, sir. 

Mr. PALAZZO. It is a pleasure to see you today. Good morning. 

Thank you for coming to tell us about your needs and the needs 

of the men and women in the U.S. Coast Guard. 

You mentioned the Hamilton briefly. Somebody wants me to say 

how is your wife, Linda, doing and is she looking forward to the 

commissioning in the near future? 

Admiral PAPP. She is. I didn’t mention that my wife is the sponsor for the Coast Guard Cutter Hamilton. She smashed the champagne bottle a couple months ago on the ship and will do the commissioning in Charleston probably in October, but I will just be a 

retired Coast Guardsman at the time, her husband attending with 

her. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Yeah. Well, it is you know, south Mississippi and 

Huntington Ingalls, we appreciate your trips and visits to the shipyard down there, and it is going to be a fantastic ship, and she 

should be very proud. It is a state-of-the-art craft. 

One of the things you and I have discussed in the past concern 

the shipbuilding needs of the Coast Guard. We have spoken at 
19 

length about the NSC and the future of that program, but also 

about the balancing act that you are required to do with other 

ships as well, such as the OPC, the icebreaker. 

Do you feel like the current budget, you touched on this, is on 

a better track for meeting your needs and the needs of the Coast 

Guard since we have last spoken? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, sir, I think I have said this before as well, 

any service chief—no service chief will ever come up here and say, 

I have got all the money I want, and I don’t have all the money 

I would like. There are many things that I would like to do for my 

service, but I—as a taxpayer and as a steward of the taxpayers’ 

money, at a certain point in time in the negotiation process—and 

I do believe that each year I have gotten a fair hearing from my 

secretaries and OMB and the President. 

At a certain point, I am told what my top line is and then I have 

to juggle and balance and make some compromises, yes, from time 

to time to make sure that we are taking care of current-day operations but also planning for the future so that those future Coast 

Guardsmen will have the right tools to work with 10, 20, 30, 40 

years from now. 

So it has been a balancing act, but we did not think that we were 

going to get 8 National Security Cutters, and we are on the verge 

of getting that right now, and we are very close to doing a down 

select for three candidates to design the Offshore Patrol Cutter, 

and I am very optimistic about that program. Then we will have 

to figure out, or my relief will have to figure out how we fit those 

things in the budget in subsequent years. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Do you feel like you have the flexibility to basically 

meet the needs of your shipbuilding plan? 

Admiral PAPP. I—— 

Mr. PALAZZO. The right mix of ships? 

Admiral PAPP. I think so at this point. The administration’s been 

giving me enough to keep our programs going. The Congress has 

at certain points plussed that up a little bit to help us, for instance, 

the long lead money that was put in the 2014 budget to—for NSC 

No. 8, so the process has been working and we have had enough 

flexibility to keep our programs going on the time line that we predicted. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Is there anything that the House can do to ensure 

that the men and women in the U.S. Coast Guard have the tools 

and equipment that they need so they can do their jobs, do it safely, and come back home to their families? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, I would say that the men and women of the 

Congress should scrutinize every appropriations bill that comes up 

here, and you have to make balanced decisions on where the priorities are, listen to people like me who are trying to advocate to 

make sure that people have the right tools, and then make decisions with good counsel. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Well, Admiral, I appreciate that. 

I would just like to add a few comments. I mean, it seems like 

we are continuously fighting over shrinking discretionary funds, 

you know, the Coast Guard budget, DOD, NASA, pretty much 

every discretionary agency that falls under that, we continue to 

fight over it. We understand that, you know, we need this equip-
20 

ment, we need these tools, we need to be able to protect the homeland, but we also need to be able to protect America’s interests at 

home and abroad. 

I think, you know, it is unfair to all Americans that we need to 

get our financial affairs in order, and we have to do that by addressing the No. 1 driver of our deficits and our debt, and that is 

out-of-control mandatory spending, so that we can continue to fund 

the U.S. Coast Guard, because not only do the men and women in 

the Coast Guard deserve it, but Americans expect it. 

So sir, I know you are looking forward to your retirement. Enjoy 

it. Thank you for, you know, not only what your wife’s doing sponsoring the NSC Hamilton, but good luck in your next endeavors. 

Thank you. 

Admiral PAPP. Well, thank you, sir. 

I wouldn’t want to leave here with you thinking that I don’t appreciate and comprehend the challenges that we find in the budget. 

As I said earlier, when I am given a top line, that is when I make 

the tough decisions on what we are going to continue, what we can 

do, and how we balance current operations versus the future, but 

along the way, it is not my job to decide what that top line is. My 

job is to identify the resources we are going to need, what are our 

requirements. 

