```

[House Report 107-79]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     107-79

======================================================================

 
                 COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001

                                _______
                                

  May 24, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

     Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and 
                Infrastructure, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1699]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1699) to authorize appropriations 
for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend 
that the bill do pass.

                          purpose of the bill

    The primary purpose of H.R. 1699 is to authorize funds for 
the United States Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002. Funding is 
authorized for the following accounts within the Coast Guard's 
budget: Operating Expenses; Acquisition, Construction and 
Improvement; Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; 
Retired Pay; Alteration of Bridges; and Environmental 
Compliance and Restoration.
    This bill also sets end-of-year strength levels for active 
duty military personnel and establishes military training 
levels.

                               background

    The United States Coast Guard, established in 1915 as part 
of the Department of the Treasury, is responsible for 
performing Federal functions that trace their beginnings back 
to the founding of this country. The Coast Guard assumed the 
duties of five previously established agencies: the Lighthouse 
service, established in 1789; the Revenue Cutter Service, 
established in 1790; the Steamboat Inspection Service, 
established in 1838; the Life-Saving Service, established in 
1848; and the Bureau of Navigation, established in 1884.
    The Coast Guard remained a part of the Department of 
Treasury until 1967, when it was transferred to the newly 
created Department of Transportation.
    Today's Coast Guard has primary responsibility for the 
promotion of safety of life and property at sea; the 
enforcement of all applicable Federal laws on, over, and under 
the high seas and United States waters; the maintenance of aids 
to navigation, the protection of the marine environment; 
icebreaking activities; and the safety and security of vessels, 
ports, waterways, and their related facilities.
    As a military service and a branch of the Armed Forces, the 
Coast Guard also maintains a readiness to operate as a 
specialized service in the Navy upon the declaration of war or 
when the President directs. The Coast Guard has defended our 
Nation in every war since 1790, including the 1990-1991 
conflict in the Persian Gulf.
    The Coast Guard's legal responsibilities have expanded over 
the past 20 years. Many of the laws the Coast Guard administers 
are codified in subtitle II of title 46, United States Code. 
Beyond the broad responsibilities described above, the Coast 
Guard enforces the following laws:
    The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, which provides 
a three-year increase of Coast Guard drug interdiction 
resources to respond to the illegal drug threat facing our 
country.
    The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, which expand the 
Coast Guard's role in waterborne and airborne marine drug 
interdiction.
    The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, which authorizes the 
Coast Guard to search and seize any vessel that is 
manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with the intent to 
manufacturer or distribute, any controlled substance in the 
United States.
    The Deepwater Port Act of 1974, which directs the Coast 
Guard to oversee offshore oil port operation and construction.
    The Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1974, which directs 
the Coast Guard to ensure port and merchant vessel safety.
    The Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978, which authorizes 
the Coast Guard to inspect foreign tankers, evaluate crew 
standards, and monitor offshore lightering activities in U.S. 
waters.
    The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 
1986, which requires the Coast Guard to maintain and improve 
port, harbor, and coastal facilities security.
    The Federal Boating Safety Act of 1971, which authorized 
the Coast Guard to prescribe standards for the manufacture of 
pleasure boats and associated equipment.
    The Recreational Boating Safety Improvement Act of 1998 
(subtitle D of title VII of P.L. 105-178) amended the Wallop-
Breaux amendments to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (P.L. 
98-369) which established the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. The 
Coast Guard uses this fund to promote recreational boating 
safety and access through a state grant program.
    The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (popularly 
known as the Clean Water Act), which requires the Coast Guard 
to regulate discharges of oil and sewage from vessels.
    The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), which expands the 
Coast Guard's authority over oil spills, and establishes a 
comprehensive regime for oil spill compensation, liability, 
response, and research and development.
    The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 
1972, which gives the Coast Guard enforcement authority over 
ocean dumping and marine sanctuaries.
    The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, which requires the 
Coast Guard to administer and enforce international 
environmental pollution agreements through vessel and port 
certification and inspections.
    The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 
1987, which requires the Coast Guard to enforce prohibitions on 
the disposal of plastic materials and other garbage at sea and 
to establish regulations for vessel waste management.
