CHALLENGES FACING THE COAST

GUARD’S MARINE SAFETY PROGRAM

(110–65)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

AUGUST 2, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

CHALLENGES FACING THE COAST GUARD’S MARINE SAFETY PROGRAM

CHALLENGES FACING THE COAST GUARD’S MARINE SAFETY PROGRAM

CHALLENGES FACING THE COAST GUARD’S MARINE SAFETY PROGRAM

CHALLENGES FACING THE COAST GUARD’S MARINE SAFETY PROGRAM

CHALLENGES FACING THE COAST GUARD’S MARINE SAFETY

PROGRAM

CHALLENGES FACING THE COAST GUARD’S

MARINE SAFETY PROGRAM

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37–368 PDF 2007

CHALLENGES FACING THE COAST

GUARD’S MARINE SAFETY PROGRAM

(110–65)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

AUGUST 2, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York, Vice Chair 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TED POE, Texas 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Allegretti, Thomas, President, American Waterways Operators ......................... 53

Allen, Admiral Thad, Commandant, United States Coast Guard ....................... 7

Block, Richard, Secretary Gulf Coast Mariners Association ................................ 38

Cox, Joseph, President, U.S. Chamber of Shipping .............................................. 53

Doyle, William, Director of Government Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, 

Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association .......................................................... 38

Lauridsen, Peter, Passenger Vessel Association ................................................... 53

Quick, George, Vice President, International Organization of Masters, Mates 

and Pilots .............................................................................................................. 38

Thompson, B.W. Tom, Executive Director, U.S. Marine Safety Association ...... 53

Weakley, Jim, President, Lake Carriers Association ............................................ 53

Wells, Ken, President, Offshore Marine Services Association ............................. 53

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 67

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Allegretti, Thomas A. .............................................................................................. 71

Allen, Admiral Thad W. .......................................................................................... 78

Block, Richard A. ..................................................................................................... 247

Brown, Timothy A. .................................................................................................. 281

Cox, Joseph J. .......................................................................................................... 287

Doyle, William P. ..................................................................................................... 292

Lauridsen, Peter ...................................................................................................... 297

Thompson, Burt W. ................................................................................................. 302

Weakley, James H.I. ................................................................................................ 307

Wells, Ken ................................................................................................................ 312

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Allen, Admiral Thad, Commandant, United States Coast Guard:

Response to question from Rep. Cummings ....................................................... 14

Response to question from Rep. Cummings ....................................................... 16

Response to question from Rep. Cummings ....................................................... 18

Response to question from Rep. Cummings ....................................................... 20

Response to question from Rep. Cummings ....................................................... 22

Response to question from Rep. LaTourette ...................................................... 24

‘‘Explosive Handling Team Supervisor,’’ Performace Qualification Standard 95

‘‘Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Examiner (CFVE),’’ Performance Qualification Standard .............................................................................................. 110

‘‘Container Inspector,’’ Performance Qualification Standard ........................... 140

‘‘Federal On Scene Coordinator Representative,’’ Performace Qualification 

Standard ............................................................................................................ 162

‘‘Maritime Enforcement Investigator,’’ Performance Qualification Standard . 179

‘‘Pollution Investigator,’’ Performace Qualification Standard .......................... 196

‘‘Suspension and Revocation Investigator,’’ Performace Qualification Standard ...................................................................................................................... 217

‘‘Waterways Management Representative,’’ Performance Qualification 

Standard ............................................................................................................ 232

Page

VI

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

A Mariner Reponse to the August 2, 2007 Subcommittee on Coast Guard 

and Maritime Transportation Hearing, Captain Murray R. Rogers, 

U.S.M.M., written statement .............................................................................. 319

Marine Safety Advocate, Ronald G. Sinn, written statement .............................. 324

vii


37368.001
viii


37368.002
ix


37368.003
x


37368.004
xi


37368.005
xii


37368.006
xiii


37368.007
xiv


37368.008
xv


37368.009
xvi


37368.010
xvii


37368.011
(1)

HEARING ON CHALLENGES FACING THE 

COAST GUARD’S MARINE SAFETY PROGRAM 

Thursday, August 2, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elijah E. 

Cummings [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Good afternoon. 

Earlier this week, the Subcommittee examined the management 

of the Coast Guard’s administrative law system which adjudicates 

allegations of misconduct or negligence brought against mariners 

by Coast Guard investigating officers. We heard testimony that 

was, frankly, deeply concerning and disturbing. Two former administrative law judges suggested that during their tenure they 

worked in an atmosphere that did not support the exercise of judicial independence in the consideration of cases. 

The Subcommittee’s examination of the allegations raised in that 

hearing is not finished. However, any administrative law system 

must not only ensure that there is no impropriety in the conduct 

of administrative proceedings but that there is not even the appearance of unfairness in the system. 

What we learned during our hearing on Tuesday has led me and 

I believe Ranking Member LaTourette to conclude that the administrative law system that examines allegations made against mariners should be separated from the Coast Guard as a safeguard 

against the appearance of unfairness. 

Our hearing today builds on Tuesday’s hearing by giving the 

Subcommittee the opportunity to take a comprehensive look at the 

Coast Guard’s entire marine safety program to assess whether the 

Coast Guard has the experience, the expertise and the resources it 

needs to effectively and efficiently implement this crucial program. 

In addition to investigating allegations of misconduct raised 

against mariners, the marine safety program is responsible for investigating accidents, inspecting vessels and issuing credentials to 

mariners. 

In short, the marine safety program is intended to ensure that 

all aspects of marine transportation are as safe as they can be and 

that our natural resources are protected against risks associated 

with the movement of goods and people on the water. 

2

I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for his extraordinary leadership in the area of marine safety, and I thank him for urging us 

to hold this hearing today. 

I also thank Ranking Member Mica and the Ranking Member of 

our Subcommittee, Mr. LaTourette, for their leadership on this 

Committee and for their cooperation. 

Congress has been involved with maritime safety since the first 

Congress created the lighthouse service on August 7th, 1789. Congress has repeatedly expanded maritime safety programs over the 

past 200 years as ships and shipping practices have evolved. 

Unfortunately, over the years, Congress’ actions to enhance marine safety have usually been spurred by major catastrophes such 

as the grounding of Exxon Valdez which led to the enactment of 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

Our goal is to examine the state of the marine safety program 

to assess whether action needs to be taken now to strengthen this 

program and to ensure it is prepared to effectively and efficiently 

regulate the 21st Century maritime industry before any new catastrophe takes place. 

Since I became Chairman of the Subcommittee, I have heard repeatedly from ship owners and operators, port authorities including 

the Port of Baltimore and mariners regarding their concerns with 

the Coast Guard’s marine safety program. Mariners are concerned 

about the delays they encounter in obtaining the documents they 

need to work while ship owners have expressed serious concerns 

about the ability of Coast Guard personnel to maintain their expertise in technical aspects of vessel safety, given their increasing 

focus on implementing security measures. 

The suggestion that the Coast Guard’s lack of technical expertise 

may have contributed to fatal accidents is extremely troubling. We 

will examine the issue in depth as we examine the Coast Guard’s 

response to several recent accidents including the capsizing of the 

Lady D pontoon boat in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor in March, 2004, 

that resulted in the deaths of five passengers. 

During its investigation of this very tragic accident, the National 

Transportation Safety Board found that the Lady D was ‘‘erroneously granted sister status by the United States Coast Guard to 

a pontoon vessel with different design characteristics.’’

The NTSB then recommended that the Coast Guard promulgate 

revised passenger weight standards for passenger vessels. Unlike 

the FAA, which quickly adopted new weight standards in less than 

a year after a commuter aircraft casualty in January, 2003, the 

Coast Guard has now issued interim weight guidelines and revised 

operating standards, but some three years later after the Lady D 

tragedy has not yet finalized new weight standards for all passenger vessels. 

The testimony submitted by Admiral Allen today indicates that, 

in fact, the Coast Guard has 85 rulemaking processes including 

some mandated by Congress that have not yet been concluded including those involving ballast water, dry cargo residue, salvage, 

towing vessel inspections, the use of automatic identification systems, transponders, and the use of electronic charts that were required by law to be in vessels by January 1st of this year. 

3

In advance of today’s hearing, we asked the Coast Guard, mariner representatives, vessel operators, lifesaving equipment manufacturers and related service facilities to tell us how the marine 

safety program is working. The industry witnesses, we will hear 

from today, have all expressed concern about the Coast Guard’s appropriate posture towards mariners and the industry, the Coast 

Guard’s level of technical expertise, the oversight of lifesaving 

equipment and the rotation of personnel in the marine safety program. 

While I look forward to the testimony of all who are joining us 

today, I also want to note for the record that there were many in 

the maritime industry who expressed concerns to this Subcommittee but who were frankly, and this alarms me greatly and 

it should alarm all 435 Members of this Congress and all 100 Senators and certainly to the Admiral. 

Let me say that again. They were concerned and basically afraid 

to testify for fear of retribution from the Coast Guard, and that is 

very, very troubling. Such a situation is simply intolerable, and I 

hope that Admiral Allen will take away from today’s hearing an 

understanding of what the Service needs to do to improve its relationship to our Nation’s maritime industry. 

The American public believes the Coast Guard is keeping vessels 

safe and protecting the marine environment. Today, we will determine whether these expectations are indeed being met, and I look 

forward to working with Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member 

Mica and Ranking Member LaTourette as we explore the future of 

this important program. 

With that, I am very pleased to again yield to my good friend and 

one who, as I said to him the other day, we are just so proud of 

what we were able to do with regard to Deepwater to be able to 

get a unanimous vote, 424 to nothing, but we could not have done 

it without the cooperation of my distinguished colleague, the Ranking Member, Mr. LaTourette. 

I yield to you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

those words, our continued excellent partnership and for conducting today’s hearing. 

The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency with technical program expertise, extensive law enforcement authority and the operational assets needed to carry out that authority. However, none of 

these missions are as important as its marine safety function. The 

Coast Guard’s marine safety function includes the inspection of vehicles and credentialing of seaman. These jobs carry out the Service’s primary duties under Title 14 to enforce and administer Federal laws and promulgate regulations for the promotion of safety of 

life and property at sea. 

Internationally, the U.S. is party to the International Maritime 

Organization Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea. The Coast 

Guard is the head of the U.S. delegation to IMO. The Coast Guard 

implements its marine safety authorities by setting and enforcing 

standards for the construction and operation of U.S. vessels and 

the competence and reliability of the U.S. seamen. 

It also exerts U.S. port control by examining foreign vessels and 

seamen to ensure that those vessels and seamen meet international 

4

standards. The Service has broad powers to enforce its marine safety mandates including the ability to prevent a ship from entering 

or leaving a port and the suspension and revocation of the merchant mariners’ credentials. 

Public concern and current events have always dictated which of 

the Service’s missions receive additional attention and emphasis in 

the form of increased mission personnel, operating hours and resources. In fact, over the Coast Guard’s history, the Service’s missions have changed many times to meet the pressing needs of the 

Nation. 

In the early days of the Republic, the need for fiscal stability led 

to the establishment of the revenue cutter service, the earliest precursor of today’s Coast Guard in the 18th Century. The spectacular 

loss of steamboats, their passengers, crew and cargos during the 

19th Century led to the establishment of the Steamboat Inspection 

Service. 

In the last two decades of the 20th Century, drug interdiction 

was the focus in the late 1980s. Marine safety and environmental 

protection were prominent after the Exxon Valdez accident in 1990, 

and migrant interdiction captured the public’s attention after the 

Mariel Boatlift. Clearly, in the 21st Century, increased attention 

has been paid to the Coast Guard’s homeland security missions. 

These shifting priorities have shown that having a single maritime law enforcement response agency with broad subject matter 

expertise, comprehensive enforcement authorities and operational 

assets works well and provides the necessary flexibility to meet 

changing needs. Of course, the recent surge in homeland security 

missions has led some to express concerns that marine safety is 

getting shortchanged. 

I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony today about how we 

can assure that marine safety gets the attention it deserves within 

a multi-mission Coast Guard. I am particularly interested in hearing about the ways to create and preserve sufficient technical expertise within the Service to carry out ship inspections and mariner credential reviews efficiently and effectively. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, my personal thanks to you for calling today’s hearing. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bishop, who, just so the world will know, was just named the 

Vice Chairman of this Subcommittee, I yield to you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I am honored to have the opportunity to work with you in this Committee. 

Let me start by commending all of the first responders and the 

volunteers who are now working tirelessly to help those affected by 

the collapse of the bridge at Interstate 35W. 

Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for holding this hearing and inviting these witnesses to participate in this important discussion. 

This discussion between the Congress and the Coast Guard and the 

representatives of the maritime transportation sector is both necessary and important given the requirements of protecting America 

in a post-9/11 world. 

Once again, I must commend the United States Coast Guard for 

their hard work and constant vigilance in the waters off our shores. 

At every opportunity, I want to make sure that the men and 

5

women who serve in this top-notch institution receive the gratitude 

and recognition they deserve. Whether it is through search and rescue or policing of our waters, they do a great job. 

However, the issues and concerns which occasion this hearing 

are real and require careful scrutiny. The Coast Guard has a tremendous array of responsibilities requiring a wide range of expertise. These responsibilities include coastal and waterway security, 

drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, defense readiness, maritime 

safety, search and rescue, marine resource protection, environmental protection, maintaining navigation aids and ICE operations. 

This is, to say the least, a tremendous undertaking. 

In my own district, I remain very concerned about the additional 

burdens that will be placed on the Coast Guard to protect and secure a proposed LNG facility. The Captain of the Port has outlined 

the manpower and equipment resources that will be required, but 

there has been no determination as to how these resources will be 

acquired or funded. 

The situation is my district is but a fraction of a much larger national problem as more than 40 LNG facilities are proposed for construction, and the Coast Guard will have responsibilities for all of 

them. 

The United States Coast Guard is a first-rate organization and 

does outstanding work. It is my hope that through an open process 

and full debate, we can determine what the needs are and what the 

Coast Guard’s responsibilities should be to protect America and 

preserve our waterways. 

I look forward to the perspectives of our panelists, and I yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing, you and the gentleman from Ohio. 

Each of us, I believe, Mr. Chairman, holds the Coast Guard and 

its distinguished service to our Nation in the highest regard. I will 

admit I am somewhat subjective. As a former member of the Coast 

Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve, I am very proud of America’s 

oldest continuous seagoing service. 

For this reason, I appreciate the Chairman calling this hearing 

because despite each of our best efforts, there is always room for 

improvement. 

It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that the Coast Guard is unique, 

among other reasons, because of its structure and flexibility. On a 

daily basis, Coast Guard men and women focus upon drug interdiction, environmental protection, migrant interdiction, port security, 

search and rescue, homeland security and maritime safety. 

In fact, we would be remiss if we did not recognize that this coming Saturday, the Coast Guard’s birthday, by the way, there will 

be a ceremony held to recognize that the Coast Guard has been involved in rescuing more than one million persons since its inception 

in 1790. 

Because of this tradition and storied history, I believe it is important that we tread lightly with regards to today’s hearing topic. If 

the result of this hearing is an effort to compromise the multiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Mar 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37368.TXT HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
6

faceted nature of the Coast Guard, Mr. Chairman, this causes me 

some concern. 

Instead, I hope it will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders 

to voice their respective concerns, provide constructive feedback 

and work together to improve the marine safety aspect of the Coast 

Guard. 

It is my firm belief, Mr. Chairman, that we are blessed with the 

world’s best Coast Guard. I don’t believe a good purpose would be 

served in attempting to create or invent a second Coast Guard. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Coble, before I call on Mr. Young, let me just 

say this, that there is nothing that you just said that I disagree 

with. I think that any person or any entity that is not constantly 

self-examining is bound to run into trouble. 

We just want to make sure we take a look at what we are doing 

and take a look at how effectively and how efficiently we are doing 

it so that we can continue, so that when you and I are dancing 

with the angels, we will still have the great organization that we 

have in the Coast Guard. 

With that, Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate your 

comments as well as those of the gentleman who spoke before me. 

A little history about the Coast Guard in the sense of new history: We created the Department of Homeland Security, and I was 

Chairman of this Committee. We were down at the President’s office with all the other cabinet members and Members of the body. 

I spoke then and I said I prefer the Service remain with the Department of Transportation. Then they showed me the flow chart 

and they had the Coast Guard under Border Patrol. 

Very frankly, with the help of Mr. Oberstar, the Chairman now, 

we said you won’t have a bill if you try to dismantle the Coast 

Guard. 

I am interested in this hearing. I do think the one problem the 

Coast Guard may be having in this marine safety regulatory arena 

is the lack of resources. I have had the privilege of serving in this 

House for 35 years, and I have watched us put additional burdens 

on the Coast Guard without really funding them as they should be 

funded. 

I think it is our responsibility if we find that the marine safety 

regulatory functions are not adequately done, let us find out why 

and let us fix that problem because you don’t fix a problem by 

transferring the problem into another agency. 

To weaken this agency, the Coast Guard, by dismantling it or attempting to dismantle it would discredit what we did when we created Homeland Security because if you look at that flow chart now, 

right straight across, Secretary, Coast Guard. The Admiral is right 

next to it, and that gives them the ability to fulfill their missions. 

If I sound a little bit interested in this, as Mr. Coble has mentioned, we have the most active Coast Guard unit, I believe, in the 

United States in Alaska. We deeply relish your participation, Admiral, search and rescue primarily and all the other things you do 

for the State of Alaska. 

7

And so, I am here today to hear and to hope if there is a problem 

that we address it and solve it within the House which we represent. 

With that, I yield back the balance. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Congressman Young. 

Admiral Allen, welcome. 

Mr. Baird, did you have an opening statement? Thank you. 

Admiral Allen, it is good to see you back. You have been very 

busy. It is good to have you back, and we will now hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN, COMMANDANT, 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Admiral ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative 

LaTourette, Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for 

the opportunity to testify here today, and I am pleased to discuss 

the Coast Guard’s marine safety programs and responsibilities. 