In my best judgment, based on 40 years, 14 years at sea and 

doing Coast Guard operations across the full spectrum of what we 

do, what do we need to do those tools? I don’t think there is anybody better-prepared at this juncture than I am, after 4 decades, 

to say these are the requirements that we have. You may not be 

able to fund them all, but it is my job to be honest and forthright 

and candid in terms of what we need, and I have tried to do that 

every time I have come up here. 

Mr. PALAZZO. We appreciate that candor. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentleman. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you. 

Mr. Commandant, I would also like to join my colleagues in 

thanking you for your service and through you thanking the men 

and women who serve our country in the Coast Guard. 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I want to follow up on some of the comments you 

just made in some of the questioning that we have had from the 

committee today about budgets and some of the tough choices that 

you have to make in working with that top line number that you 

keep referring to. 

I was reading some comments of yours from a speech that you 

gave in 2012, and one of the things that you said is that we have 

to have the courage to be able to say no sometimes, and you talked 

about decreasing resources, and the Ranking Member talked about 

fewer than—or we had less than 6,000 hours from previous year 

this past year in terms of time that we could spend on missions 

with the Coast Guard, and you have additional responsibilities in 

the Arctic as more water is freed up and there is more energy ex-
21 

ploration there. In your comments in 2012 you were talking about 

additional responsibilities when it comes to cyber threats and 

standing up a cyber command within the Coast Guard and adding 

to what the Department of Defense is already doing. 

The way that it was summarized in an article I read, the headline said, ‘‘Shrinking Coast Guard Must Cut Drug War to Boost 

Cyber and Arctic.’’ I wondered—and I know that the nature of 

headlines is to sensationalize what people say and to draw a reader 

in, but I wondered if you could reflect a little bit on some of those 

tough choices, the additional responsibilities and where we might 

have to say no through the Coast Guard and as a country when 

it comes to the various threats that we face at our maritime ports 

and beyond the ports. 

Admiral PAPP. Sure. 

Going back to what you said originally, one of our greatest 

strengths in our service culturally is a can-do attitude. One of our 

greatest weaknesses is a can-do attitude as well, because oftentimes we take on more than we can with the resources that we 

have, and we get examples like that all the time. 

For instance, back about a year or more when we only had one 

icebreaker, the Healy, in service, and it was active in the Arctic, 

we got a request because a leased, I think it was a leased Finnish 

or Russian icebreaker that the National Science Foundation had 

contracted for was not going to be able to go down and break out 

McMurdo, and they put in a request to take our one icebreaker. It 

would have been tempting to charge off and put our people through 

more work and go down there, but I said no, because we only have 

one icebreaker, the Arctic is our territory, our exclusive economic 

zone, and I can’t take the only icebreaker that the United States 

had in service and send it down there. It was a tough decision. 

We don’t have as many large cutters now as we had in the past. 

We used to be able to participate in Navy exercises throughout the 

Pacific, and frankly, it is time well spent for our country, because 

there are countries that want to have coast guards and they enjoy 

seeing our ships and our sailors, we do cooperative training, but 

the Arctic has opened up now and we need to send one of our cutters up there, so we had to pull out of Navy exercises, something 

we hadn’t done in decades, in order to provide the ship days to go 

up and take care of our responsibilities in the Arctic. 

So those are the types of things I am talking about. Rather than 

chase the—I call it, chasing shiny balls, you know, things that are 

really attractive and we want to race off and do them, we have to 

stick to the work that we are required to do in a decreased resource 

environment. 

Counter-drug, there is no way we would voluntarily cut back on 

counter-drug, because it is such a successful program for us. The 

only reason we cut back this past year, and we had about a 30 percent reduction this year in drugs disrupted, because of sequestration. When you get almost a $200 million bill, which was what sequestration was for the Coast Guard, the only place you can take 

it out of is discretionary spending, and discretionary spending generally equates to operational hours, whether it is flight hours, boat 

hours, or ship days, and the only place that we could squeeze it a 

little bit was in drug interdiction and migrant interdiction. 
22 

Mr. O’ROURKE. In terms of measuring the outcomes of those reduced resources and reduced interdictions, are you able to track 

what that means in terms of availability of those drugs on the 

streets in the United States or the number of, and I don’t know 

how you’d measure this, but the migrants who are able to get 

through because of lack of resources? In other words, do we know 

the outcome, the effect of this? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. For drugs, it is a little complicated, but 

I can understand it, so it is not that complicated. One of my jobs 

is I serve as the chairman of the interdiction committee that works 

for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. We coordinate between DEA, Justice, Department of Defense, and others, we coordinate activities and share information. Part of it is a consolidated 

drug database. 

We have a good idea on how much cocaine is produced in South 

America, we also have a good idea on how much is consumed on 

the streets of America, and we can judge that generally by how the 

price is going up, price is going down, and there are things that 

provide analysis to tell that. 