    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which requires 
the Coast Guard to enforce safety standards for the waterborne 
transportation of hazardous materials.
    The Intervention on the High Seas Act, which authorizes the 
Coast Guard to intervene in situations involving pollution 
discharges on the high seas that pose a threat to the United 
States and its territorial waters.
    The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which 
assigns joint responsibility to the Coast Guard and the 
National Marine Fisheries Services to enforce U.S. fisheries 
laws within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone of the United 
States.
    The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978, 
which authorizes the Coast Guard to enforce environmental and 
safety regulations governing oil and gas development activities 
on the outer Continental Shelf.
    The National Invasive Species Act of 1996, which amended 
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act 
of 1990 to strengthen and improve the nation's response to 
threats posed by aquatic nuisance species.

                SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 1699

Section 1. Short title

    This section states that the Act may be cited as the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 2001.

Section 2. Authorization of appropriations

    H.R. 1699 authorizes $5.4 billion for Coast Guard programs 
and operations.
            Operating expenses
    Section 2(1) of the bill authorizes approximately $3.7 
billion for Coast Guard operating expenses for fiscal year 
2002. This section also requires that $5.5 million be available 
for the Coast Guard commercial fishing vessel safety program to 
insure that the Coast Guard has adequate funding available for 
additional personnel to perform voluntary safety examinations 
of commercial fishing vessels.
    During the past several years, the Coast Guard has 
experienced budgetary shortfalls resulting from the enactment 
of new and expanded military entitlement programs. In addition, 
the cumulative effects of streamlining, personnel shortages, 
inexperienced personnel and increased demands for services have 
reduced the Coast Guard's overall readiness posture. The Coast 
Guard has deferred maintenance on vessels and cannibalized 
aircraft to overcome readiness shortfalls. However, the Coast 
Guard has deferred maintenance on its aircraft, vessels and 
shore facilities to the point that it is no longer able to 
sustain an adequate level of operations. During fiscal years 
2000 and 2001,the Coast Guard reduced law enforcement 
operations to pay for unbudgeted cost increases such as new and 
expanded entitlement programs, rising utility costs and critical spare 
parts.
    While the President's budget request proposes a solid 
increase to the Coast Guard's operating and acquisition 
accounts, the Coast Guard needs additional resources in the 
fiscal year 2002 budget to avoid the destructive cycle of 
budget shortfalls, operational cuts, and end-of-year 
supplemental funding bills. The Coast Guard readiness problems, 
related to a sharp increase in military entitlements, personnel 
training needs, and new operational demands, leave the Coast 
Guard approximately $300 million short in operating expenses 
for fiscal year 2002.
    Operating expenses account for about two-thirds of the 
Coast Guard's budget and fund Coast Guard search and rescue, 
aids to navigation, marine safety, marine environmental 
protection, and law enforcement operations.
            Acquisition, construction, and improvements
    Section 2(2) of this bill authorizes $659.3 million in 
fiscal year 2002 for the Coast Guard's acquisition, 
construction, and improvement (AC&I) account.
    The bill authorizes $338 million to implement Phase II of 
the Deepwater Capabilities Replacement Project. In August 1998, 
the Coast Guard awarded contracts to three industry teams to 
design an Integrated Deepwater System that maximizes 
operational effectiveness and minimizes total ownership cost. 
Industry team proposals to design and construct the Deepwater 
project are due in July 2001. The Coast Guard intends to award 
a Phase II contract in the second quarter of fiscal year 2002, 
and to begin acquiring, constructing, or improving existing 
assets under the accepted proposal.
    The Committee strongly supports the Coast Guard's 
integrated approach to the Deepwater Modernization Project. The 
Committee opposes breaking apart the Deepwater Project and 
acquiring Coast Guard assets piecemeal. Breaking up the Project 
may cost the Government even more, without providing the 
benefits inherent in an integrated approach. The Committee 
believes that the Integrated Deepwater System is our best hope 
to prepare the Coast Guard to meet future challenges.
    H.R. 1699 also authorizes $42 million for the Coast Guard's 
National Distress and Response System Modernization Project and 
$63 million to support Coast Guard housing, facility 
improvements, and aids to navigation projects.