Mr. Chairman, this is the right hearing at the right time. Let me 

compliment your staff on the detailed background paper prepared 

for this hearing. The paper raises important issues, and with your 

permission I will provide detailed responses for the record. 

Let me acknowledge up-front that catastrophic events such as 

the Marine Electric, El Toro II, Miss Majestic and the Lady D have 

identified key points of system, organizational and personnel failures in both industry and in government, and we need to learn 

from that. 

We should also acknowledge that there has been a significant increase in the overall safety performance of the maritime transportation system in the last two decades, many of it due to legislation 

passed by this Congress such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

While maritime safety is the focus of today’s hearing, resource 

has been mentioned repeatedly, and this is a program area that 

highlights an enduring challenge for the Coast Guard. The challenge is the ability for the Coast Guard, or any Federal agency for 

that matter, to adapt statutory authorities accumulated over a long 

period of time to a changing external environment that changes 

agency governance structures, operating procedures and human resource development. 

Moreover, this adaptation is taking place in the context of 

globalization, rapid changes in technology and maritime transportation—LNG would be an example of that—and increasing public 

transparency and accountability. This hearing is intended to do 

that today, and I congratulate you on it. 

My testimony for the record contains a more detailed discussion 

of our maritime safety program, its history and current issues, and 

I ask that it be submitted for the record. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It is ordered. 

Admiral ALLEN. I will address a few key points and will be happy 

to answer any questions you have for me. 

Let me start by saying I believe there is a general agreement on 

the current issues facing the Coast Guard. I have talked to my industry counterparts. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this and 

have proposed that developing a consensus on a way forward 

should be our mutual goal. 

8

The Coast Guard is addressing a number of challenges in executing our marine safety mission, but the most important in my 

view are the capacity and the competency of our workforce at a 

time when demand for our maritime safety services has never been 

higher. 

As Commandant, I am most concerned about the following: marine inspector training, qualification and staffing; merchant mariner licensing and documentation; and Coast Guard rulemaking. 

Before discussing these challenges, let me just take a moment to 

provide some context. 

The Coast Guard’s maritime safety program has been informed 

by more than two centuries of maritime experience. The Coast 

Guard formally assumed maritime safety duties in 1946. 

Since then, we have conducted more than 1.7 million domestic 

vessel inspections and credentialed more than 7.5 million merchant 

marines. We have also conducted more than 280,000 examinations 

on foreign vessels since the start of our Port State Control Program 

in 1994. 

Because of this, we benefit from the largest, safest and most efficient maritime transportation system in the world, one that has 

grown by some 18 percent over the last 10 years and will only continue to grow. We are committed more than ever to meeting our 

obligations and responsibilities to the maritime industry. 

Our services at the port level are primarily focused on our marine inspection program. However, we do have centralized vessel 

documentation and plan review and are in the process of centralizing merchant mariner licensing and documentation. We also 

maintain a cadre of highly experienced traveling inspectors who 

perform specialized inspection duties worldwide and serve as a center of excellence for our inspection program. 

Rulemaking is a headquarters function. 

We recently unified all port operations into sector commands. As 

the Coast Guard senior officer at the port level within their respective geographics areas, sector commanders are charged by statute 

and regulation as the Captain of the Port, officer in charge of marine inspection, Federal on-scene coordinator for oil and hazardous 

material spill response, Federal maritime security coordinator and 

search and rescue mission coordinator. 

This unification of command and control at the port level was 

driven primarily by industry needs. Our sector commanders provide a single voice to address all matters of interest to the maritime industry, a one-stop shop. They also play a vital role in coordinating and integrating maritime activities and interests among the 

Federal, State and local partners. 

The Coast Guard listened to our stakeholders, and we responded. 

Sectors unify all Coast Guard competencies under one roof and one 

leader. This operational model allows the most rapid and effective 

response to maritime incidents and facilitates the closest coordination among preparedness, prevention and response activities. 

Let me talk about inspections. In my first year as Commandant, 

I visited every district in the Coast Guard. I spoke with thousands 

of Coast Guard personnel. The single most recurring theme at the 

port level was concern for the level of staffing, qualifications and 

9

tour length for our marine inspectors, and I have taken this for action. 

In the last year, I have directed significant changes and improvements in the training and qualifications of our inspectors to keep 

pace with the technological advancements and growth in maritime 

industry. We have made changes to our warrant officer selection 

system to bring more talented and experienced enlisted personnel 

into the maritime safety specialty. 

We have learned valuable lessons from joint military and civilian 

staffing of our sector command centers and our vessel traffic services. These are areas where we used to have Coast Guard personnel only staffing. We now have brought civilian personnel in to 

provide continuity, corporate memory and way to bridge during the 

transfer season, so we get the best of training for our people in uniform by maintaining continuity of services. 

I am committed to the establishment of more civilian positions 

in the marine inspection field. We need people with critical job 

skills. We need to maintain continuity while providing our military 

members access to this type of experience. We must leverage and 

expand this dual staffing model. 

Getting the inspection program right in terms of training, qualifications and staffing is my highest maritime safety priority. 

Let me discuss rulemaking very quickly. The Coast Guard currently has sufficient legal authority, subject matter experts, legal 

staff and extensive experience with the Administrative Procedures 

Act to develop and issue necessary regulations. We lack capacity. 

Legislative mandates have increased our rulemaking backlog 

substantially since 9/11. Additionally, many of our rulemakings require extensive economic, environmental and policy analysis to 

meet current legal and administrative requirements. The result 

has been a backlog that is unacceptable to me, our stakeholders 

and our overseers. 

This is purely a resource issue, and I have directed my staff to 

do an analysis of the resources required and any policy changes 

needed to significantly improve our throughput. 

Let me discuss merchant mariner licensing and documentation. 

The Coast Guard has taken aggressive steps to improve merchant 

mariner licensing and documentation. Centralization of application 

processing will provide greater opportunity to focus on our efforts 

and gain economies of scale while reducing backlogs, ensuring credentials are only issued to qualified persons and ensuring uniformity in interpretation of the regulations. 

Transferring these functions from the field regional exam centers 

throughout the Country will take place over the next two years. 

The implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential and continued growth and demand for merchant mariner credentials presents a challenge to the program. 

The timing of the National Maritime Center restructuring, however, introduces opportunities to ensure that the TWIC and MLD 

programs work in concert with each other. We are working very 

closely with our partners in the Transportation Security Agency to 

assure that end is met. 

What we must improve is our customer service at the port. Automation will improve efficiencies, but mariners must have a responVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Mar 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37368.TXT HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
10

sive face to deal with when needed especially during the transition 

period. 

Let me discuss leadership and industry relations. I have always 

believed that unit performance starts and ends with leadership. 

Leadership at the port level, at the district level and at headquarters necessarily includes communication with stakeholders and 

the development of shared goals that further the safety and security of the maritime transportation system. This enhances mission 

performance and facilitates commerce. 

Near-term demands of maritime security issues have appropriately dominated national and port level agendas since the attacks of 9/11. I believe now is the time to reassess our performance 

to ensure we remain focused on maritime safety as well. I have 

communicated this intent directly to my field commanders. 

I have consulted with numerous former Coast Guard maritime 

safety experts and industry leaders. I believe their experiences and 

perspectives will be critical to guiding us as we move forward. The 

Committee’s leadership has been helpful as well. 

To better serve me and the maritime industry, I am establishing 

an Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship at Coast Guard Headquarters, who will serve as my direct 

contact with industry. That individual will be Rear Admiral Brian 

Salerno, a well known expert in maritime safety in the Coast 

Guard. 

One of his first duties will be to take a holistic look at our maritime safety program, specifically those challenges we are discussing 

here today. He will ensure that the Service will provide the maritime industry effective, consistent, professional service. 

Whether it was by strategic intent, foresight or reaction to catastrophic events, the Coast Guard was created and evolved to integrate Federal roles at the port level. We have the right operational 

model. There is not a better one in the world. But we must become 

more adaptable to the needs of the Nation and our maritime commerce. 

As I said earlier, I believe we agree on the major issues. I roger 

the message the Committee and industry are sending, and we are 

on task. 

In closing, I would caution: Changes in functional responsibilities 

do not solve shortfalls in resources and more likely create greater 

needs. 

The issues to be discussed here today as they relate to the Coast 

Guard tasking and performance evolved in the Departments of 

Treasury, Transportation and now Homeland Security over time 

and under the oversight of Congress. 

The time is right to affirm the Coast Guard critical role in maritime safety with an honest assessment of the resources required. 

I look forward to that dialogue, and I would be happy to take your 

questions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank you, Admiral, very much for your statements. As you were talking, I just could not help but think about 

something that Mr. Young said. I want to make it very clear, and 

I think Mr. Coble alluded to it also. 

First of all, let me thank you for agreeing that we need to hold 

this hearing, but I want to make sure that we understand that 

11

what we are doing is just trying to look at what we have. It is like 

looking in the mirror. 

I remember when my 26 year old was 3, she would say, daddy, 

let us play hide and go seek. Then she would stand in front of me, 

Admiral, and she would put her hand up in front of her face and 

say, you can’t find me. 

That is okay for a three year old but not for us. We have got to 

look ourselves in the mirror and figure out exactly what it is and 

be honest with ourselves to do what we need to do. 

This is not an attack on anybody. This is trying to figure out 

where we are. I think you know me well enough to know that. 

Admiral ALLEN. It is not interpreted as that, Mr. Chairman. We 

are aligned. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now let me ask you this. I listened to what you 

just said, and I agree with you. You have heard me say this many 

times. Particularly after 9/11, we saw the Coast Guard’s responsibilities and duties get stretched, stretched, stretched, but we 

didn’t see the money and the resources getting stretched. 

I often use the idea of the rubber band. You can stretch, stretch, 

stretch and at some point you are going to break. 

I want you to just help us succinctly. I know you just gave your 

presentation. You made some decisions, as you just went through, 

to address various issues. 

As I look at this group of books here, and these are the volumes 

of the Marine Safety Manual and the code of federal regulations 

dealing with marine safety, I am just wondering taking into account what you just talked about and I want to see how it fits in. 

How can the Coast Guard personnel who rotate into and out of 

marine safety have the same level of expertise as an FAA inspector 

who spends his whole career inspecting aircraft? Help me with how 

you will plan to deal with that and if there are resources that are 

necessary, what would you need? 

Are you following what I am saying? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir, I am. Yes, sir, good question. 

If I could divide it up into what I call capacity and the makeup 

of the workforce, in other words, the human resources part of this. 

Until we get a civilian Commandant, you are always going to need 

people in blue suits that have knowledge of these issues, that have 

worked in them, can deal in policy rulemaking, budgetary requests 

and testify like I am here today. 

So we need a blend of workforce that has the right competency, 

the right experience and continuity to provide predictability in the 

service we provide to the maritime community, but we also need 

to be able to bring officers in and give them that experience. In my 

view, that takes a blended workforce, and I alluded to it in my 

statement. 

But the components of that right now are we have enlisted people that gain technical skills over their careers, that access to warrant officer that make very excellent inspectors. They are the ones 

that are down there, who spend years doing this as their enlisted 

ratings, and then we access these warrant officers to lieutenants 

and lieutenant commanders. That is a very, very core bench 

strength that we have. 

12

We also need to take a look at where we need to civilianize billets. As you know, and the statements allude to this, following the 

merger or movement of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, we actually had these guys called 219ers that we brought 

actually out of the merchant mariner community, brought them 

into the Coast Guard and brought their skills. 

They then trained a generation of inspectors who are now retiring. I have actually presided at their retirements. We need a way 

to replace that continuity, that corporate memory, that skill that 

retains at the unit while we back that up with the warrant officers 

who have an enlisted background and then officers we access from 

the merchant marine academies and the Coast Guard Academy. 

It is a matter of how you blend that to achieve both the competency you have to build in your workforce but maintain that continuity of service and that corporate memory and the ability to deal 

with that body of knowledge, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am going to just use this Empress of the North 

example to try to get to some of the bottom line issues and how 

you see. It sounds like you have looked at this pretty carefully, and 

I guess you are self-examining every day almost, trying to figure 

out exactly how to be more effective and efficient. 

But I want to use this just to kind of see how your plans would 

work with us, okay. So just bear with me. 

On May 14th, the passenger vessel, Empress of the North 

grounded near Juneau, Alaska. As you know, over 200 passengers 

were safely evacuated. However, the NTSB reported that the Empress of the North was equipped with 22 inflatable life rafts and 

2 inflatable slides. 

Safety Board investigators were informed that about half the 

launching mechanisms in the life rafts did not operate properly. Investigators also learned that while the crew attempted to launch 

the vessel’s evacuation slides, they inflated upside-down. This resulted in the slides having to be manually turned over by crew 

members. 

So either the Coast Guard did not adequately supervise the servicing of these rafts or it didn’t adequately oversee the installation 

of the rafts when they were returned to the vessel. 

This is what I want to get to: Admiral, was it a lack of oversight 

by the Coast Guard at the service facility that serviced the rafts 

or the lack of knowledge by the Coast Guard inspector who inspected the vessel in February of this year that caused the lifesaving equipment on the Empress of the North to malfunction? 

Do Coast Guard inspectors have the training and expertise to determine if an evacuation slide is installed upside-down on a vessel? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. Let me give you the basic structure by 

which this equipment is inspected, and there was a change in this. 

I believe it was in 1997. We issued a Federal Notice Register that 

changed our program somewhat. 

What we do is we actually go to the manufacturers and we inspect first in class or we do type examinations. So if there is going 

to be a production line of a life raft or something like that, our inspector would go make sure the production line is producing the articles that meet the required safety specifications. 

13

After that, we do spot checks and we also use third party, like 

underwriter labs or third party verification for the actual production. 

The one exception to that are life boats. A life boat is a constructed boat not a raft, and we do inspect those at the manufacturer facilities ourselves. 

As part of the periodic inspections of these vessels, our boarding 

teams, our inspectors take a look at the various safety apparatuses 

and so forth. 

Regarding the specific slides that are in question, I would be 

happy to answer for the record whether or not that was actually 

checked in the process of that inspection, but we normally inspect 

safety equipment and we have a standard checklist that we go 

through. 

[Information follows:]

14


37368.012
15

Admiral ALLEN. So the way the rafts were packed, installed and 

inverted, a couple of issues there, one related to the servicing of the 

equipment themselves, whether or not that might have been found 

in an inspection, and I would be glad to give you a detailed answer 

for the record on the inspection. 

[Information follows:]

16


37368.013
17

Mr. CUMMINGS. That is fine, but what I am trying to get to is 

I assume we learned something from that. The Coast Guard 

learned? 

Admiral ALLEN. We did. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I guess what I am trying to get to is that taking 

into account all of what you said in your opening, fit that problem 

into making sure that, say, lifesaving equipment is correctly serviced and installed. 

What I am trying to get to is how does what you just said help 

to address this and do you think it would adequately address it? 

I guess that is what it is. 

We will go on to Mr. LaTourette. 

Admiral ALLEN. Let me give you an overview of what has been 

done in the last six months, then offer to give you some detailed 

information for the record. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That will be fine. 

Admiral ALLEN. Following the establishment of sectors, we 

thought it was important to make sure that the subject matter expertise related to marine inspection, port security and environmental response were maintained because we were integrating different commands into a single command that is the right operational model, as I told you. 

We established a work group last year to take a look at all the 

different jobs that are in a sector and validate training and qualifications related to that. 

As a result of that, we have changed the curriculum and the syllabus for training our marine inspectors as it relates to hull inspection, safety equipment and so forth. We have changed the content 

of the training and the qualifications that our inspectors are using 

based on the technologies they are encountering out there at the 

time. 

I can provide a detailed review of before and after on how the 

safety inspections are being conducted and how that training is 

provided, sir. 

[Information follows:]

18


37368.014
19

Mr. CUMMINGS. Finally, tell us specifically. Mr. Young was very 

kind to talk about resources, and I was glad he did. I think that 

what you have here is a bipartisan group of Congresspersons who 

want to help. 

Tell us, in order for you to carry out the mission that you want 

to carry out and for safety, for this whole program to be all that 

you want it to be, what do you need from us? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, I think it is a two-part question, sir. 

First of all, I need to give you a staffing model and a qualification model. Only we can do that. We are the ones that have to look 

at the task and what do we have now, what needs to be changed. 

We have done that over the last six to twelve months and can provide that to you. 

[Information follows:]

20


37368.015
21

Admiral ALLEN. The second thing is if you have a higher level 

of training and qualifications that you need, then you have to have 

the ability to take time to do that. That starts moving into the resource area. 

So there are two drivers on capacity. One of them is increased 

training requirements to make our people competent in the new 

technologies they have to deal with, and the second one is workload 

associated with the changing technology. 

Sir, as you and I have talked before, the vast growth in LNG 

tankers coming to this Country, we have over 40 permits that are 

pending. With the pending towing vessel regulations that are coming out, the potential adds 7,000 more vessels to our inspection program. 

There is a qualitative aspect to this in how you train and maintain the competencies. Then it is how many people you have to do 

it, sir. 

The former, we can do. The latter is a resource discussion, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We received testimony from lifesaving manufacturers that some factories haven’t seen a Coast Guard inspector in 

over a decade. Do you think that is accurate? 

Admiral ALLEN. I don’t know, sir. If you give me the information, 

we will follow up and answer for the record. 

[Information follows:]

22


37368.016
23

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. That should be happening, though, 

shouldn’t it? 

Admiral ALLEN. It depends on what the article is. Again, the procedure is that we would inspect the first article and then after 

that, if there is an underwriter lab or some certification of a third 

party, that would happen and we would do spot checks. 

To the extent there should have been a spot check and it was not 

happening in a particular manufacturer, I would be anxious to 

know that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We will get that information to you. 

Mr. LaTourette, thank you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Admiral. It is good to 

see you again. 