There are about 800 metric tons produced in South America, 

there are about 400 tons that are consumed in the United States. 

On an average year, the Coast Guard interdicts, disrupts about 120 

metric tons in the transit zone between South America into Central 

America. That is where you pick up the big loads. 

The entire rest of the United States Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement agencies throughout millions of people interdict, seize 

about 40 metric tons countrywide, because they are in smaller 

loads when they come across, more difficult to find. 

So that is why I feel so strongly about keeping our ships forwarddeployed in the transit zones, so that we can interdict 4, 5, 6 metric 

tons at a time to keep them off the streets as they get here. 

Plus, it is not just our streets. It is a destabilizing effect in Mexico and Central America that the transit of the drugs creates as 

well. Money and weapons going south to destabilize drugs coming 

north, it is a cycle that we have to break. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Admiral. 

Those numbers of how much is being consumed in the streets of 

America are really distressing. I have never heard that number before. That is mind-boggling. 

At this time the Chairwoman now recognizes the gentlelady from 

Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Sir, like my colleagues, I just want to say thank you so much for 

your commitment to service, your dedication to duty, and your 

leadership for Coasties everywhere. 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you. 

Ms. GABBARD. I had a chance to serve on my second deployment 

with some security forces in the Coast Guard who were based at 

the Kuwait naval base, and prior to that deployment, I had no idea 

that there were Coasties serving in the Middle East providing support to those missions, so I learned a lot from that perspective, as 

I have now in my interactions with the District 14 folks covering 
23 

the Pacific, and just really appreciate all that the Coast Guard 

does. 

In your written testimony, you specifically mentioned the renewed National focus on the Asia-Pacific region. Most people don’t 

realize how large that space really is and the Coast Guard’s central 

role in providing security there. Fourteenth District, as you know, 

is the Coast Guard’s largest area of responsibility, covering 12.2 

million square miles of land and sea. I am wondering if you can 

speak to what you see coming around the corner within this area, 

within the region, the Asia-Pacific region, from a threat perspective, what should we be anticipating from a homeland security 

viewpoint, and are we prepared from a resource perspective? 

Admiral PAPP. I think in the Pacific-Asia region, the three things 

I see are drugs, migrants, and fisheries. Particularly our trust territories, let’s go with fisheries, that 4.5 million-square-mile exclusive economic zone, a great deal of that is in the Pacific surrounding the Hawaiian islands, the trust territories, the islands, 

Guam, and others, and we do not have enough resources to keep 

a persistent presence to protect our fisheries. There are many incursions that are going on, and there are also partner countries out 

there that don’t have much capacity as well. 

We try to mitigate that. Actually the United States Navy has 

been very helpful. We have been putting law enforcement detachments on Navy ships that are transiting the area. Admiral 

Locklear has been very good in terms—and he has got a great relationship with our Coast Guard, in terms of putting a few extra 

days in for his Navy ships so that we can make passes through 

some of the areas out there where we want to protect our fishing 

and the migratory stocks that are out there. 

So that has been a good program and helps us out, but I would 

clearly like to have more Coast Guard cutters out there and the 

time to be able to spend in those areas. 

Those 800 metric tons of drugs, there is a big market in Australia right now, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing— 

we have seen vessels being interdicted near Australia with multiton loads of cocaine. 

Hawaii is not inconceivable. There could be drugs going into Hawaii as well. It is sort of a transit now back out across the Pacific 

that we are concerned about. 

We have the precursors for methamphetamines that are produced in Asia that come across the Pacific generally going to 

south—to Central America for processing, but ultimately come 

across our borders, so we are working with partner nations to try 

and identify those cargoes before they get to our hemisphere. 

Migrants: We are always concerned. Right now Australia, in fact, 

I consulted with Australia because they have such a huge illegal 

migration problem there, and they are looking at some of the practices that the United States Coast Guard uses in the Caribbean. It 

is a little bit different of a challenge for them. But we also look, 

there are oftentimes migrant vessels that will come across the 

North Pacific towards Canada or the West Coast of the United 

States that we have to be concerned about as well. 

Ms. GABBARD. I have a brother who lives in Australia and was 

there towards the end of last year and had a chance to meet with 
24 

the Australian Navy Fleet Commander, and he spoke very highly 

of the partnership and the lessons learned that they are gaining 

from our Coast Guard here. 

You mentioned that you don’t have enough cutters for District 

14. I understand that District 14 is expected to get two National 

Security Cutters that will replace some of the aging cutters that 

have basically been extended beyond their designed service life. 

You know, I saw one of the cutters that was in dry dock at Pearl 

Harbor. 