            Research and development
    Section 2(3) of H.R. 1699 authorizes $21.7 million for 
Coast Guard research and development for fiscal year 2002. This 
account funds the development of techniques, methods, research, 
hardware, systems, and planning to improve the productivity of 
existing Coast Guard missions. Priorities for fiscal year 2002 
include drug interdiction surveillance, fuel cell vessel 
propulsion, as well as ballast water management and aquatic 
nuisance species neutralization research.
            Retired pay
    Section 2(4) of this bill authorizes $876.4 million in 
fiscal year 2002. These funds provide annuities and medical 
care for retired military personnel and former Lighthouse 
Service members, their dependents, and survivors.
            Alteration of bridges
    The Bridge Alteration program provides the Federal 
government's share of the costs for altering or removing 
bridges determined to be obstructions to navigation. Currently, 
under the Truman-Hobbs Act of 1940 (33 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the 
Coast Guard shares, with the bridge owner, the cost of altering 
railroad and publicly-owned highway bridges which obstruct the 
free movement of vessel traffic.
    Section 2(5) of H.R. 1699 authorizes $15.5 million in 
fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2002 authorization includes 
funds to begin construction on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe 
Railroad Bridge in Burlington, Iowa.
            Environmental compliance
    Section 2(6) authorizes $16.9 million for fiscal year 2002 
to mitigate environmental problems resulting from the operation 
of former and current Coast Guard facilities, and to ensure 
that Coast Guard facilities are in compliance with applicable 
environmental laws and regulations.

Section 3. Authorized levels of military strength and training

    This section authorizes 44,000 active duty military 
personnel at the end of fiscal year 2002.

                    hearings and legislative history

    On May 3, 2001, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and 
Maritime Transportation held a hearing on the Administration's 
fiscal year 2002 budget request for the United States Coast 
Guard. The Subcommittee received testimony from Admiral James 
M. Loy, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard; Vincent Patton III, 
Master Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard; and JayEtta 
Hecker, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, General 
Accounting Office.
    In his testimony, Admiral Loy expressed his support of the 
President's fiscal year 2002 budget request and explained the 
three principal themes of the budget request.These themes 
involve restoring the Coast Guard's service readiness by rebuilding the 
agency's workforce, shaping the future of the Coast Guard through a 
timely recapitalization and modernization program, as well as 
facilitating the transformation of the Coast Guard to meet the nation's 
needs in the new century.
    According to Admiral Loy, the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request will restore the readiness of Coast Guard personnel 
while ensuring that all of the agency's missions are performed 
at a level that can be sustained by its infrastructure. In 
order to live within the budget request and prepare for the 
future Deepwater Project, the Coast Guard plans to retire some 
of the Coast Guard's oldest assets. Finally, the Admiral 
stressed that the budget strongly endorses the Integrated 
Deepwater System Project which will modernize the Coast Guard's 
aging fleet of cutters, aircraft and command centers.
    Master Chief Petty Officer Vincent Patton, who represents 
the 42,000 Coast Guard reserve and active-duty enlisted 
personnel, stated that the National Defense Authorization Act 
of 2001 included a number of provisions that will improve the 
quality of life for the Coast Guard's military personnel and 
their families. These improvements include changes in the 
TRICARE family medical program, pay raises, and substantial 
increases to the Basic Allowance for Housing rates. The Master 
Chief also discussed the problem of retaining Coast Guard 
enlisted personnel. As a result of falling retention levels, 
the experience levels of enlisted personnel have been falling 
at an alarming rate. The Coast Guard has recently increased its 
efforts to keep experienced senior enlisted personnel from 
retiring.
    On the second panel, Ms. JayEtta Hecker, Director of 
Physical Infrastructure Issues, at the General Accounting 
Office testified about her agency's recently released report on 
the Coast Guard's Deepwater Capability Replacement Project. Ms. 
Hecker discussed the GAO's evaluation of the major risks 
associated with the Deepwater Project. The four major risks 
include project costs exceeding budget projections, keeping 
costs under control in the contract's later years, ensuring 
that procedures and personnel are in place for managing and 
overseeing the winning contractor, and minimizing potential 
problems with developing unproven technology.