I see that Admiral Salerno drew the short straw and he is here 

two days in the same week. 

Admiral ALLEN. We rewarded him with a promotion 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LATOURETTE. In your opening remarks, you talked about 

tour length. One of the observations being made by some folks is 

that perhaps the marine safety mission is not seen within the 

Coast Guard as a good career path for promotion and other things, 

not where the action is. Do you have an observation whether that 

is accurate or not? 

Admiral ALLEN. I get questioned at all-hands meetings about 

where we are going with a program, and any time there is a program in transition, if you work in that program, you are going to 

wonder what is the impact on me. 

I have been very clear in my communication to the field. In fact, 

I have sent messages to all commands and I actually sent a global 

e-mail to everybody in the Coast Guard, reinforcing the value of 

this mission, where it stands with me and the value of this mission 

inside the Coast Guard mission set. So I don’t think there is any 

doubt about what I have communicated. 

Now I am not the only one that sends signals. The greatest impact on the morale of our marine inspectors right now is the fact 

this hearing is being held. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you or does the Service have the ability to 

offer special skill pay or incentive pay for billets in certain missions 

and do you? 

Admiral ALLEN. We do. Some of it requires legislative authorities. Right now, in the officer ranks, it would be aviation pay and 

things like that. At the enlisted level, we have the authority to 

offer incentive pay for special ratings and bonuses for re-enlistment, but there is a structure there where it can be used. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. In particular, if there is a weakness in the marine safety end of things, do you have the authority or did you just 

say you need statutory authority to do it to attract more people on 

the marine safety side? 

Admiral ALLEN. I believe there are some things we can do to 

incentivize that, but I think actual pay itself may require a legislative authority, but I will check and answer for the record if that 

is okay. That is a good question. 

[Information follows:]

24


37368.017
25

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. 

There are some folks who are proposing that there be the creation of a new Marine Safety Administration, that the marine safety mission be removed from the Coast Guard and transferred to the 

Department of Transportation. I think I know your answer, but for 

the record, would you sort of comment on your view of a proposal 

like that? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, as I alluded to in my opening statement, 

the evolution of the Coast Guard for over two centuries has been 

one of increasing responsibilities. So the people who have the capacity and capacity to operate imports and on the water are doing 

that for the Nation rather than different agencies doing it. 

By extension, offshore, NOAA and the National Marine Fishery 

Service do not operate cutters offshore. We do that for them and 

enforce those regulations. It creates a great value to the Country. 

But I will tell you beyond that, having been a former Captain of 

the Port in Long Island Sound, the ability to bring together response forces, to be able to take control under a captain of port authority and direct vessels to anchorage or movement of vessels, to 

be able to bring in technical assistance in the form of inspecting 

officers and marine inspectors to inform issues like stability of 

grounded ships and what you should do with a damaged ship, to 

bring that together in one unified command to optimize response 

for this Federal Government, priceless. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. In both this hearing and the hearing that we 

had on Tuesday on the ALJ business, the Chairman in his opening 

remarks has talked about some information that has come to his 

attention that people are afraid. They are afraid of the ALJ system. 

They are apparently afraid of the marine safety. 

I don’t know if I know who those people are, but it concerns me 

to hear the Chairman say that. Could you just comment for a moment about what cooperation and/or participation level the Coast 

Guard has with the mariner community and do you think there is 

a reason that people should be afraid of the service. 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, I am not going to attribute a motive to 

somebody else’s behavior when I don’t sit inside their head. 

I can tell you this and I think it should be apparent to the Committee and anybody that has ever known me. I live by a couple of 

rules in my life. One is transparency of information breeds self-correcting behavior and anybody that works for me has to be able to 

speak truth to power. 

I will meet with anybody, anywhere and talk about any issue. I 

don’t think anybody that has ever known me doesn’t think that I 

am approachable as a senior leader, and I have directed my field 

commanders to reach out to the industry. 

We have area maritime security committees that help us execute 

our security duties. We have area committees who help us do oil 

spill response planning. We exercise that. We just completed a spill 

of national significance exercise in the Memphis area as a result 

of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 requirements. We are all over the 

ports, working every day with these stakeholders. 

If there is a problem or they feel they can’t talk to the Coast 

Guard, then somebody needs to stand up their own height to walk 

in and tell the Captain of the Port that. 

26

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What about telling you? Let me be real clear. 

Admiral ALLEN. I get e-mails from industry from time to time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me be very clear. Let me be very clear. I 

didn’t raise that as something light. 

Admiral ALLEN. I understand, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. There are probably very few Members of Congress that spend as much time making sure that witnesses are 

treated properly. I have said it in the last hearing, and I will say 

it again. I have actually apologized for Members of Congress for the 

way they treated witnesses, so that is very, very significant to me 

because I think it goes to the very essence of what we do here. 

Now I understand the question, but I can tell you that there 

were people who were concerned about coming to testify, and there 

may be some in the audience, who were worried that if they testified that there might be some type of retaliation at some point, not 

from you—not from you—but I am just telling you that. We can act 

like it doesn’t exist, but when I see it I am going to raise it. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. I roger the signal. We will look into it, 

sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am sorry. 

Admiral ALLEN. I roger the signal. We will look into it, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, I know you will back me up on that. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That was not directed towards you. I want to 

make that clear. As you have heard me say many, many times, I 

have the utmost confidence. But I just wanted to make that clear 

because I think it gets in the way of us doing what we are supposed to do up here, and so that is all. 

Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Allen, good to see you again. 

I have some questions about the Pacific Northwest. There are examples cited in our memo, prep memo about the situation with our 

four Steel Electrics and the Washington State ferry system. 

I think in fairness the story, if you will, told in the prep memo 

is not a full story of all the issues. It focuses strictly on the Coast 

Guard, but there are many issues around the problems that we 

have with the four Steel Electric ferries and the Washington State 

ferry system: 80 years old, our inability to site a new dock, the inadequacy of the current terminals in Keystone and Port Townsend 

to accommodate larger ferries and, again, the subsequent inability 

to site terminals in a different place for a variety of reasons, none 

of which have to do with the Coast Guard, I might add. 

I think as far as that goes, there is a bigger story to tell. I want 

to be clear about that. I have talked to your local folks on this issue 

because there has been some press around it, not with regards to 

the Coast Guard but with regards to our own State Department of 

Transportation and what we are doing. 

Also, the legislature has a piece of the story. Our own legislature 

has a piece of the story. It is a much bigger story than I think what 

is conveyed herein our prep memo. I want to be clear about that. 

27

With regards to the Coast Guard role, there are I think some 

good questions to ask and are asked in the prep memo. In conversations with your folks, they have done a good job of being open 

and clear and transparent about what their role has been, but I do 

have a couple good questions here to ask. 

I do have some questions about how the COI is issued, the certificate of inspection, that says this thing is safe to go, send her out 

in the water. A good question is that each of the Steel Electrics 

have received a certificate of inspection within the last eight 

months, and yet there have been some cracks in some hulls. 

In fact, the Illahee just came out of dry dock two day ago. It was 

in the water yesterday and got a six inch crack in it again, so now 

it is back in dry dock. I personally think that was probably more 

a function of it being 80 years old as opposed to anything else, but 

can you help me understand that process, how a COI gets issued 

in this kind of circumstance? 

It is important that we have these ferries. We are a little ways 

from replacing them, but they need to be safe as well. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. The issue with the ferries in Puget 

Sound is a real interesting one because it kind of highlights some 

built-in tensions that operate in ports and they are natural tensions. There is not a good or a bad. There are competing issues, as 

you noted yourself. 

One of the things that the Coast Guard sees itself as doing is 

being an honest broker in resolving those tensions of which there 

is not a clear black or white answer. It is usually gray or plaid or 

something. 

Now, in this case, these ferries which have been operating since 

about 1927 are getting old. Our inspectors detected a real problem 

with being able to examine the hulls, as you know, because they 

had put cement ballast to make the ferries ride better. It got to the 

point where we didn’t feel from the Coast Guard standpoint that 

we could issue a certificate of inspection without properly being 

able to assess the hull and could not do that with the concrete in 

place. 

That resulted in the order being given that the concrete ballast 

had to be removed. That caused several other issues related to the 

timing of the dry docks and then the other issues with the damage 

that was done to the one ferry as a result of the dry docks. 

This is one of those things where sometimes it becomes as much 

an art as it is a science. You know what the structural issues are 

with the ship. We know what the needs of the community are. We 

know that when it went down to a one ferry service, there was 

going to be significant impact on the community. 

This is one of those cases where you sit down and you communicate openly with the Coast Guard. We lay out what the requirements are. 

I don’t normally quote the press, given the last year or so, but 

I would just like to quote this from the Peninsula Daily News: 

‘‘Coast Guard safety inspectors in June ordered all concrete ballast 

removed from the Nisqually and three other Steel Electric ferry 

hulls to allow for closer inspections. The Coast Guard’s Inspection 

Division Chief ... ’’

28

This is not the sector commander. This is the guy that is empowered, the subject matter expert at that command. 

‘‘ ... John D. Dwyer, had originally set a deadline of today to pull 

the Nisqually if state ferries had not yet removed the concrete ballast. However, considering the extenuating circumstances, Dwyer 

allowed the extension. 

‘‘ ’We just wanted to make sure we had two boats to serve the 

community,’ said Marta Coursey, State Ferries Director of Communications. ’It was a matter of contacting Coast Guard officials and 

saying this is going to put our communities in stress.’ ’’

These are the day to day issues that we work at the port level, 

and that is the reason it is so important they were able to have 

inspection capability, their issues with traffic management, their 

issues with land management, of the movement of vehicles and the 

queueing of vehicles. 

Sometimes you have to sit down and take a look at what the regs 

say, what is the best safety decision you can make, understanding 

the need to facilitate commerce, and they are always the same, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Can I just have a follow-up, Mr. Chairman? 

To get at one of the concerns that are being brought up, in this 

case, it seems to me, and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, 

but this is not a function of whether or not the Coast Guard has 

the capacity to do an appropriate and effective marine safety inspection regime. 

Admiral ALLEN. No. This is a competency issue. 

Mr. LARSEN. It is a much more complex issue. 

Admiral ALLEN. The judgement and competency issue, yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, my concern is this interest of moving the safety part 

into another agency. In your opinion, how would that improve safety, number one, and, number two, wouldn’t it be better to have the 

maritime safety regulatories in the same service, knowing what 

one another are doing? 

I have been in this business long enough to know that a lot of 

times agencies don’t even talk to one another. That is why we created the Homeland Security Bill. 

So if we go back and create a new agency, who will know better 

than this Committee? 

By the way, Mr. Chairman, if that was to happen, it would go 

to the Armed Services or, no, it would stay in Transportation and 

be okay, but it would be a little bit different. 

I don’t see the improvement here. Again, I like what you have 

said about what you are doing now, and I think that is what we 

have to start pursuing. 

Admiral ALLEN. Let me give you a microcosm for an answer, sir. 

When I was the Captain of the Port of Long Island Sound from 

1993 to 1996, I had Captain of the Port authority. I was not the 

officer in charge of marine inspection which is the marine safety 

function. I was covered by an area that was basically serviced out 

of New York. 

29

I had a tank barge ground off New Haven and two to three million gallons of oil in the barge. I had to make decisions about controlling the waterway, responding to a potential spill, managing 

the issues associated with that, had to compete with another command to have them release an inspector to come up and give me 

technical support. 

Long Island is now a sector and has its own marine inspectors 

assigned to it. If that barge grounds again today, the organic capability exists to simultaneously manage the waterway, manage a potential spill and how you would manage that, and have an inspector there to consult with on structural issues related to the disposition of the barge as part of a unified command. 

If you can expand that to an agency to agency setting, it will become more difficult, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. You mentioned something about civilian employees. 

One of the things I am interested in is have you a cadre of retired 

inspectors or people who have gone to other careers available to 

you to fulfill the job of inspections? 

Admiral ALLEN. We don’t now, but as part of my earlier answer, 

we have found in other areas, specifically search and rescue, search 

planning at our operations centers and our vessel traffic systems, 

similar to the ones in Valdez and Seattle, where we have had 

issues with turnover and continuity especially in summer transfer 

seasons, that we have taken former military and, in most cases, 

former Coast Guard folks and hired them back as civilians. 

So we have a blended workforce of civilians who have corporate 

memory and the young folks that are coming in that are getting 

needed training on how these systems work and gaining their competencies. Moving forward, we are going to have to take a look at 

that blended workforce and the number of civilians and how we access civilians, but there is no doubt in my mind we need additional 

civilians for the continuity that you all have mentioned. 

Mr. YOUNG. The industry itself—and I should know this answer—do they have their own inspectors for vessels also and, if so, 

who trains them? 

Admiral ALLEN. That is a good question, sir. 

Right now, a large portion of those inspections are done by classification societies. The largest one in the United States would be the 

American Bureau of Shipping. Quite frankly, they access their engineers and inspectors the same way we do. 

I am affiliated, by my status as the Commandant of the Coast 

Guard, with the American Bureau of Shipping. I can tell you all 

the marine industries in this Country right now are challenged accessing inspectors, engineers, and people of that type of background. With the growing needs we have in the Country, the workforce out there that we are competing for is small, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. I have read most of the testimony from the future 

witnesses. I won’t be here. But I have not found any testimony to 

say they want to transfer the regulatory safety issues to another 

agency. 

I have seen where some of them are testifying that they think 

there could be more civilian involvement in inspections and enforcement of under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. I guess it 

has been done before, and it probably could be addressed again. 

30

My interest here, as again I think it is the Chairman’s interest, 

is to make sure we have the safest and how do we best achieve 

that. I still think it should stay within the agency that has the 

most knowledge and the most control. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Young. 

Just one real quick question before we go to Mr. Oberstar, how 

do you suggest we put folk in the pipeline? 

It sounds like we need some folk in the pipeline, getting to eventually become a part of that program. I guess you have given that 

some thought. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. We have done that two ways right now. 

One of them is restructuring how we access enlisted folks to warrants and warrants into marine safety field. These are really folks 

that have a lot of experience, and they are terrific for us. 

The second is a revised curriculum and syllabus on how we are 

actually training the people who are going to our ports right now. 

It took over the last year, we have developed, and that is going into 

effect. That is the information I offered to provide you for the 

record. 

Admiral ALLEN. We also access folks into the program from other 

maritime universities, Merchant Marine Academy, New York Maritime, Cal Maritime and so forth. 

Then the big question before us is if we are going to create a civilian cadre to ensure some of the continuity we have been talking 

about here, how do you describe those positions? At what level do 

you do that? Then how do you access them in? 

My sense is, as we found out with search and rescue and vessel 

traffic systems, there are plenty of folks out there that are ready 

for a second career that could do that, and I think there is an applicant pool waiting, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank you for chairing the hearing, Mr. 

Cummings. 

I had intended to be here and support this hearing right from the 

very outset, but a matter of a bridge tragedy in Minnesota has derailed my day as did the markup that was very long and following 

which I had a news conference. I apologize to Members for not 

being here, but we have an ongoing problem, as does the Coast 

Guard have an ongoing problem. 

Admiral Allen, thank you for your candor, for your responsiveness to the proposal that I have offered. If nothing else, it has sure 

mobilized you. You have covered the Country from one end to the 

other. Homeland Security has been in high gear ever since this proposal got out on the waterways. 

You have, to a very large degree, intimidated all these witnesses 

who are coming before us today. 

Mr. Young said, well, he said he read the testimony and people 

are not saying establish a separate entity. That is because they are 

damn scared of saying it. 

Let us be candid about it. They don’t want to be at sword’s point 

with you and those who do the vessel inspections and who do the 

certification of seafarers. Of course, not. 

31

You know Mr. Young and I were the contrary voices over at the 

White House. The President called the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Committees to discuss his proposal 

for a Department of Homeland Security. 

I will remember as long as I live Mr. Young saying, don’t mess 

with my Coast Guard, a very possessive spirit about it, and I 

backed him up on it. Leave it in the Department of Transportation. 

Don’t mess with it. 

Well, it has been co-opted just like FEMA has and with the result that one of the witnesses says the face that the industry sees 

on the waterfront is now a distinctly military one: guns, boots, an 

aura of martial law. 

Prior to September 11th, the Coast Guard’s proud military heritage was softened on the waterfront because it was seen first as an 

organization of seasoned marine safety professionals. That is how 

we have all thought of the Coast Guard. 

Today’s Coast Guard is a stranger on the working waterfront. 

That is the real spirit of those who are concerned about what has 

happened to the Coast Guard in this era of homeland security. 

What I have been concerned about increasingly is that the certifications functions, that the expertise of personnel, the pool of 

human resources that are committed to the marine safety functions 

have been diverted. It has been diverted just as FEMA was. They 

sliced off the top 250 personnel, shifting them around the Department of Homeland Security, cut of $500 million of their budget, 

shifted it elsewhere within the Department of Homeland Security, 

and then they weren’t ready for Katrina. 

Thank God, the Coast Guard was. Thank God, the Coast Guard 

was out there with its helicopters and its surface vessels and its 

skills and expertise in rescuing people. 

Thank God, the President had the good judgment to send you 

down there to the Gulf and set things aright. You did it. It is a 

great tribute to you and a great tribute to the Coast Guard. 

But it is no denigration to the Coast Guard to say that the marine safety programs are not necessarily a military function. I 

would like you to describe for me what homeland security responsibility is involved in certification of vessels and certification of seafarers. 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, sir, it is not directly a homeland security 

mission, but it is a mission that the Coast Guard has accomplished 

for a number of years. In accordance with Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act, we were transferred intact with all of our missions intact. 

My challenge as the Commandant, my responsibility as the Commandant is to execute the missions assigned. That is the reason I 

said in advance of your arrival, Mr. Chairman, that I am glad this 

hearing is being held. It is the right hearing at the right time. We 

are not talking about the competency. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You haven’t described, you haven’t provided a 

link to homeland security and certification of a vessel, homeland 

security and certification of seafarers and relicensing of seafarers. 