It is great that we have that asset there. But clearly when you 

get to that point the cost of continuing to refurbish these cutters 

beyond what they were designed for really doesn’t make sense 

when it extends beyond the cost of bringing in a new cutter. I’m 

wondering when you expect these cutters to be put into service in 

Hawaii. 

Admiral PAPP. The two National Security Cutters, we made that 

porting plan I think it was 2 years ago. I will get you the exact 

numbers for the record, but I think it is National Security Cutters 

Nos. 6 and 7 are going to Honolulu. 

Given the production schedule, I would estimate that is probably 

going to be at least 4 or 5 years from now because No. 5 is under 

construction. I think they are starting on No. 6 and so it will be 

a couple years from now and we will keep a presence there, of 

course, until the new ships arrive if we have got enough room in 

the budget. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it. 

Mrs. MILLER. I thank the gentlelady very much. 

I thank all the Members of the committee. If the committee 

Members, if anybody has additional questions, we will ask that the 

Commandant would respond to those in writing, if they ask. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(e), the hearing record will be held—yes, 

Ranking Member. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. First of all, let me indicate that I have a Cabinet officer that I had to speak to in just a moment. 

But I want to thank the Commandant and I wanted to make 

sure that in his response would he share with me my answer to 

the questions on the TWIC card. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I appreciate very much. 

I know there were a lot of questions, so I am very interested in 

that and very interested in your counsel on how we can make that 

more efficient and more effective. 

I think in particular, if I may, Madam Chairwoman, just read 

this question too: Should this Government-centric premise to the 

TWIC card be revisited? That was based upon using this approach 

to port security credentialing in which DHS is responsible for enrollment, card issuance, and security vetting for TWIC; is that the 

best option? 

Then, what needs to be done to ensure the TWIC program delivers the security benefits Congress envisioned while not unduly burdening workers or disrupting our ports? Also you might comment 

on the Coast Guard role. 

I thank you for that. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. 
25 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman. 

Mrs. MILLER. Certainly. I thank the gentlelady for those questions. 

Again I am sure the Commandant will respond to those to the 

committee and will get the answers to you. 

Pursuant to the Committee Rule 7(e), the hearing record will be 

held open for 10 days. 

Again, Admiral, we just want to thank you so sincerely for your 

many, many years of service to the Nation and look forward to 

working with you in the future as well. 

Good luck to your wife. I didn’t realize she was going to be the 

sponsor of the Hamilton. That is terrific. We appreciate it. You 

have been a great advocate for the Coast Guard, and I think as you 

can see from this committee Coast Guard had some very, very deep 

wells of goodwill toward the Coast Guard and the men and women 

in the service and what they do for our Nation. 

We thank you very much. 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, ma’am. It has been an honor. 

Mrs. MILLER. With that, without objection, the committee stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(27) 

1Written testimony of U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Robert Papp, Jr. for a House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation hearing titled ‘‘The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request for Coast 

Guard and Maritime Transportation Programs’’ Release Date: April 16, 2013. 2167 Rayburn 

House Office Building. 2 U.S. Coast Guard Fact Sheet—Fiscal Year 2014 President’s Budget. April 10, 2013. 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE STEVEN M. PALAZZO FOR ROBERT J. PAPP

Question 1. What is the strategy for modernizing and recapitalizing the USCG air 

fleet while minimizing the impact on the USCG budget, and how does the Avionics 

1 Upgrade (A1U) upgrade program fit into that strategy? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. How does the USCG plan to cover a multi-year operational gap from 

the time the HC–130Hs are transferred to the USFS to the time the first fullymissionized C27J reaches initial operational capability? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. When will the USCG implement the next phase of A1U upgrades to 

the HC–130H airframes? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4. What is the acquisition plan for the HC–130J? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5. How would any future acquisition of any additional HC–130 J models 

impact the acquisition of additional National Security Cutters in the fleet? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6. In 2013, the Commandant testified that the Avionics 1 Upgrade (A1U) 

installations on HC–130H aircraft enhanced the capability of the HC–130H fleet by 

replacing aging/obsolete equipment, and updating avionics to comply with Communications Navigation Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM).1 Considering the length of time (an estimated 4 years) for the C27J to be fully missionready, is the A1U program still front-and-center of your near-term air asset recapitalization plan? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 7. Is acquiring HC–130Js in the next 5 to 10 years economically feasible 

in light of the demands on the USCG budget for surface assets such as the National 

Security Cutter, Fast Response Cutter, Offshore Patrol Cutter, and Polar Icebreaker? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 8. Further considering that the A1U program is a key part of the USCGs 

plan to ‘‘Build Essential Coast Guard Capability for the Nation’’, does the USCG 

plan to now, or in the near future cancel or reduce the A1U program?2

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 9. How can Mississippi support the mission of the USCG air fleet? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Æ