    Ms. Hecker concluded that her agency had assisted the Coast 
Guard in its efforts to mitigate the risks during the project's 
planning phase. She felt that the Coast Guard had listened to 
the GAO's concerns and made many changes to improve the project 
and mitigate major areas of risk. However, the GAO believes 
that the Coast Guard should endeavor to reduce certain risks to 
the Deepwater Project before proceeding to the acquisition 
phase of the Project.
    A bill to authorize the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002 
was introduced as H.R. 1699 by Chairman Young on May 3, 2001, 
with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. LoBiondo, and Ms. Brown of Florida as 
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.

                        committee consideration

    On May 10, 2001, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and 
Maritime Transportation met in open session to mark up H.R. 
1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001. H.R. 1699 was 
ordered reported to the Full Committee by voice vote in the 
presence of a quorum.
    On May 16, 2001, the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee met in open session to consider H.R. 1699. H.R. 1699 
was ordered reported to the House of Representatives by a voice 
vote in the presence of a quorum.

                             rollcall votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report to include the total number of 
votes cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to 
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, 
and the names of those members voting for and against. There 
were no rollcall votes during Committee consideration of H.R. 
1699.

                      committee oversight findings

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

                        cost of the legislation

    Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                    compliance with house rule xiii

    1. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee 
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office 
included below.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
general performance goals and objectives of this legislation 
are to: (a) eliminate deaths, injuries, and property damage 
associated with maritime transportation, fishing, and 
recreational boating; (b) protect our maritime borders from 
intrusion by halting the flow of illegal drugs, aliens, and 
contraband as well as suppress violations of Federal law; (c) 
eliminate environmental damage associated with maritime 
activities; (d) facilitate maritime commerce; and (e) enhance 
national security.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
1699 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 17, 2001.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1699, the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 2001.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

H.R. 1699--Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001

    Summary: H.R. 1699 would authorize the appropriation of 
$4.4 billion for discretionary programs of the U.S. Coast Guard 
(USCG) for fiscal year 2002, including about $3.7 billion for 
operating expenses, $659 million for acquisition and other 
capital projects, $22 million for research activities, $15 
million for bridge alterations, and $17 million for 
environmental compliance. (For fiscal year 2001, appropriations 
for these programs totaled $3.7 billion.) Of the amounts 
authorized, $48.5 million would be derived from the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF). In addition, H.R. 1699 would 
authorize the appropriation of $876 million for Coast Guard 
retirement benefits in 2002.
    The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 1699 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 
have no impact on the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effects of the bill are summarized in the following 
table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
functions 300 (natural resources and environment) and 400 
(transportation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

USCG Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority/Authorization Level \1\..............    3,652       29        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................    3,766    1,010      452      278      137       23
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level...................................        0    4,367        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................        0    3,073      755      285      150       46
USCG Spending Under H.R. 1699:
    Authorization Level \1\...............................    3,652    4,396        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................    3,766    4,083    1,207      563      287       69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2001 level is the amount appropriated for that year. The $29 million in 2002 is the amount already
  authorized to be appropriated from the OSLTF for Coast Guard operating expenses and research.

    The amount authorized by the bill for Coast Guard 
retirement has not been included in the above table because 
such pay is an entitlement under current law and it is not 
subject to appropriation actions.
    Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that H.R. 1699 will be enacted during fiscal year 2001, 
and that the amounts authorized for USCG programs will be 
appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
    The authorization level for 2002 is the amount stated in 
the bill for discretionary accounts, excluding $28.5 million of 
the $48.5 million to be derived from the OSLTF. (This amount, 
which consists of $25 million for Coast Guard operations and 
$3.5 million for research, has been excluded because such 
funding is already authorized under existing law.) Outlays are 
estimated on the basis of historical spending patterns for 
Coast Guard programs.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1699 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would have no impact on the budgets of 
state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis. Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Victoria Heid Hall. 
Impact on the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                   constitutional authority statement

    Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or 
joint resolution of a public character shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       federal mandates statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                      advisory committee statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                applicability to the legislative branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

                   constitutional authority statement

    Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or 
joint resolution of a public character shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       federal mandates statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                      advisory committee statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                applicability to the legislative branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

                                

```