There really isn’t a direct linkage, is there? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, sir, I think you could say that the safety 

and the viability of the maritime transportation system in this 

32

Country is endemic to the infrastructure that the Department is responsible for protecting, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In a secondary way, yes, but the primary function 

of certification of vessels and the annual safety inspection of vessels is not a security function. It is a safety function which the 

Coast Guard is skilled at doing, right? 

Admiral ALLEN. Sir, search and rescue is a safety function. I 

don’t see any proposal that that be moved out of the Coast Guard, 

sir. Safety is a broad range of activities. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If I had my way, I would move the whole Coast 

Guard right back to Department of Transportation. 

Admiral ALLEN. I understand that is your position, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is no secret around this town. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. I would say that safety and security, as 

I said many times, are two sides of the same coin. You get a benefit 

for security when you improve safety, and you get a benefit to safety when you improve security. Having them together does create a 

synergy, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have seen that same side by side in aviation. 

That is why we created a whole new category of personnel to do 

the security function at airports and not leave it up to the airlines 

who were doing a very bad job of it, contracting it out to the lowest 

bidder. 

Had we continued with that practice, then in the Transportation 

Security Act, we might have moved the FAA over to Homeland Security because the airport screeners are performing a security function. Well, in fact, that is done, but the safety side of FAA stayed. 

I really don’t think that bifurcating safety and security was reasonable, but the safety side stayed with FAA in the Department of 

Transportation. 

Another witness says, ‘‘The recently issued documented entitled 

U.S. Coast Guard Strategy for Maritime Safety, Security and Stewardship is disappointing in its brevity, characterization and direction. Only a single page of the 54 page charter is devoted to marine 

safety.’’

That is a powerful statement, isn’t it? 

Admiral ALLEN. Are you looking for a response, sir? I am sorry. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Admiral ALLEN. The Maritime Strategy for Safety, Security and 

Stewardship is a top level document that came out of something 

called the Evergreen Process in the Coast Guard that was intended 

to encompass all of our missions. We have missions that are in 

being out there. We have mission that are emerging. The security 

mission is emerging more than the other missions right now. 

The actual amount of ink in that strategy which is a top level 

document is not indicative of the base resources in the Coast Guard 

that are applied to these things in our day to day operations. It is 

intended to guide strategy, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, another example is the longstanding inability of the Coast Guard to timely issue licenses and merchant mariner documents as required by law. They are required by law to 

have those documents. 

The witness does go on to say that problem predates September 

11, but it has been exacerbated by post-September 11 as the Coast 

33

Guard in an earlier reference has been committed to a more specific law enforcement role rather than a marine safety role. 

Admiral ALLEN. Sir, our merchant mariner documentation has 

been a problem for a long time. I had issues with this when I was 

the Seventh District Commander back in 1999 when we had a significant fraud case at our regional exam center in San Juan. 

I have always been in favor of overhauling this process, and we 

are right now. We are automating and centralizing the document 

process. We are going to go to online payments, online status of 

documentation. We are in a two year transition period right now. 

I mentioned before you arrived that it is incumbent on me, the 

Coast Guard and the folks that are working out there in the port 

that we sustain the service level and if it is not being sustained 

right now, we have to get it right, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Before I arrived, you announced, Admiral, if I 

have it right, that you are proposing the establishment of an Assistant Commandant for Maritime Safety and Security. 

Admiral ALLEN. And Stewardship, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And Stewardship. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Why does security have to be in that? That is exactly what all those folks sitting behind you are worried about. 

Admiral ALLEN. Again, sir, if you are operating in a port, it is 

very difficult to disassociate safety and security activities because 

they combine together to provide the assurance of the maritime 

transportation system there, sir. 

Our focus is to have a senior maritime security authority in the 

Coast Guard accessible by industry for all matters related to the 

port, but they will be the individual responsible for safety. There 

is another Coast Guard flag officer assigned the responsibility for 

prevention activities who will work for that flag officer. We have 

a senior executive service person that is responsible for standards. 

At the last flag board, we selected two marine safety officers for 

flag, sir 

Mr. OBERSTAR. But listen to what has happened in FEMA which 

you took charge of and, in effect, ran and put it aright. Volunteer 

fire departments are required in their submission of grant applications for firefighting apparatus, for clothing, for fire resistant clothing, for pumper trucks to show a connection to homeland security. 

Look, the terror on the border in Minnesota is fire. If you put security into this safety function, you are just compounding the problem. What we need is what we have in the FAA, skilled personnel 

who have years of seasoning, who aren’t shifted year after year 

from one post to another with only three years on staff. 

Take the example of the Corps of Engineers. They do have a 

military commander. They have a district engineer and the division 

engineers and in each of the districts, there is usually a major or 

lieutenant colonel, and he is there for three years and then goes 

to something else, but the civilian personnel stay in place. Why 

couldn’t you do that in the Coast Guard? 

Why do you have to have security in marine safety? I think that 

would be a separate function. 

34

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. First of all, I am not sure I am qualified 

to comment on homeland security as it relates to fire trucks in 

Minnesota, but I do understand your point, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I don’t ask you to do that and for your own 

good, you probably shouldn’t. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You will get the Secretary hopping mad. If he is 

mad at me, that is okay, but I don’t want him to be mad at you. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. Here is what I would propose, Mr. 

Chairman. I roger what you are saying. I roger what the industry 

is saying. 

What I propose is you tell me what is wrong and let me tell you 

the plan to fix it before we go to the more drastic step of reorganization and changes because I feel we are competent to do this 

mission. I think there are resources involved. I think we can do 

what you and the Country expect of us, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. My logic behind this proposition is that we will 

take this function, move it into where it had been until World War 

II, into a civilian department, and then fill those spaces with the 

necessary Coast Guard uniformed personnel that you need to carry 

out all these functions that the Congress has given you over the 

32 years I have served in Congress and have not provided sufficient personnel although we do increase the number in the current 

Coast Guard Authorization Bill which will come to the floor right 

after the August recess. 

We will give you, the Coast Guard, the uniformed personnel you 

need to carry out those functions, do the homeland security role 

and put the civilian function in the Department of Transportation 

where you can have longtime career professionals doing that job 

and keep the enforcement side with the Coast Guard. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. I understand your point completely, and 

I am not trying to be argumentative. I would just tell you I think 

we are up to the task. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You should be. That is your role. That is your responsibility. You are advocating for the Coast Guard. You defended 

yourself well in that document you gave me. I understand. That is 

the purpose of hearings is to have exchange of views. I want to 

hear your views. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. We are ready to be responsive to the 

issues raised by the Committee and industry regarding issues on 

staffing qualification and continuity of marine inspectors. We have 

a plan to move out on that and with a blended hybrid workforce 

that includes more civilians. We are competent to do this. We can 

do it, but it is probably going to require some resources. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I see we have votes in progress 

here. I thank you for the time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. 

Admiral, you have been pretty thoroughly examined today. I 

don’t think you have been asked this question. We continually hear 

from the Coast Guard regarding safety and security. Is there anything to be gained or lost by separating regulators from an enforcement agency? 

35

Admiral ALLEN. Well, right now, we can pretty much develop a 

single package for a ship that is entering port regarding inspections and boardings that have to be accomplished. What you run 

the risk for when you separate the functions of sequential 

boardings and inspections that we are subjecting the ships and vessels that are coming into port to increased burden on them and increased time on processing. 

What we ultimately need to do is to unify all of our actions in 

regard to a vessel, both safety and security. 

Now if there is a customer interface issue where people are wearing blue uniforms and we need to communicate better with industry what we are doing and there is a dockside manner issue, we 

can work with that. I would just say in response to an earlier comment, those people that pulled 33,000 people out in New Orleans 

were all wearing blue uniforms. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Admiral, and one more question, Mr. 

Chairman. 

I just don’t believe we can remove the marine safety mission in 

a smooth, harmonious way. I think it would be difficult. Am I right 

or wrong, Admiral? 

Admiral ALLEN. I think it would be disruptive, and it is already 

causing morale issues, the fact the hearing is being held. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Admiral. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too will be brief. 

Admiral Allen, nice to see you again. I want to go back to this 

issue that Mr. LaTourette was raising of the rotation issue. It 

seems to be a sore point. I think I can understand multiple rotations from the Coast Guard point of view, developing breadth of experience and so on, but it also seems that the down side of that 

is that we are constantly putting people in frontline positions 

where they are on a pretty steep learning curve. 

And so, my question to you is do you foresee changing the rotations for marine safety inspectors and, if you do, do you have the 

capacity to undertake that on your own or do you need greater authority? 

Admiral ALLEN. No. We can look at the rotation policies, and 

that is within my authority to manage. Whether or not it is a 

three, four or five year tour, those are things that I can manage. 

I think the real issue is getting what I would call the structure 

of the workforce right, and I mentioned that earlier. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you agree, though, with the assessment of some 

that frequent rotations tend to drive down the level of expertise 

that ought to be present on the frontline? 

Admiral ALLEN. I think that is true. 

Here is the quandary we are faced with. Sooner or later, as you 

get promoted in the Coast Guard, you become a commanding officer. If you get selected for flag, you become a district commander 

and maybe even a Commandant. When you get to there, you become a general. You are representing the entire organization. 

We have an issue of needing specialists, subject matter experts, 

but at some point we need to generalize these folks and give them 

other experiences if they are going to be promotable and move up 

36

to become executives in the organization. In corporate America, for 

example, if you are a vice president, everybody needs to understand 

corporate finance. 

What we have developed inside the Coast Guard is the notion of 

what we call a broadened specialist. What we need to look at is 

maintaining the subject matter expertise that is critical to mission 

execution and then how we can broaden these people at a later 

date and still make them promotable. They want to be able to move 

up in the organization as well. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

I have other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I will yield to Mr. 

Taylor. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Commandant, number one, I empathize with your situation, and 

I want you to know that. I very much appreciate what the Coast 

Guard did after Katrina. 

And, you get thrown a monkey wrench called the 123s. Deepwater didn’t help. So you have got a lot of challenges, and I would 

not want to be in your shoes right now, although they are still pretty good shoes to have. 

Admiral ALLEN. I am proud to be in them. 

Mr. TAYLOR. There is only one Commandant of the Coast Guard. 

My point, I heard you mention trying to bring in other groups 

to help out to fill this billet, and I heard you mention the Merchant 

Marine Academy and the other marine academies. Hardly a conversation goes by between me and an alumnus of the Merchant 

Marine Academy where they don’t worry about the future of it. 

In fact, just the other night, I had a senior at the Merchant Marine Academy who is getting ready, whose goal upon graduation is 

to be an Army Ranger. Number one, I thought, gee, what a great 

kid to go after that very, very tough task. On the flip side, I am 

thinking, geez, the taxpayers have invested a heck of a lot of 

money to teach this guy to be a maritime officer, and he is going 

to go be an Army Ranger. That doesn’t seem to make sense. 

Given that MARAD, and I have great respect for Sean 

Connaughton, often strikes me as an agency in search of a mission 

and given the maritime academies that seem to be on a roller 

coaster where all their graduates have work, none of their graduates have work, all of their graduates have work, I really do think 

there is a natural opportunity for the Coast Guard to work with 

those academies like you said. 

But what I think is missing, what I sense is missing, given some 

conversations I have had with senior officials at the Merchant Marine Academy is I am not so sure it has ever been clearly articulated that we need X number of graduates a year and we can fill 

this billet. 

I will flip that around with a conversation I had with one of the 

senior officers of the academy just last weekend where they are 

now in negotiations with the Chief of the Guard Bureau where he 

has actually articulated a number—I think the number is between 

40 and 50—of people that he wants to bring over to the Guard Bureau to make them more aware of the maritime situation in the 

homeland defense mode. 

37

So my question to you is how specific have you gotten, either 

with Secretary Connaughton or with Admiral Stewart or any of the 

other academies? 

How specific have you gotten in saying I have got this many billets that I am going to need for X number of years and can you 

work on your curriculum to help me fill those billets? 

Admiral ALLEN. I can be very specific, sir. 

First of all, I agree Sean Connaughton is a great partner and a 

former Coast Guard officer. His undergraduate institution, I will 

leave to another day. We play Merchant Marine our first football 

game this year. 

We actually have a plan every year for accessing maritime academy graduates into the Coast Guard, and I can give you. 

Mr. TAYLOR. No. Towards this goal, towards this need right here. 

Admiral ALLEN. Oh, sure, they are a great choice. They are a 

great source, yes. 

Mr. TAYLOR. But again, to what point are you going to Admiral 

Stewart or Sean Connaughton and say: I have got a vacancy. I 

have got billets that I need to fill in my maritime safety offices. 

Can you adjust your curriculum to help me fill that? 

Again, just given my limited experience with the Coast Guard, 

I do think that it was frowned upon, the short side billets, and that 

guys who wanted to have as much gold on their sleeves as you 

have thought that the only way they were going to get there was 

to go to sea. Whether you say it or not, I do think that there was 

a reluctance on the part of many of your officer corps to take a job 

like this. 

Admiral ALLEN. I don’t believe that is correct. We take graduates 

right now and, if we had positions, I would be more than happy to 

get together with Sean and the other folks and pull those folks 

over. What you have to have is the authorized position. That takes 

us back to resources. In other words, we access those people right 

now. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. So to what extent? 

Admiral ALLEN. Given an increase in billets, they are a perfect 

source, sir. I absolutely agree with you. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Admiral Allen, none of us are mind readers. So to 

what extent are you articulating that to Sean Connaughton? To 

what extent are you saying I need this many people to Admiral 

Stewart, and above all to what extent are you sending a letter to 

the Chairman here, saying I need X number of dollars to fill this 

need? 

Again, none of us are mind readers. 

Admiral ALLEN. I understand. 

Mr. TAYLOR. So has the Chairman gotten a letter towards that 

end? 

Admiral ALLEN. What I would propose is as part of the assessment that I talked about earlier in the testimony about this blended workforce, I think what we owe you is an organizational construct on how that comes together between the three components. 

Those are accessed through enlisted and warrant officers we bring 

in from either our academy or the Merchant Marine Academy and 

what we propose to do as far as creating a civilian cadre. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How soon can we get that? 

38

Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Certainly. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How soon can we get that, Admiral? 

Admiral ALLEN. Sixty days. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We will hold you to it. 

The Chairman said a month. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment, briefly. 

We have to break for the vote. 

I just have to say, Admiral, that creating a new structure within 

which you have uniformed Coast Guard and just a couple of civilian personnel who would be career people who can absorb all that 

documentation and be able to handle it like an aircraft mechanic 

does is not sufficient. That is not a sufficient answer to the need. 

Admiral ALLEN. I think we need to make the case then to you, 

sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Admiral. We are finished 

with you. 

[Laughter.] 

Admiral ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure. These 

questions are good for both of us, and it has been my pleasure to 

testify. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

We will resume the hearing. We have, as we understand it, one 

vote that might get stretched, so we will see. We will be back as 

soon as the vote is over. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We will call the hearing back into order. 

We now have Richard Block of the Gulf Coast Mariners Association; Mr. Tim Brown, President of the International Organization 

of Masters, Mates and Pilots; and Mr. Richard Doyle, Director of 

Government Affairs and Deputy General Counsel with the Marine 

Engineers’ Beneficial Association. 

I am sorry Mr. Quick is substituting for Mr. Brown. I apologize. 

I would remind our witnesses that we have, after you, six others 

to come. I know that you all have great things to say, and we want 

to hear them, but we just ask you to be as brief as you possibly 

can be. We will give each one of you five minutes. 

Keep in mind, we have your written statements, and so basically 

what we would like for you to do is summarize. 

Mr. Block. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD BLOCK, SECRETARY GULF COAST 

MARINERS ASSOCIATION; GEORGE QUICK, VICE PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND 

PILOTS; WILLIAM DOYLE, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, MARINE ENGINEERS’ BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BLOCK. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it is my honor to be invited to appear before you today 

to testify on the challenges facing the Coast Guard marine safety 

program. 

39

My name is Richard Block. I am the Secretary of the Gulf Coast 

Mariners Association. I have given a brief bio in my original statement here. 

In our attempts to improve safety and working conditions for our 

mariners, we always presented our problems to the Coast Guard 

first, often bringing them up in correspondence or advisory committee meetings. 

However, whenever the Coast Guard proved to be either unable 

or unwilling to move on these issues, we reached an impasse. This 

happened a number of times in the past eight years. When this 

happened, we would send a report to your Subcommittee, and we 

have sent a total of 14 reports in on an irregular basis. 

Our association speaks for lower level mariners. By lower level 

mariners, I am speaking of mariners who serve on vessels of under 

1,600 gross tons. We are a majority of all merchant mariners. The 

Coast Guard lists 204,000 licensed and documented mariners. 

Out of the 204,000, we speak for 126,000 plus a large number of 

people the Coast Guard appears to have been forgotten about that 

don’t hold licenses or documents and they work on the inland rivers, inland waters and offshore on vessels under 100 gross tons. So 

we probably represent almost 200,000 people. 

We try to do it as well as we can with extremely limited funding. 

One of our greatest challenges we face is that a branch of military 

superintends our civilian mariners. Now as a former Army officer, 

I understand and respect the military lifestyle. However, most of 

our mariners have never served in the Armed Forces. They do not 

understand the military lifestyle. They do not understand Coast 

Guard rank. They don’t understand how the military operates. 

I have spent 10 years in dealing with the military. I have some 

limited understanding of how the military works, and it just hasn’t 

worked too well in looking after our mariners. 

One of the first areas that I would like to touch on, I have five 

that I may be able to cover here. We reported this February on the 

substandard Coast Guard merchant marine personnel services. I 

am talking about licensing, documentation, examinations conducted 

by the National Maritime Center, by regional exam centers. 

The report dealt with 50 individual mariners. Each of these 

mariners came to me with a problem, and we tried to solve it 

through the National Maritime Center. We asked the people at the 

top. We found them very helpful. However, the answers that we received and the time it took them to give us the answers was not 

acceptable. I turn you to that particular report. 

Also, we would recommend that civilians replace the Coast 

Guard officers at the National Maritime Center. 

We have other problems with Coast Guard investigations. We 

have probably on record over 600 accidents that we have studied. 

We have asked the Coast Guard to analyze some of the data that 

they have given us. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been done. I think 

that this part of the Agency needs to be civilianized. 

The two-watch system, this is an area where we are in desperate 

need of a new law which would apply not only to masters, pilots 

and so forth but also to the unlicensed people. 

I think my time is up. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

40

Mr. Quick. 

Mr. QUICK. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Subcommittee. 

Captain Timothy Brown, the President of our organization, who 

was scheduled to speak today has a minor medical problem, and he 

has asked me to appear on his behalf. 

My name is George Quick, and I have served as Vice President 

of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots 

since 1982. I have been involved in the maritime industry since 

graduation from the United States Merchant Marine Academy. For 

the past 50 years, I have earned my livelihood in an industry that 

has been regulated by the Coast Guard. 

For many of those years, I have been in positions where I have 

had to interact with the Coast Guard on national and international 

regulatory issues. I have made many friends within the Coast 

Guard over those years. I have come to appreciate what the Coast 

Guard does very well, and I have also come to realize where there 

are problems within the system and why friction sometimes exists 

between the Coast Guard and the regulated industry and mariners. 

One of the frictions between the Coast Guard and professional 

mariners is often inadequate communications and the lack of understanding and trust that runs in both directions. A large part of 

the cause is the differing cultures of the Coast Guard and the merchant marine. The Coast Guard sees accomplishing their self-defined mission as of paramount importance while we see moving 

passengers and cargo safely and efficiently as our reason for existence. 

The Coast Guard is trained in military and law enforcement 

mold that expects unquestioned respect for authority. They are involved in drug interdiction, law enforcement activities and security 

operations where you don’t consult with the suspects. 

Shifting to regulating a civilian workforce with sensitivity and 

concern for their opinions must require a gear-stripping change in 

attitudes. There is a need to realize that the merchant marine has 

its own tradition and customs, or mission, which is every bit as old 

as the Coast Guard and that is also deserving of respect. 

There is a need to bring more merchant vessel operating experience into the regulation of the maritime industry both for their 

technical competency and their ability to interact with the industry 

on the basis of shared experiences. This could be accomplished in 

a number of ways. 

There is also a need to review the Coast Guard accident investigation procedures to ensure that both U.S. and foreign mariners 

that are involved in marine accidents are treated fairly in accordance with standards accepted within the international maritime 

community. 

There is not enough time to go in any detail in an opening statement, but I look forward to answering questions from the Subcommittee and providing more details in a follow-up statement. I 

am also hopeful of establishing a productive dialogue with the 

Coast Guard on the subjects of concern to us sometime in the future. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Quick. 

41

Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member 

LaTourette and the rest of the Committee, for allowing me to speak 

today. MEBA President Ron Davis is unavailable due to a scheduling conflict. 

The challenges facing the Coast Guard marine safety program 

represent challenges for the entire maritime industry, both labor 

and management. This hearing is a good step toward overcoming 

them. 

My name is William Doyle, and I am the Director of Government 

Affairs and Deputy General Counsel of the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association and a U.S. Coast Guard licensed officer in the 

merchant marine. 

For 132 years, MEBA has represented Coast Guard licensed deck 

and engineering officers serving in all aspects of the merchant marine. We have long been partnered with the Coast Guard in ensuring the safe and secure movement of water-borne commerce 

throughout our Country and the world. 

The Coast Guard has earned its reputation by accepting mission 

and mission even when they aren’t given additional resources. 

Their record of achieving much with little is commendable. 

However, the constant addition of new missions has resulted in 

less public attention for the Coast Guard’s core missions like marine safety. This has made solving the challenges that we currently 

face within the marine safety program all the more difficult. I am 

confident, however, that through the public-private partnership 

model that we in maritime have successfully implemented since the 

founding days of our Republic, we can work to solve these challenges together. 

The issues that we face in the marine safety program are both 

internal structural challenges that arise out of the Coast Guard’s 

founding as a military organization and the external challenges 

that arise out of the needs to balance safety and security with 

maintaining the steady flow of commerce. 

The Coast Guard is fundamentally military, yet they also are responsible for the majority of safety and security-related regulatory 

functions in regards to the merchant marine. This is the only 

branch of the Armed Forces that has such a role. 

As such, there are situations where the adoption of military style 

systems has not been effective. For example, the current tour of 

duty system does not allow a sufficient amount of time for uniformed personnel to learn their way around a commercial vessel’s 

engine room before they move on to a new assignment. 

Further, the Coast Guard’s law enforcement function often complicates their regulatory function and creates an adversarial relationship where one does not need to exist. Vessel inspection teams 

often seem more like police than inspectors. 

We feel that an increased number of civilian employees in the 

areas such as safety inspections, merchant mariner credentialing 

and investigatory positions would ensure the needed consistency 

and level of experience to overcome the challenges in this area. In 

addition, to recruiting from the maritime academies, MEBA and 

most of the labor organizations here today have access to a pool of 

42

retired but still working age mariners, not Coast Guard retirees, 

mariners who could easily fill such positions. 

Consistency is another challenge that must be addressed. Our 

companies make many decisions including decisions regarding hiring, flagging of vessels, construction of vessels, wages and benefits 

based on Coast Guard’s interpretation of rulings and various regulatory questions. Any decision made by the Coast Guard has a wide 

impact on the maritime industry, and it is critical that the Coast 

Guard be fair and consistent in their interpretation of regulatory 

opinions. 

The external challenges that are present in the maritime safety 

program are fundamental and far-reaching. The prime ongoing 

challenge is balancing safety and security with ensuring the flow 

of commerce. Quite often in the zeal to make the U.S. flag and the 

U.S. maritime industry the world’s safest and most secure, they 

make it extremely difficult for the industry to compete internationally. 

While the United States is a large part of the global maritime 

community and has been a member of the International Maritime 

Organization since 1950, you quite often find U.S. Coast Guard 

standards that are much higher than those adopted by IMO and 

used throughout the rest of the world. By holding ourselves to a 

higher standard than the rest of the world, we are handicapped 

when competing internationally. 

This issue is highlighted most clearly in the debate over the 

Transportation Worker Identification Credential. The TWIC was 

designed to increase security in our ports, yet the TWIC only applies to American mariners who move less than 2 percent of the 

cargo entering and leaving the United States. Further, the card is 

not compatible with the international standard for seafarers’ identity documents established by the International Labor Organization. 

We are concerned the TWIC will become just another example of 

over-regulation without any increase in security. 

There were several questions and comments that were raised at 

the earlier panel regarding the civilian sector certificates of inspection, fear of the Coast Guard, oily water separators and oil pollution. I am a mariner. If you have any questions on that, I can answer many of those questions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank you all for staying within the 

time limits. 

We are going to go straight to Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. I am 

sorry I walked in at the tail end of the testimony. 

Mr. Doyle, I had asked this question of Admiral Allen, but the 

question grew out of your testimony which has to do with the rotation of Coast Guard inspectors. 

It seems to me as if we are constantly replacing semi-experienced 

people with inexperienced people who then become semi-experienced and then they move on to their next assignment. How real 

a problem is this and what do you see as the fix? 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Congressman. 

43

Congressman Bishop, let me just break it down to what happens 

on a ship. I will take it from an officer’s perspective coming out of 

a maritime academy, like I did. 

You go through four years of school. You get your license through 

the United States Coast Guard. It takes a minimum of two years 

to move up from third, then to second, then to first, then to chief 

engineer. You are looking at 16 years of schooling in order to get 

schooling and training in order to get your chief engineer’s license. 

You are the person responsible for the engine room and all the machinery on board that ship. 

What is very difficult for a chief engineer and a captain from 

that perspective is somebody who comes in, who came from a different rotation, does a Coast Guard inspection and there are problems or communication breakdowns because they are not a merchant mariner. They may not be a merchant mariner although the 

Coast Guard does recruit from the academies and there are merchant mariners that go into the Coast Guard. 

It is difficult from a commercial sector as a chief engineer or captain on the communication level on how a ship should run. It is 

their ship. They feel that way, a chief engineer and a captain. So 

it is very difficult if somebody comes in for two years, does an inspection and then leaves and a new person comes in. Merchant 

mariners are career people. 

Mr. BISHOP. You believe that the retired merchant mariner can 

be a part of the solution here, correct? 

Mr. DOYLE. Absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. Now, the Coast Guard, Admiral Allen testified a little while ago that he is committed to increased civilian presence in 

this issue. Have you had discussions with him or anyone in the 

Coast Guard with respect to the utilization of retired mariners? 

Mr. DOYLE. Not on this specific instance, no. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you think that a retired mariner would have sufficient objectivity? 

I mean he might find himself inspecting ships operated by former 

colleagues. Do you see that as any problem at all? 

Mr. DOYLE. No, I do not. 

Mr. BISHOP. Tell me why. 

Mr. DOYLE. The reason why is because in my organization we 

have what is called port engineers, and those port engineers are 

union. What they do is they are responsible for the shoreside part 

of the ship, making it safe. It is sort of like a safety function. They 

outfit the ship. They make sure that the machinery is running 

well. 

Well, they are supervising officers on board the ship, a supervisory role over them. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. It is 

safety first. They have a job to do, and they are the company’s representative onshore that interacts with the shipboard personnel, 

and they hold them accountable. 

I do not think that somebody retired at 50 years old and wants 

to start another career, 55 years old, would have a problem with 

objectivity of going over the ship. At the end of the day, it is the 

safety and the lives of the people onboard that ship that everybody 

is looking out for. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

44

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for your testimony. 

Mr. Block, you used a phrase that I am not familiar with. I think 

I know what it gets at, the two-watch system. Is that the preferred 

hours of service, 12 hour shifts basically? 

Mr. BLOCK. It is six hours on, six hours off. The problem with 

the two-watch system is that human beings require seven to eight 

hours of sleep, and you are constantly running a sleep deficit starting from the first day. 

Now, you may be fortunate and if the vessel is tied up alongside 

the dock for a while, you may be able to get a little more sleep. 

But on vessels that run 24 hours around the clock, eventually this 

deficit is going to catch up with you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I understand. We just had a pretty good negotiation in the Rail Safety Bill on limbo time and circadian rhythms 

and things like that, and so I am pretty up on that. 

But the question would be is that subject to collective bargaining 

negotiations or is it set in statute for regulation? 

Mr. BLOCK. The problem that our mariners have is that most of 

them do not belong to a union. They are not allowed to belong to 

a union. There have been battles waged in the past 13 or 14 years 

in which the unions have always lost. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. This two-watch system is set in regulation 

under the Hours of Service? 

Mr. BLOCK. It is set in regulation. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. 

I had understood all of you to advocate increased civilian participation in the marine safety. I didn’t hear, and Chairman Young 

isn’t here, but I think I will ask the question he would have asked 

were he here. I didn’t hear anyone advocate necessarily that that 

needed to be accomplished only by transferring the marine safety 

responsibility out of the Coast Guard and placing it with the Department of Transportation. 

Does anybody have an opinion? 

Mr. Block? 

Mr. BLOCK. I think it could probably be done within the Coast 

Guard system. I think we need to get more civilian mariners involved. 

If I could bring something else up, the fear of retribution by the 

Coast Guard. I don’t feel any fear myself. However, my mariners 

do feel this fear. If you go against the Coast Guard, somehow they 

are going to get you. 

Well, let me put it this way. The Members of the Subcommittee 

here, if you pull all of these functions away from the Coast Guard, 

all of a sudden 14, 15 Members here are going to have to run all 

of these functions. The Coast Guard may not cooperate very fully 

with you. 

I notice in many ways that the Coast Guard doesn’t always explain everything to you gentlemen the way we think they should, 

and I am kind of afraid that you might end up running the whole 

system yourself. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I hope that doesn’t happen. 

45

Mr. Quick or Mr. Doyle, do you have an observation about the 

proposal to perhaps create a new Marine Safety Administration 

within DOT? 

Mr. QUICK. Our goal would be to have a civilian interface between the industry and the regulatory body. Whether that is accomplished by reorganizing every section in the Coast Guard or by 

transfer to another agency is academic to us. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You don’t care. 

Mr. QUICK. I would prefer or let me say I would believe that reorganization within the Coast Guard should be the first step, and 

if it doesn’t prove successful, then the ultimate step might be a separate agency. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That sounds reasonable just from my view 

around here. 

If you take FEMA, for instance, when FEMA was taken away 

from the jurisdiction of this Committee and then thrust into Homeland Security, I made the observation—a lot of different people 

made the observation—that you are going to get an agency that did 

a great job on natural disasters and you are going to have two 

parts, emergency response and homeland security, and we are not 

going to fund either one of them properly. 

I think we have seen that and paid the price for that. 

Mr. Doyle, what about you on this issue of a separate agency or 

maintaining it? I heard what you said about increased civilian 

presence, but what do you think? 

Mr. DOYLE. I think that this oversight hearing is fantastic. Admiral Thad Allen sat here and said that he was going to provide information within 60 days. I believe in giving people a chance to get 

back on their feet. They should have an opportunity to get back up 

on their feet, but if it fails, I think all avenues need to be explored, 

including that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciate that. 

Then the last thing is, Mr. Doyle, you talked about TWIC. The 

Chairman had a great hearing, I think, on TWIC a little while ago, 

and I couldn’t quite understand why the Department of Homeland 

Security had not gone with the international biometric standards 

and some of those things. 

They said it is because we are going to be ahead of the curve and 

have the greatest thing since sliced bread. But the fact of the matter is it is over budget, it is over deadline, and it is not compatible 

with what everybody else in the world is doing. 

So I appreciate your bringing that up, and I appreciate your 

yielding me time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Taylor. 

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

I want to thank all of you gentlemen for being here. 

For the two graduates of the maritime academies, I am curious. 

I don’t know if you were, Mr. Block. I heard the other two gentlemen mention it. 

I am convinced that there isn’t the proper utilization by the 

Coast Guard of that or of MARAD. I am just curious if you could 

be more specific in your recommendations how they could be better 

employed in filling this need. 

46

The second thing—and Mr. Chairman, I would encourage you to 

consider—is that on the Armed Services Committee, it has been a 

tradition to approach each of the Joint Chiefs when they come before the Committee and ask them formally for an unfunded requirement list. 

If you think about it, looking back at what happened to General 

Shinseki, looking back at what happened to Mike Parker, they are 

under tremendous pressure to toe the company line even if the 

company line is wrong, and anyone who speaks out of line is either 

canned like Mike Parker or General Shinseki. 

But with the unfunded requirement list, each year, we basically 

give the generals and the admirals an opportunity to say, but if I 

was given some more money, I would ask for this ship or I would 

ask for this vehicle. It is a way of forcing them to tell us what they 

are thinking even if the Administration doesn’t want them to say 

it. 

I would encourage us to ask the Commandant for an unfunded 

requirement list. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. If the gentleman will yield, that is an outstanding suggestion, and we will jump on that immediately. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. 

To you gentleman, if the Commandant had an unfunded requirement list and you happened to have been the Commandant trying 

to address this problem, what would you ask for specifically? 

Mr. QUICK. I would ask for bringing in retired officers that still 

had 15 or 20 years of service ahead of them, that had the experience to have an informed judgment when they do a ship inspection. 

Mr. TAYLOR. How many of them, Mr. Quick. 

Mr. QUICK. Oh, I don’t know. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Give me a realistic guess. 

Mr. QUICK. I would think you would probably need several hundred officers in the civilian section of the Coast Guard. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Is this to get you over a temporary problem or is 

that a sustained level? 

Mr. QUICK. No, no. As a permanent basis, I think the Coast 

Guard needs to have a civilian inspection force that covers port 

state control, ship inspection, licensing, safety inspections. 

In foreign countries outside the United States, you go to the 

Netherlands or Germany or Norway, that is a civilian force that 

comes on. They are all retired masters or chief engineers, and they 

become the inspection service for that country. 

When they go aboard a ship, they are interfacing with chief engineers and masters that have a shared experience. There is a great 

deal of respect for the inspectors, and the inspectors have a great 

deal of respect for the officers on the ship. 

It is an effective system. You have expertise. You have competence, and you have motivation. They obviously love the maritime industry because that is their choice. It is not something they 

have been assigned to as part of their tour of duty and attaining 

a generalized background in the Coast Guard. I think that is the 

way to go. 

I would be reluctant to bring in recent graduates of the maritime 

academy into this role because they have no more experience than 

recent graduates of the Coast Guard Academy. Until they have 

47

four or five years at sea at a minimum and at least reach something like chief officer, a senior management position, they don’t 

have the experience they need to be an effective inspector. 

Mr. TAYLOR. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. DOYLE. Several hundred probably would be the number. I 

don’t know. I can’t pinpoint it, somewhere between 500 and 1,000, 

because you are really looking at 2 things. You are looking at the 

inspection side, and you are looking at the investigatory side. 

Even on the investigatory side, it is fearful because all somebody 

has to do, a disgruntled crew member or somebody that has a beef 

against a company, is make a phone call to the Coast Guard and 

say that ship is coming into port and it was pumping oil over the 

side. The problem is that if you pump oil over the side, you are 

going to pay a heavy price. There are no exceptions to polluting our 

waterways. 

But what we have seen time and time again in the last three 

years is that there is somebody that drops a dime on a ship. What 

happens then is the Coast Guard and some local officials, law enforcement officials come down on the ship. 

They immediately separate the chief engineer, the first engineer 

and the captain. They pull them aside. Everybody is on basically 

a lockdown. 

All the inspectors know how to do is run to the engine room and 

find the oily water separator. Once they find the oily water separator, they will trace the discharge line to the skin of the ship, 

break the flange, wipe the inside of the pipe with a rag, take a 

sample and then it goes into interrogation mode. 

Now every discharge pump or line out there has some kind of 

residue in there. You are not going to be able to find out immediately right then and there whether or not it is oil, but it is a very 

scary situation when you are an officer. You have a family and this 

is your livelihood. When they come on, your license and livelihood 

are in jeopardy, that moment right there. 

As the Deputy Counsel for my union, I have had to deal with this 

many, many times. Saturdays, Sundays, late at night, the call 

comes in, and we have to get somebody there. 

So I think that you need these civilian people who have sailed 

in the maritime industry to do the inspections, licensing and the 

investigation. They should be there because they have lived it and 

worked it, and it makes it a lot more compatible between the two. 

Whether or not we have to go into another agency right now or 

whether or not it becomes completely civilian, I can’t answer that. 

I think that the Coast Guard needs an opportunity to look at this. 

Mr. TAYLOR. It is at the Chairman’s discretion at this point. 

Mr. Block? 

Mr. BLOCK. I can’t answer or really speak to the question on the 

academies because the mariners that I speak for, we are lucky if 

we have them as high school graduates. We have, if I had to guess, 

I would say some place around maybe the ninth or tenth grade 

level on the average. 

When I went to teach in Louisiana back in 1970, I came down 

from New York. We had 2,000 people that signed up for marine 

courses. The average was between grade seven and eight. I used 

48

to teach grade nine, so I have a pretty good idea of what I can expect from ninth grade students. 

We have the same problem today. It may not be quite as acute 

as it was then. However, back in 1970, 1971, Captain Newman was 

sent down to look at the situation on the Gulf Coast, and his report 

I think is still pertinent today. We have it on our web site. It would 

have to be brought up to date, but really the Coast Guard has not 

paid an awful lot of attention to the offshore industry since then. 

I was told in 1980 that, oh, those education problems, they have 

all been taken care of. That was a district commander that said 

that. Well, maybe the Coast Guard believes that they have been 

taken care of, but I have to deal with people who write on the seventh, eighth, ninth grade level. 

I am the only one at GCMA that writes. I edit their letters. I 

don’t edit their thinking. I can read what they write. But they have 

had no way to express themselves, and everybody is below college 

level. I am talking the majority of the merchant mariners. 

This is something that has gone over the Coast Guard’s head for 

years. It has affected examinations. People can’t read the questions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. 

I was just thinking. I want all of this to result in some effectiveness and efficiency. Other than that, five years from now, we will 

be talking about the same problems and things will be worse. 

You all heard the Commandant. Were you here when the Commandant spoke? 

Mr. QUICK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And you know he said that he appointing Admiral Salerno to be basically over this whole mariner safety. Am I 

right, Admiral? 

That was one of the things, and I thought that was major. The 

fact is that the guy who he is appointing is sitting right behind 

you. 

Raise your hand, Admiral, so they will know. Don’t worry, I got 

your back. I am watching it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. As I listen to you all, I just want you to comment 

on what you heard from the Commandant with the issues that you 

all are trying to address. That is number one. 

Number two, Admiral Allen has told us that he is going to get 

his plan to us in 60 days. We are going to hold him to that. 

There are two lines of thought. One, you take it out and do this 

marine safety under the Department of Transportation or you leave 

it in under the Coast Guard. Of course, whatever the Commandant 

comes back with, of course, is going to be under the Coast Guard. 

Let us assume that you are trying to get into the head of the 

Commandant. What would you want to see in that plan? 

Do you follow what I am saying? Do you get both questions? 

Yes, Mr. Quick. 

Mr. QUICK. I would like to see a plan that would phase in over 

maybe a five or ten year period a new system of the old 219 officers 

where they brought merchant marine officers into the Coast Guard 

49

as general line officers but with a maritime specialty so that you 

had a uniformed force that had experience in the industry and still 

had the capability of being flexibly used within the Coast Guard. 

I would like to see retired officers that had at least five or ten 

years of experience. Some of our officers can retire in their forties 

under the contracts we have. That is early enough. There are 

enough good years left that they would become specialists. 

They wouldn’t be able to be promoted up in the Coast Guard, but 

they would be civilian specialists. They wouldn’t become captains 

and admirals. When a fellow retires after a career at sea and he 

is 45, 50 years old, he might not be looking for a future career advancement as Coast Guard officer. You make him a civilian inspector, and he would fill the same role that they fill in Germany and 

most maritime countries. 

Most maritime countries do not have a uniform Coast Guard acting as the maritime inspection service. They use maritime professionals from the industry to fill that role. 

I don’t think you could change instantly. You couldn’t have a 

cadre of a couple hundred people come in and do it all at once. It 

would have to be phased in. 

Admiral Allen is talking about a blended workforce. I was heartened by that statement. I think that is the right approach. But a 

blended workforce should be the first step in eventually becoming 

an all-civilian maritime professional inspection service, and it 

would probably take five or ten years to reach that. 

In the interim, a blended workforce where you are using some 

Coast Guard officers, some enlisted personnel and some newly retained merchant marine officers who are maritime professionals 

would have to be phased in. 

One thing that disturbed me with Admiral Allen’s proposal, he 

still intends to have a blended workforce using enlisted personnel 

who have never been to see in the merchant marine even though 

they may be chief warrant officers and maybe even though they 

have two years of training at Yorktown. Using them as marine inspectors and interfacing at the professional level with masters and 

chief engineers, that is in many of our viewpoints an insult to the 

masters and chief engineers. 

That they send a second class petty officer down to make a determination of whether he is doing things right or wrong or investigating his actions, that is not acceptable to us. It is the way they 

do it, but most of us rankle at it. 

When they send a petty officer down to represent the United 

States’ interest in enforcing international conventions on foreign 

flag ships as a port state control officer, the foreign masters, the 

Germans and the British, take offense that the Coast Guard hasn’t 

sent an officer down or a civilian personnel with a maritime background. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to get to you two, but let me just interject 

this. You heard the Admiral say, and I am glad, Rear Admiral, that 

you are still around to hear some of this. I see you back there, taking notes, and I appreciate that. 

Admiral Allen talked about the relationship , how important it 

is that the mariner and the shipping community and ports have a 

good relationship with the Coast Guard. 

50

I have said this to many people. Since I became Chairman of this 

Subcommittee, when I think about all of the players that I have 

come in contact with, and I have come in contact with every aspect 

of this whole Coast Guard-maritime community, I have ever seen 

how just about every single person is trying to reach for the very 

best, in other words, although there may be some disagreements on 

some things. 

We saw it in fishing safety. We see it in port security. We see 

it with the TWIC. I mean everybody trying. It is not like people 

just fighting. I am hoping we can maintain that, and the Admiral 

talked about that. 

So that is one of the reasons why I wanted, if we are going to 

have that, it is important that we shouldn’t be the only ones to 

hear it. The Admiral and the Coast Guard need to hear it too. 

That is why I was so glad, Mr. Block, you said what you said and 

why I was glad the Chairman said what he said with regard to this 

feeling, particularly since 9/11, that we have got the policemen, as 

in the Coast Guard, as opposed to before it seemed like more of a 

working kind of relationship. 

I am going to invite you all, and I am sure Admiral Salerno will 

hopefully agree with me. I say this to this panel and the next 

panel. I don’t think it is a bad idea to let them know some of the 

things that you would suggest because we cannot legislate everything. I can tell you, we can’t. 

All of us know that if you can get a cooperative spirit amongst 

folks or even bring it back, that would be helpful. We may have to 

legislate some things, but all of us, we have to work. This community is too important. 

Now, going back to my question, Mr. Block and then Mr. Doyle 

and then we will be finished with this panel unless someone else 

has a question. 

Mr. Block? 

Mr. BLOCK. To look at one item that lies ahead of us, we have 

5,200 towing vessels that are going to have to be inspected. The 

question is who is going to inspect those vessels? We will probably 

need new inspectors that are trained on how to inspect and why 

can’t these be civilians with experience doing it? 

The Coast Guard inspection program has gone on for 50 years. 

I have always encouraged that program. I have lived with it on 

Subchapter T regulations. Certainly, civilians are perfectly capable 

of doing it. You have to find the right civilians, and I am sure that 

is not an impossibility. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Chairman Cummings. 

The maritime industry operates off of government, commercial 

and labor. Executive, congressional and the agency levels work 

with the industry and labor. Nothing really gets done or can get 

done unless we are all on the same page, and that is the history 

of the maritime industry. 

We all pull in the same direction, whether it is you as a Congressman, whether it is the agency. It doesn’t matter who is the 

President. It is the agency level. That is how we get things done 

for the maritime security program, the U.S. Coast Guard authorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Mar 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37368.TXT HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
51

ization bills, whether it is LNG and the priority for LNG tankers 

coming in. 

To comment on Admiral Allen’s statements that he said earlier, 

I thought that they were very encouraging, and I think he needs 

that opportunity. 

As Chairman Oberstar said, when this first came on the map 

and came on the radar screen, he has been all over the Country, 

rallying the troops. 

As far as the new position that he stated today, I have worked 

with Rear Admiral Brian Salerno. I have worked with people that 

have been under him when he was coming up, and I think that the 

man is competent. Provided that they can come up with a solution, 

we can help them with that solution. They should have that opportunity to try it. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LaTourette, did you have something else? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I did just to make a comment on Mr. Taylor’s 

excellent suggestion. 

Counsel informs me that we have already statutorily given the 

Coast Guard this unfunded needs list, but unfortunately one 

former Commandant Collins took us up on it and submitted such 

a list. Talk about intimidation. I am told that the appropriators 

told him that if ever did it again, he would be defunded completely. 

So there is intimidation and then there is intimidation, but we 

apparently already have the authority. I would be happy to work 

with the Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We will do that. 

Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, I do appreciate your being here. 

Mr. Quick, I would like to follow up on something you said because when you said they needed hundreds of retired mariners, I 

am trying to put a price tag on that. Later on, you said something 

like you don’t need some petty officers doing this. 

I would have to disagree with you on that. I think the real solution, and I hope you would think about this, is going to be a mix 

of the two. I don’t think you need someone with 20 years sea experience to count life preservers or the condition of them or to check 

the running lights out or a lot of the simple things that are part 

of a Coast Guard inspection. 

That is overkill. That would be like me hiring Ph.D.s to help me 

with my mail. A typical congressional office has everything from 

kids straight out of college to an old geezer like myself, and it 

works pretty well. 

I have got to believe that the Coast Guard organization also envisions that not every task is as difficult as the next. Obviously, to 

inspect a steam plant or turbine, a water separator, something that 

is technical, you are certainly going to need some technical expertise. 

I hope I didn’t mishear you on that, that the only people capable 

of doing that are people that have had 10, 20 years of sea experience. 

52

Mr. QUICK. I wouldn’t disagree that they are probably capable of 

doing it, but I think it is a question of perception with the people 

they are working with. 

A ship has a hierarchy almost like the military. It is quasi-military. Masters, they have a certain perception of what the junior officer’s status in the world is and what the rating status in the 

world is, and they do take offense at having a Coast Guard petty 

officer, whether he is competent or not, coming aboard and exercising governmental authority over his operations. 

I don’t think it is a question of competency. I think it is a question of interpersonal relationship based upon perceptions and rank. 

Mr. TAYLOR. If you were to draw up an organizational chart of 

what needs to be done above and beyond what the Coast Guard is 

doing now, give me an idea of what it looks like. 

I am not in total disagreement with you because the Army Corps 

of Engineers, for example. The vast majority of people I deal with 

at the Army Corps of Engineers are civilians. At the end of the day, 

though, they answer to the district commander who is a colonel or 

a general. If something goes wrong, that is who is ultimately responsible and whom everyone knows is their boss, whether that 

guy is civilian or in uniform. 

The concept that you are talking is not unique in government. 

With the exception of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, this 

works pretty well for the Corps. 

Mr. QUICK. Well, if I were doing it, I would re-establish the 219 

program and bring younger maritime officers into the Coast Guard 

at lieutenant, lieutenant commander ranks and put them on a career path where they did marine inspections but they also did general line duty in the Coast Guard and looked upon them when they 

became captains or admirals to be the policymakers for the marine 

inspection service. 

Then I would fill the ranks where they really interface and do 

the work with civilian maritime professionals. They might be assisted by Coast Guard petty officers, but I really don’t look upon 

that as a good solution. 

It might be a possible solution, but if it were my preference I 

would have 40 or 50 year old experienced professionals that could 

interface with the people in the industry on an equal basis and 

have them fulfill the role that doesn’t look for promotion. They become the specialists rather than the generalists, not the policymakers but the implementation of policy. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Let me ask you the million dollar question. One of 

the new House rules is pay as you go. It is pay as you go. If a new 

program comes along, if the increase in the size of a cost of a program comes along, we have to pay for it. 

To what extent, if any, would the private sector be willing to pay 

more to get their inspections done in a more timely manner, to get 

their background checks done in a more timely manner? 

This is really million dollar question. What is the cost-benefit 

ratio to the private sector? 

Mr. QUICK. Oh, I can answer that question very easily except I 

represent a labor organization. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay, let us start with the members of your organization, who would be paying for these licenses. 

53

Mr. QUICK. Well, we are doing it now. Our license is paid for. 

The licensing program is paid for by the people who receive the licenses. 

Mr. TAYLOR. But you are apparently concerned about the delays. 

What would they be willing to pay extra to cut down on the delays? 

Mr. QUICK. I think it would depend upon what grade of license. 

The masters and officers on the large commercial ships probably 

wouldn’t object to a fairly substantial increase in the fee if they got 

their license on the or were treated with courtesy and respect. But 

if you are dealing with the unlicensed or the lower level licensed 

people who are working at non-union companies at something close 

to minimum wages, they would have a different perspective on it. 

Mr. TAYLOR. If you would be willing to put those thoughts in 

writing, I would appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank the panel very much. Your testimony has been 

very helpful. 

We will now call our next panel. As the next panel comes forward, we are going to be taking a vote soon. 

Come on up. Come on up. Please come up. 

What we want to do is we want to finish this hearing before we 

take the vote so that you all can go home. So we don’t want you 

to be here like we will be until 10:00 or 11:00 tonight. 

We just ask you to say what needs to be said. Keep in mind, we 

have your written testimony, and we do thank you all for being so 

patient. 

One of the things I would ask in the spirit of efficiency and effectiveness is that those who feel like you could, I would really like 

to hear your reactions to what you heard from the Commandant. 

We will first hear from Thomas Allegretti, President of the American Waterways Operators. Then we will hear from Joseph Cox, 

President of the U.S. Chamber of Shipping; then Peter Lauridsen 

with the Passenger Vessel Association; and then B.W. Tom Thompson, Executive Director of the U.S. Marine Safety Association; Jim 

Weakley, President of the Lake Carriers Association; and Ken 

Wells, President of the Offshore Marine Services Association. 

I want to be clear. I don’t want you to say what you have got 

to say, but I am also trying to be considerate of your time too. 

Okay. If you all want to come, we will come back. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS ALLEGRETTI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

WATERWAYS OPERATORS; JOSEPH COX, PRESIDENT, U.S. 

CHAMBER OF SHIPPING; PETER LAURIDSEN, PASSENGER 

VESSEL ASSOCIATION; B.W. TOM THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. MARINE SAFETY ASSOCIATION; JIM WEAKLEY, 

PRESIDENT, LAKE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION; KEN WELLS, 

PRESIDENT, OFFSHORE MARINE SERVICES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. LaTourette, 

Mr. Taylor, Members of the Subcommittee. Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today. Thanks for your leadership in 

raising this very important public policy and safety issue. 

Our members care deeply about this matter because of who we 

are, because of what we do and how we try to do it. Our industry 

54

is a critical segment of the U.S. transportation system, and we depend heavily on the Coast Guard’s marine safety mission to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of vessels and cargo on our 

Nation’s waterways. 

We also care about the Coast Guard’s execution of its marine 

safety mission because our top priorities are the lives and health 

of our crew members, the safety of our vessels, the integrity of our 

customers’ cargos and the protection of the natural environment. In 

today’s market, safety is quite simply our franchise to operate. 

Mr. Chairman, this is an important opportunity for all of us to 

step back and consider whether the Coast Guard marine safety 

program is functioning at the level that Congress, the public and 

our industry both need and expect. We understand we share the 

concerns that have given rise to today’s hearing. 

I would like to describe for you our vision of an effective and well 

run marine safety program and describe what our industry sees as 

its baseline needs with respect to how government handles the marine safety portfolio. 

I would start by saying we believe that Congress, the Coast 

Guard, the public and the maritime industry all have the same 

core expectations of what an effective government safety program 

should look like, and we think it has four critical elements. 

First, safety of life, the life and health of the men and women 

who work aboard our vessels is protected and preserved. Two, safety of property, vessels arrive safely at their ports of call. Three, 

protection of the environment, discharges of harmful substances 

into the marine environment are minimized with the goal of eliminating them altogether and, finally, facilitation of maritime commerce, maritime commerce flows freely and impediments are either 

prevented or they are cleared away quickly. That is our vision of 

an effective marine safety program. 

We think that for any Federal agency to attain all four of those 

goals is going to need to do some things differently than we are 

doing them today. I will tell you that our industry sees these as 

baseline needs of any future marine safety program. 

The Agency needs to make marine safety a clear priority. Making 

marine safety a priority does not necessarily mean that safety must 

be the only thing that the Agency does, but it does mean that ensuring that there are necessary resources that are allocated to the 

marine safety mission and that there is an internal structure that 

supports that mission. 

The Agency’s personnel must have a deep understanding of the 

maritime industry. Our industry sorely needs regulators who understand the way our business is and our vessels work and who 

know that the Nation’s economy quite literally depends on goods 

moving on time and on budget. 

The Agency must have respectful dealings with vessel crew members. A guiding principle of the Coast Guard’s Prevention Through 

People Program was Honor the Mariner. American mariners need 

and deserve such respect. They are the hardworking professionals 

without whom our economy would be in deep trouble. 

We need a Federal agency that deals with us efficiently with a 

customer focus. We need consistency, and we need continuity. We 

55

need regulators who know what the policy is and how have the expertise to apply it properly. 

The Agency must make the timely development of needed regulations a real priority. When a clear regulatory need is identified, it 

is in the interest of both government and industry that we get it 

done and we get it done right as soon as possible. In our view, if 

it is not worth doing expeditiously, it is probably not worth doing 

at all. 

Finally, the Agency must deploy its enforcement resources based 

on risk. The Coast Guard Marine Safety Manual correctly states 

that a balanced marine safety program helps companies that are 

trying to comply with the law, punishes companies who disregard 

the law and rewards those who go above and beyond the law. 

We think that is exactly right. Governmental enforcement attention should clearly be tied to risk. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling the hearing today. These 

are serious questions, and we thank you for getting us started in 

trying to answer them. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Allegretti. 

Mr. Cox. 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate that Tom was able to hit it almost within two seconds of the five minutes. I will try and do the same. 

Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Taylor, thank you for being with us. 

Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I think that I haven’t heard 

today, but I think it is important to put into the record, and that 

is that the American maritime community has an outstanding safety and environmental protection record. It is because of the people 

on our vessels and it is because of the people in our companies who 

are operating those vessels. 

The Chamber operates two award programs a year, one, the safety award program. In June, we were able to hand over 800 vessels 

awards for safety, and they operated over 4,000 years in a safe 

mode. 

In September, and I certainly would invite Members to join with 

us. I will be getting invitations out to you. We have an environmental achievement award that is given out. Last year, we gave 

that award out to over 380 vessels that had operated 4,400 years 

in environmental achievement. I think that is an outstanding 

record that the American public does not appreciate. 

Mr. Chairman, as we went out to our members with the substance of this Subcommittee’s hearing, we got a lot of stories back 

and a lot of anecdotal information. We tried to characterize those 

under some items that could be identified. The first one was what 

we call 24-7 which is that our industry operates in a 24 hours a 

day, 7 days a week mode on behalf of our customers who are cargo 

owners and we have to move that cargo on behalf of the American 

public. 

We recognize that there can be problems with the government 

agencies that have to interact with us, but some of those anecdotes 

refer to the fact that we are 24-7, and we think that there ought 

to be an appreciation of that on behalf of those who have to service 

our needs, and that includes government inspections. 

56

The second area is uniformity of Coast Guard actions and activities and decisions. This is a perennial problem, Mr. Chairman. It 

has been around for a long time. If I had a answer, I think I would 

offer to sell it to Admiral Allen. 

However, one Coast Guard office making a decision that is at 

variance with another Coast Guard office or at variance with an 

earlier decision that is made in the same office creates a problem 

for the industry in that they are then unable to operate in a mode 

around the Country with some feeling that they are not going to 

be stopped for a different interpretation of the same circumstance. 

The third area, Mr. Chairman and Members, is redundancy. A 

few years ago, we were very much complaining as an industry 

about the fact that we were receiving inspections by our class society and the very next day we were receiving inspections from the 

Coast Guard. They were covering the very same issues, and therefore our staff time aboard the ship and our staff time from shore 

was not being utilized in the most expeditious manner. 

We got a very good receiving of our allegations by the Coast 

Guard. We engaged in a program that took us a year to develop, 

but it evolved into the compliance program, the alternate compliance program, which we think is operating very effectively to reduce examinations. We think that there are still some 

redundancies in the system of inspection, and we feel that could be 

addressed. 

The fourth area, Mr. Chairman, is professional expertise. You 

have heard a lot about that today. We heard a lot of testimony with 

respect to how that could be addressed. 

We only say it from the Chamber of Shipping of America’s viewpoint. Yes, it is a problem. There is a major concern. It exists now. 

Looking down the road five to ten years, we think that those concerns are going to be valid, and we have to do something about it 

now. 

The fifth area, Mr. Chairman, is resources. Our comments there 

I think are echo that you have heard previously today which is this 

is probably the key area. As you go up into all the other areas that 

I pointed out, you probably go back to resources and how do we do 

it. If I had an answer to that, once again, I would make it available 

to you for a particular consultant’s fee. 

There is not going to be an easy answer. It is not going to be simple. But, Mr. Chairman and Members, this is the United States. 

We are Americans, and we can solve these issues. We have solved 

much more thorny issues in the past, and I expect that we can attack and make sure that we do the right thing in this particular 

area. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

We are proud of our safety and environmental record in this industry. We are not critical of anyone in this industry at any level. 

We are seeking improvements so that we continue to get better and 

do our jobs. 

Thank you very much, and I will respond to questions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Cox. 

Mr. Lauridsen. 

Mr. LAURIDSEN. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I 

am Peter Lauridsen, Regulatory Affairs Consultant for the PasVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Mar 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37368.TXT HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
57

senger Vessel Association. Previously, I served the Coast Guard 29 

years, retiring as Deputy Chief of the Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection. 

The Passenger Vessel Association is a national trade association 

for U.S.-flagged passenger vessels of all types. 

PVA is deeply concerned that as a result of changes after September 11th, 2001, the Coast Guard no longer recognizes the U.S. 

mariner and the U.S. vessel operator as an ally and partner but 

instead views our industry segment as a hindrance and afterthought and even a threat. This is an unfortunate and dramatic 

change in philosophy from that exhibited previously in the Prevention Through People Program and its guiding principle of Honor 

the Mariner. 

PVA members rely on the Coast Guard for inspection of their 

vessels, issuance of licenses and documents to their employees, and 

review and approval for plans for construction of new vessels. PVA 

members need Coast Guard personnel to be knowledgeable about 

the regulations that apply to U.S. passenger vessels. 

When the Coast Guard fails to meet these expectations, the effect 

is to impose economic roadblocks that harm PVA members’ ability 

to conduct their legitimate businesses. This is an important component of the Coast Guard marine safety efforts. They facilitate marine commerce including the transportation of passengers. 

Too often in recent years the Coast Guard’s performance in its 

legacy marine safety functions has fallen short. The telling symptom is the recently issued document entitled U.S. Coast Guard 

Strategy for Maritime Safety, Security and Stewardship. 

Its discussion of the legacy marine safety program is disappointing in its brevity, characterization and direction. Only a single page of the 54 page charter is devoted to marine safety. This, 

in a nutshell, unwittingly illustrates that marine safety functions 

have been shouldered to the side by security emphasis. 

Another example is the longstanding inability of the Coast Guard 

to timely issue licenses and merchant mariner documents to U.S. 

citizens, an issue that this Subcommittee examined last year. 

Even if we see eventual improvements in the licensing and seaman documentation arena, the U.S. passenger vessel industry 

needs a similar enhancement of the program of annual safety inspection of vessels. The cadre of Coast Guard vessel inspectors 

seems to have more work than they can perform in a commercially 

reasonable time frame. 

The Coast Guard has always been able to adapt itself to the 

needs of the Country. It moved to the new Department of Transportation, aided in Vietnam, geared up to implement the Oil Pollution Act, interdicted Cuban migrants, emphasized the war on drugs 

and upgraded maritime defense. Many of these phases drew on the 

marine safety programs for the expertise of its personnel and its 

pool of human resources. The marine safety programs would adapt 

and over time would be restored. 

PVA worries that without prompt remedial action, the unprecedented emphasis on homeland security will cause long-lasting and 

perhaps irreversible degradation of the marine safety functions. 

The trauma of September 11th was so dramatic that it changed 

the very character of the Coast Guard and continues to do so. The 

58

marine safety programs furnished much of the expertise and personnel needed to ramp up maritime security. This time, there is 

less restorative capability to bring back and maintain the legacy 

maritime safety capabilities. 

A fundamental problem is that the new organizational structure 

of the Coast Guard, the sector concept, has effectively capped the 

traditional marine safety career specialist in the field at about the 

lieutenant commander or commander level. Thus, the relatively 

more junior marine safety officers report to more senior officers 

who increasingly are drawn from other mission areas of the Coast 

Guard. 

Marine safety functions are not enhanced or facilitated by a single, all-encompassing Coast Guard area commander concept. 

The face that we see on the waterfront now is distinctly a military one: guns, boots and the aura of martial law. Prior to September 11th, the Coast Guard’s proud military heritage was softened because it was seen first as an organization of seasoned marine safety professionals. Today’s Coast Guard, in many ways, is a 

stranger on the working waterfront. 

The restoration of the vital marine safety program requires an 

identifiable career progression. In Coast Guard Headquarters, 

areas and districts, each unit needs a leadership position held by 

a professional marine safety officer identifiable as such. This will 

enable more junior Coast Guard marine safety people to aspire to 

the position and to see a clear career path to it. 

The men and women of the Coast Guard are intelligent, motivated and deliver a great service to the Country. The members of 

PVA are proud of them. 

That service, however, is not being fulfilled consistently in the 

safety regulation role. By pointing out our concerns about the current overshadowing of the marine safety program, PVA is hoping 

that this Subcommittee will work with Coast Guard leaders to remedy the situation. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Good afternoon, Chairman Cummings, Ranking 

Member LaTourette and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for this opportunity to speak. I will be brief in my oral statements 

but request that my full written statement be entered in the 

record. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So ordered. 

Mr. THOMPSON. The United States Marine Safety Association is 

a professional organization comprised of more than 150 companies 

and individuals. Members are involved in the design, manufacturing, sale or service of lifesaving equipment or its components, 

provide training in the use of such equipment and systems or are 

career professionals in maritime safety. 

Personally, I have worked in the maritime safety field for over 

20 years. I chaired the ISO Subcommittee on Marine Lifesaving 

and Fire Prevention and served on the U.S. delegation to IMO. 

Lifesaving appliances are the last line of defense in assuring 

safety of life at sea. Survival craft and personal lifesaving appliances are the only protection passengers and crew have from 

59

drowning and hypothermia in the event of a commercial or recreational vessel casualty and therefore must meet the highest 

standard of reliability. 

In the past, Coast Guard helped assure this reliability and 

oversaw the manufacture of lifesaving equipment, witnessed the 

servicing of primary lifesaving equipment, specifically lifeboats and 

inflatable life rafts. But over the past 10 years and even more notably since September 11th, 2001, participation and oversight has 

been significantly diminished. 

The current Coast Guard specifications for approval of inflatable 

life rafts were issued to incorporate technical revisions from IMO 

SOLAS. As part of those revisions, changes were made to Coast 

Guard requirements for inspection of life raft manufacturing plants 

and servicing facilities. 

After the initial approval of the raft, the servicing facilities were 

no longer required to have a Coast Guard inspector during life raft 

servicing. Therefore, attendance of the Coast Guard inspector is 

now solely at the discretion of the local marine inspection unit. The 

service facility is still required to inform the local Coast Guard 

when servicing an approved raft. 

Since this change, Coast Guard attendance at life raft servicing 

has all but disappeared. In some cases, it has been more than 10 

years since some of the service facilities have seen a Coast Guard 

inspector. This change was driven by resource availability and the 

assessment of associated risk. 

In general, Coast Guard-approved rafts are being serviced in the 

U.S. in a proper and correct manner. Although we are aware that 

there are some problems, in all probability, these would have been 

quickly resolved had there been active Coast Guard involvement. 

The industry is essentially now self-policing. 

When a servicing facility finds a problem in a life raft, the facility is required to notify the local Coast Guard and the manufacturer. The facilities do indeed notify the Coast Guard locally, but 

this is seen as one problem, a single entity. Because of this, little 

priority is given by the local Coast Guard to reports that appear 

to be single occurrence issues as no one is in a position to perceive 

their extent or the significance of the problem. 

Therefore, U.S. MSA recommends that in addition to reporting to 

local Coast Guard offices, problems and deficiencies be reported 

also to the appropriate personnel at Coast Guard Headquarters, 

who are responsible for the approval of this critical lifesaving 

equipment. 

Our members have made the following statements concerning 

Coast Guard involvement and Coast Guard inspection and life raft 

servicing: 

Service facilities do notify the Coast Guard and marine inspection office when Coast Guard-approved life rafts are being serviced. 

Coast Guard has not visited some of the facilities for a number of 

years, in some cases, up to 10 years. 

Coast Guard often does send a representative when rafts from 

Coast Guard cutters are being serviced. This is often, however, an 

auxiliarist who is not familiar with life raft servicing. 

One facility noted that they trained Coast Guard inspectors who 

were conducting onboard vessel inspections to show them what to 

60

look for, to show them how rafts should be properly installed and 

stowed on board. 

There is common agreement that rafts are being properly serviced, although from time to time there are deficiencies found from 

previous servicing. Raising the level of oversight would reduce the 

opportunity for improper servicing. 

Often, inspectors have little familiarity or training in the servicing of lifesaving equipment. Some inspectors have checked lifesaving equipment calibration and facility cleanliness and not have 

looked at a single raft being serviced while they visited the facility. 

The Coast Guard provides a unique perspective that extends 

across manufacturers, service facilities and wherever U.S.-flagged 

vessels’ equipment is being manufactured, repaired or serviced. 

They are the only authority in a position to provide early identification of concerns or issues. 

We believe the issues in general are reflective of circumstances 

across the Coast Guard’s marine safety program. We urge Congress 

to support and restore this crucial and longstanding mission of the 

Coast Guard and make suitable resources available. 

Specifically, we recommend that the Coast Guard establish a program to assure quality manufacture and servicing through periodic 

audit inspections, verify that life raft servicing facilities have the 

correct information and technical bulletins, and the Coast Guard 

has the personnel performing these facility inspections and audits 

be properly trained and have sufficient expertise to do the job. 

Since we are now running over time, I will direct you to the written part of the testimony which gives much more detail and examples of what I have said. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Weakley. 

Mr. WEAKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Since 1880, Lake Carriers Association has represented U.S.-

flagged commercial vessels. We represent 18 American corporations 

that operate 63 U.S.-flagged lakers. The cargoes that we carry 

drive the U.S. economy: iron ore for the steel industry, coal for 

power generation, limestone and cement for construction. 

Our members could not meet the needs of commerce without the 

dedicated men and women of the United States Coast Guard. They 

open shipping lanes and maintain aids to navigation. Coast Guard 

crews set out in the harshest conditions to free an icebound vessel 

or to med-evac a sick crew member. No one questions the dedication of the Coast Guard personnel stationed on the Great Lakes. 

I would like to describe my vision for the ideal marine safety system, discuss some of the challenges posed by the current system 

and make general recommendations. 

Only through mutual understanding and cooperation between 

government and the public it serves can the national security interests of our Nation be met. This is a national security issue: protect 

the economic interest of our citizens, facilitate the commerce with 

our trading partners and guard the physical security of our ports 

and waterways. 

The marine safety program should ensure the availability of 

qualified mariners and safe vessels. It must provide a level playing 

61

field between U.S.-flagged and foreign-flagged vessels calling on 

our ports. We need consistent application of the law. 

The ideal program also requires a learning organization, one that 

builds on its experience and expertise and recognizes that processes 

can be improved and that mistakes are possible. 

We need an appeals process that results in a fair and objective 

review of the facts and lays a foundation for better decisions in the 

future. Marine safety decision-makers must have the appropriate 

knowledge and experience to make judgments regarding the seaworthiness of a vessel or a mariner. 

An understanding of the general principles must be augmented 

by specific expertise in the application of the regulations and the 

vessel service. There is no substitute for experience, particularly 

seagoing experience. You can read all the theory you want, but 

until you have navigated a vessel in congested waters, completed 

light-offs on a cold engine room or traced out the fuel oil system, 

you cannot fully grasp the complexity or the simplicity of the situation. 

There is an additional element needed. I call it appropriate posture. 

Consider the vastly different jobs of a city building inspector and 

a local police officer. Both are law enforcement officers. Each approach their jobs differently, have different training and take on a 

different posture depending on the circumstances. 

There are times when a law enforcement agency must take an 

aggressive approach including a show or a use of force. In other instances, a less aggressive or collaborative approach is appropriate 

and better serves the public interest. No mayor would send a building inspector to respond to a traffic accident nor would he or she 

send a police officer to look at a plumbing installation. 

There are many challenges facing the marine safety program. I 

worry about the program’s ability to compete for money and people 

as the Coast Guard continues to take on additional and fundamentally different responsibilities. 

Industry is often frustrated by inconsistent interpretations. 

These may vary between sector commands or may change with the 

rotation of a single individual. The program needs institutional 

memory and coordinated enforcement to ensure a level playing 

field and to reduce the cost of unnecessary requirements. 

When difference of opinions between Coast Guard offices or 

Coast Guard officers takes place, industry pays the price. The rotation of Coast Guard personnel after a few years denies both industry and the Coast Guard the expertise that comes only with experience. 

On the Great Lakes, we operate in fresh water. This means a 

properly maintained hull can last almost indefinitely. We operate 

a cement carrier built in 1906. These vessels are well maintained. 

They are like vintage muscle cars designed and built in a different 

time but more than capable of getting the job done. 

The Great Lakes are truly unique. An inspector may see a steam 

plant or a riveted hull for the first time when she steps on board 

to conduct an inspection. He may not be familiar with the regulations that apply to the vessel and may not even have access to a 

copy of the applicable regulations. 

62

We often have inspectors enforce OCEAN regulations on the 

Great Lakes. 

The Coast Guard must consider longer tours of duty. Another option is civilian inspectors with specific geographic and industry expertise. The Army Corps of engineers successfully uses this model. 

The marine safety program would benefit from an influx of industry-specific expertise and experience. 

An appeals process that results in a fair, objective and timely review could improve the credibility of the marine safety program 

and transform it to more of a learning operation. 

We have deep respect and hope to improve the marine safety program. If done properly, active duty sailors can be free to pursue 

other Coast Guard missions, our limited government resources can 

be used effectively, and commerce can move more safely and with 

greater efficiency. 

The national security interests of the United States of America 

demand that we remain vigilant and efficient. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Weakley. 

Mr. Wells. 

Mr. WELLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing OMSA to testify today. 

Ever since September 11th, the Coast Guard has struggled to 

find the balance between its traditional missions like marine safety 

and its new mission of homeland security. 

Our association, which represents the U.S.-flagged vessels that 

work in the offshore oil and gas sector, wants to make sure that 

the Coast Guard’s safety functions are not allowed to degrade or 

shunted off to some corner of the Agency, out of sight, out of mind. 

If that were to be allowed to happen, we are concerned that safety 

will suffer, the maritime industry will suffer and the institution of 

the Coast Guard will suffer. 

By way of example, because our association and most of our 

members are located just outside New Orleans, we had box seats 

for the response to both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. To put it 

simply, as you know, it was the Coast Guard’s finest hour. There 

was no master plan for responding to that incident, those incidents. 

The old rules didn’t apply, and agencies that were too rigid or unwilling to take chances failed miserably. 

So why was the Coast Guard so successful? Here is our take. 

Their officers in the field were experienced. On the Gulf Coast, 

we have been fortunate to have a number of captain, commander 

and lieutenant commander level officers who have stayed in our 

area for long enough to become experts and to have developed the 

experience in the field. They know our area. They know the right 

people. They know how to get things done quickly. 

Second, they were problem-solvers. They didn’t get overwhelmed 

by the enormity of the destruction. They treated it as a series of 

problems to be solved. They got the right people in the room, and 

they went to work. 

And, third, they weren’t afraid to innovate. They were flexible. 

They were open to finding new solutions. 

Those qualities are, in our mind, a part of the culture of the traditional marine safety program. If the Coast Guard loses that culVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Mar 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37368.TXT HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
63

ture, the stakes are very high for our Nation. For our industry, 

what may be at stake is our continued progress on safety. 

In the past, our industry and the Coast Guard have had a close 

partnership, and the results have been spectacular. It has been one 

of the most remarkable industry-Coast Guard agency partnerships 

in general. 

We have just completed our latest internal safety survey, and the 

results of our members’ safety statistics show that offshore work 

boats have a reportable incident rate that is about one-tenth of the 

OSHA reportable incident rate for all U.S. businesses. So what I 

am telling you is that our industry, working on our boats is safer 

than working in a bank or in a store or in a restaurant or just 

about any U.S. workplace. 

We got there because we worked as partners with the Coast 

Guard marine safety professionals. They were experts. They were 

willing to approach safety as a problem to be solved. Finally, they 

weren’t afraid to be flexible to innovate and to trust us to do what 

was right for our vessels. 

We don’t want to lose that because that is what has worked for 

us. But, in truth, today we see that relationship as being at some 

risk. 

Our written testimony outlines the specific concerns, but a theme 

that runs through all of our concerns is whether the Coast Guard 

today is still putting the proper internal focus on marine safety, 

whether they still emphasize marine safety as much as we do. 

Since September 11th, the Coast Guard has gone through a number of reorganizations and restructurings. It is getting harder and 

harder to know where marine safety sits on the organizational 

chart. 

From top to bottom, we are concerned. We want to make sure 

that from the highest levels down to the field level, the Coast 

Guard doesn’t become isolated from the concerns of the maritime 

industry and the Commandant doesn’t become isolated from the 

voices of his marine safety professionals. 

Finally, we don’t have a minute to lose because thousands of 

Coast Guard personnel have come onboard since September 11th. 

Looking at it, about half the lieutenants, all the JGs, ensigns, junior petty officers, all started since September 11th, and so this is 

the only culture they know. If the ship does not turn around soon, 

the culture of the marine safety professional may be lost. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Wells. I want to 

thank all of you. 

We have got about 15 minutes, so we are going to first go to the 

Chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and then we are going to go to Mr. 

LaTourette. 

Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful to 

you for spending all this afternoon on this hearing. 

Mr. LaTourette, the Ranking Member, thank you very much for 

your ever thoughtful and incisive questions and presence and contribution to this hearing. 

It is something I initiated. I felt an obligation to be here. Unfortunately, I have been diverted with other matters that have taken 

64

attention: the collapse of the bridge in Minnesota and, more recently, a meeting with the Governor of Virginia and the Virginia 

congressional delegation and the Federal Transit Administration 

on the route to Dulles. All of these are under our Committee jurisdiction. I stayed up some time last night, reading testimony, and 

I was struck by the common themes running through all of it. 

Mr. Lauridsen, I quoted from you extensively to Admiral Allen. 

Mr. Allegretti, Mr. Cox, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Weakley and Mr. 

Wells, all of you have common concerns, common themes that we 

need to address, and that common theme is the Coast Guard is 

being diverted from its marine safety mission to a security mission. 

I had I think a rather spirited exchange with Admiral Allen 

about this matter. I see no homeland security connection between 

the regulatory role that the Coast Guard fills with respect to your 

industry, your respective segments of the industry, and homeland 

security and marine safety. In fact, the marine safety, as each of 

you has designated, is being converted in one or another way. 

Mr. Lauridsen, your theme of Prevention Through People, Honor 

the Mariner, that really struck home with me. That has been the 

relation ship of the Coast Guard with the maritime community. 

Mr. LAURIDSEN. Yes, sir. That is the recent, well, pre-9/11, the 

Prevention Through People and the Honor the Mariner was where 

we were at. We were transitioning from the 20th Century reactionoriented Coast Guard to a Coast Guard that realized that industry 

was an equal partner, industry had certainly much of the professional capability, that they couldn’t do the job alone, and so I think 

that partnership was very strong. 

With the advent of 9/11, there was an influx of people, as Ken 

points out. There was a lot of people that came in without the 

background, without the historic feeling, the interaction of having 

been brought up in the program and didn’t see the industry as 

partners, didn’t see the industry as equally professional and that 

sort of thing. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We want to restore that relationship. That is the 

purpose of my legislation. It has stimulated a very wide dialogue. 

It has spurred the Coast Guard, certainly Admiral Allen, into, as 

I described it earlier, homeland security protect the Coast Guard 

mode if not the homeland. 

I posed for him the Corps of Engineers model where you have a 

uniformed officer in charge of a very large seasoned, stable civilian 

staff. 

Now there are two models. One is take this function out of the 

Coast Guard, establish it in the Department of Transportation in 

the mode that it was prior to World War II as a completely 

civilianized operation. 

Another is to establish a sort of Corps of Engineers model where 

you have an entirely civilian staff of seasoned, experienced professionals who can digest those documents, apply them, know the industry, work with the industry in the Prevention Through People 

and honoring the mariners. You put it so well. 

Have a uniformed officer in charge who is there for more than 

two years but with a civilian staff, would that work? Would that 

work within the Coast Guard? 

Would the other model work better outside of the Coast Guard? 

65

Mr. LAURIDSEN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All of you have skirted that issue. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I don’t think I understated the issue one bit when 

I said to Admiral Allen that he scared the living daylights out of 

you. 

Mr. LAURIDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am a product of the blended 

workforce. Some of the civilians I worked with are behind me. Military and civilian mix can work and can work very well. I think 

there are certain capabilities, responsibilities that civilians possess 

that augment or enhance or are synergistic couplings with the 

Coast Guard. 

You point to those books up there, sir, and I can tell you that 

people can memorize those word for word for word and will still not 

be marine inspectors. Marine inspectors have not only an understanding of the regulations, but they have an experience base so 

that when it says the OCMI has a choice, that they can make those 

sorts of decisions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. There is an instinctive quality to that service, you 

are saying. 

Mr. LAURIDSEN. Yes, sir. There is a maturing. There is a progressive maturing. There is a mentoring. There is an exchange of experiences and ideas, yes, sir. 

I guess I didn’t answer which Corps of Engineers or whatever. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You are not picking a model for me. 

Let me ask Mr. LaTourette if one or the other model is more appealing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Not to be definitive but just to get your thoughts 

about it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I kind of like the Corps of Engineers model. As 

a result of this hearing, I like what the Admiral, the Commandant 

had to say about coming back to us with a plan in 60 days and 

beefing up the civilian side. At least, that is what I understood him 

to say. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. But he doesn’t need 60 days. He has had 30 years 

experience in this. 

I asked him to give me a response to our bill. He said, I will 

come back in a month. I said, you can do it in a week, and he did. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. Well, if the Chairman would yield, the 

Coast Guard can be intimidating and so can you. I will withhold 

my other observations. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Not at all. Thank you. 

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. WELLS. We like the idea of a blended workforce. The great 

thing about civilians is their longevity. The wrong thing with civilians is if you have the wrong civilian, he never leaves. And so, the 

only cautionary is it didn’t work well with the RECs where you had 

an officer in charge and civilians who never left. 

We like a blend. 

66

Part of the answer to I think what you are driving at is in the 

old days when the inspection force was really humming, there were 

these veterans who were in supervisory roles. When the guy in the 

field had a question, he could go to someone over him who knew 

the answer. That model is disappearing. 

That is critical that we get back to that model where the people 

who are in charge understand the topic and understand the ins and 

outs of it. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reflect on that thought is what I ask each of you 

to do and give us a succinct response, just a couple of paragraphs, 

in the next week or so because, frankly, I intend to withhold action 

on the Coast Guard authorization until we get this issue resolved. 

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

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, given the pending votes on the 

floor, I want to thank our witnesses very much for coming and 

withhold my questions. 

I would like permission to perhaps submit a couple questions in 

writing to them for follow-up later. In particular, Mr. Cox, I was 

concerned about your observation about having some uniformity of 

inspection procedures between districts and even between offices, 

and those are the types of questions I would like to propound. 

But given the lateness of the hour and I respect these gentlemen’s time, I don’t want you to wait another hour for us to come 

back and ask you 10 minutes of questions. So you go with our 

thanks and if I, with your permission, can follow up with a couple 

questions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, that is fine, and what I will be doing is 

doing the same. 

Gentlemen, first of all, I want to thank you for your testimony. 

It has been extremely helpful. I have a few questions, but I will 

submit them in writing. 

Thank you very much to all of you. This has been extremely important to us. 

As you can see, our Chairman is a can-do kind of guy, and he 

has set just an awesome agenda for us. I told him the other day, 

I have never been busier in my life. 

What we are trying to do, and I give him a lot of credit for it, 

is take on these problems. Some of them are very, very complex 

and very difficult, but he has made it clear that he wants us to 

tackle every single problem so that the maritime industry and our 

Coast Guard can have the best environment to work in possible 

and so, of course, the Coast Guard can do its job. Commerce can 

move along and we can, at the same time, protect our environment 

and make sure that the environment is safe for our mariners. 

Mr. Chairman, did you have a last word? 

Thank you all very much, and this hearing comes to an end. 

[Whereupon, at 6:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

67


37368.018
68


37368.019
69


37368.020
70


37368.021
71


37368.022
72


37368.023
73


37368.024
74


37368.025
75


37368.026
76


37368.027
77


37368.028
78


37368.029
79


37368.030
80


37368.031
81


37368.032
82


37368.033
83


37368.034
84


37368.035
85


37368.036
86


37368.037
87


37368.038
88


37368.039
89


37368.040
90


37368.041
91


37368.042
92


37368.043
93


37368.044
94


37368.045
95


37368.046
96


37368.047
97


37368.048
98


37368.049
99


37368.050
100


37368.051
101


37368.052
102


37368.053
103


37368.054
104


37368.055
105


37368.056
106


37368.057
107


37368.058
108


37368.059
109


37368.060
110


37368.061
111


37368.062
112


37368.063
113


37368.064
114


37368.065
115


37368.066
116


37368.067
117


37368.068
118


37368.069
119


37368.070
120


37368.071
121


37368.072
122


37368.073
123


37368.074
124


37368.075
125


37368.076
126


37368.077
127


37368.078
128


37368.079
129


37368.080
130


37368.081
131


37368.082
132


37368.083
133


37368.084
134


37368.085
135


37368.086
136


37368.087
137


37368.088
138


37368.089
139


37368.090
140


37368.091
141


37368.092
142


37368.093
143


37368.094
144


37368.095
145


37368.096
146


37368.097
147


37368.098
148


37368.099
149


37368.100
150


37368.101
151


37368.102
152


37368.103
153


37368.104
154


37368.105
155


37368.106
156


37368.107
157


37368.108
158


37368.109
159


37368.110
160


37368.111
161


37368.112
162


37368.113
163


37368.114
164


37368.115
165


37368.116
166


37368.117
167


37368.118
168


37368.119
169


37368.120
170


37368.121
171


37368.122
172


37368.123
173


37368.124
174


37368.125
175


37368.126
176


37368.127
177


37368.128
178


37368.129
179


37368.130
180


37368.131
181


37368.132
182


37368.133
183


37368.134
184


37368.135
185


37368.136
186


37368.137
187


37368.138
188


37368.139
189


37368.140
190


37368.141
191


37368.142
192


37368.143
193


37368.144
194


37368.145
195


37368.146
196


37368.147
197


37368.148
198


37368.149
199


37368.150
200


37368.151
201


37368.152
202


37368.153
203


37368.154
204


37368.155
205


37368.156
206


37368.157
207


37368.158
208


37368.159
209


37368.160
210


37368.161
211


37368.162
212


37368.163
213


37368.164
214


37368.165
215


37368.166
216


37368.167
217


37368.168
218


37368.169
219


37368.170
220


37368.171
221


37368.172
222


37368.173
223


37368.174
224


37368.175
225


37368.176
226


37368.177
227


37368.178
228


37368.179
229


37368.180
230


37368.181
231


37368.182
232


37368.183
233


37368.184
234


37368.185
235


37368.186
236


37368.187
237


37368.188
238


37368.189
239


37368.190
240


37368.191
241


37368.192
242


37368.193
243


37368.194
244


37368.195
245


37368.196
246


37368.197
247


37368.198
248


37368.199
249


37368.200
250


37368.201
251


37368.202
252


37368.203
253


37368.204
254


37368.205
255


37368.206
256


37368.207
257


37368.208
258


37368.209
259


37368.210
260


37368.211
261


37368.212
262


37368.213
263


37368.214
264


37368.215
265


37368.216
266


37368.217
267


37368.218
268


37368.219
269


37368.220
270


37368.221
271


37368.222
272


37368.223
273


37368.224
274


37368.225
275


37368.226
276


37368.227
277


37368.228
278


37368.229
279


37368.230
280


37368.231
281


37368.232
282


37368.233
283


37368.234
284


37368.235
285


37368.236
286


37368.237
287


37368.238
288


37368.239
289


37368.240
290


37368.241
291


37368.242
292


37368.243
293


37368.244
294


37368.245
295


37368.246
296


37368.247
297


37368.248
298


37368.249
299


37368.250
300


37368.251
301


37368.252
302


37368.253
303


37368.254
304


37368.255
305


37368.256
306


37368.257
307


37368.258
308


37368.259
309


37368.260
310


37368.261
311


37368.262
312


37368.263
313


37368.264
314


37368.265
315


37368.266
316


37368.267
317


37368.268
318


37368.269
319


37368.270
320


37368.271
321


37368.272
322


37368.273
323


37368.274
324


37368.275
325


37368.276
326


37368.277
327


37368.278
328


37368.279
329


37368.280
330


37368.281
331


37368.282
332


37368.283
333


37368.284
334


37368.285
335


37368.286
336


37368.287
337


37368.288
338


37368.289
339


37368.290
340


37368.291
341


37368.292
342


37368.293
343


37368.294
344


37368.295
345


37368.296
346


37368.297
347


37368.298
348


37368.299
349


37368.300
350


37368.301
351


37368.302
352


37368.303
353


37368.304
354


37368.305
355


37368.306
356


37368.307
357


37368.308
358


37368.309
359


37368.310
360


37368.311
361


37368.312
362


37368.313
363


37368.314
364


37368.315
365


37368.316
366


37368.317
367


37368.318
368


37368.319
369


37368.320
370


37368.321
371


37368.322
372


37368.323
373


37368.324
374


37368.325
375


37368.326
376


37368.327
377


37368.328
378


37368.329
379


37368.330
380


37368.331
381


37368.332
382


37368.333
383


37368.334
384


37368.335
385


37368.336
386


37368.337
387


37368.338
388


37368.339
389


37368.340
390


37368.341
391


37368.342
392


37368.343
393


37368.344
394


37368.345
395


37368.346
396


37368.347
397


37368.348
398


37368.349
399


37368.350
400


37368.351
401


37368.352
402


37368.353
403


37368.354
404


37368.355
405


37368.356
406


37368.357
407


37368.358
408


37368.359
409


37368.360
410


37368.361
411


37368.362
412


37368.363
413


37368.364
414


37368.365
415


37368.366
416


37368.367
417


37368.368
418


37368.369
419


37368.370
420


37368.371
421


37368.372
422


37368.373
423


37368.374
424


37368.375
425


37368.376
426


37368.377
427


37368.378
428


37368.379
429


37368.380
430


37368.381
431


37368.382
432


37368.383
433


37368.384
434


37368.385
435


37368.386
436


37368.387
437


37368.388
438


37368.389
439


37368.390
440


37368.391
441


37368.392
442


37368.393
443


37368.394
444


37368.395
445


37368.396
446


37368.397
447


37368.398
448


37368.399
449


37368.400
450


37368.401
451


37368.402
452


37368.403
453


37368.404
454


37368.405
455


37368.406
456


37368.407
457


37368.408
458


37368.409
459


37368.410
460


37368.411
461


37368.412
462


37368.413
463


37368.414
464


37368.415
465


37368.416
466


37368.417
467


37368.418
468


37368.419
469


37368.420
470


37368.421
471


37368.422
472


37368.423
473


37368.424
474


37368.425
475


37368.426
476


37368.427
477


37368.428
478


37368.429
479


37368.430
480


37368.431
481


37368.432
482


37368.433
483


37368.434
484


37368.435
485


37368.436
486


37368.437
487


37368.438
488


37368.439
489


37368.440
490


37368.441
491


37368.442
492


37368.443
493

Æ


37368.444