U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–306 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

IMPLEMENTATION OF COAST GUARD PROGRAMS 

(115–39) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 7, 2018 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ 

browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota, Vice Chair 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Rear Admiral Linda L. Fagan, Deputy Commandant for Operations Policy 

and Capability, U.S. Coast Guard ...................................................................... 3 

Nathan Anderson, Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 3 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. John Garamendi of California ....................................................................... 25 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Rear Admiral Linda L. Fagan ................................................................................ 28 

Nathan Anderson ..................................................................................................... 36 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Rear Admiral Linda L. Fagan, Deputy Commandant for Operations Policy 

and Capability, U.S. Coast Guard, submission of the following: 

Response to request for information from Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................ 22 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina ........................ 34 

Nathan Anderson, Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office, post-hearing supplement to a remark ............ 23 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 31306.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 31306.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 31306.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 31306.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 31306.005
(1) 

IMPLEMENTATION OF COAST GUARD 

PROGRAMS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HUNTER. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good afternoon. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

The subcommittee is convening today to examine the implementation of certain Coast Guard programs, including those involving 

performance monitoring, the Service’s Capital Investment Plan, 

and commercial fishing vessel safety. 

It is important that Congress understands the Coast Guard’s 

ability to meet its missions. The Coast Guard conducts search and 

rescue, drug interdiction, and defense readiness activities on a 

daily basis, yet it is unclear how the Service tracks these activities. 

Members of the committee rely on the Service to report its performance to Congress and to the public. 

To ensure a full understanding of the Service’s abilities, the 

Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2016 required the Government 

Accountability Office to look at whether the Coast Guard’s annual 

performance goals and reported performance information accurately reflects the extent to which the Service is accomplishing its 

mission responsibilities. GAO found that the Coast Guard goals do 

not address all mission activities and that the Service does not sufficiently report its performance goals and actual performance. 

In addition to recognizing the degree to which the Coast Guard 

is able to accomplish its missions today, it is also critical that the 

committee understands how the Service plans to do so in the future. The Capital Investment Plan is supposed to reflect the capital 

investments necessary to meet mission requirements in the future. 

Unfortunately, the Coast Guard submits the CIP late every year, 

precluding its use to properly inform appropriation and authorization legislation. 

When a CIP is finally delivered, its profile often does not align 

with the needs of the Service as reported by the Commandant and 

other senior leaders. The Coast Guard says it needs new cutters 

2 

and aircraft, yet the CIP contains outdated information that does 

not include funding to match those stated needs. As a glaring example, despite an over $1.5 billion funding shortfall to build and maintain shore infrastructure, the Coast Guard requests only nominal funding, $10 million—so I will say that again, 

$1.5 billion, as stated by the Commandant and other senior leaders—and the Coast Guard requested $10 million in 2018 and $30 

million for fiscal year 2019 for shore infrastructure projects. 

Rather than providing the information necessary to understand 

and support Service priorities, the Coast Guard relies on Congress 

to set those priorities by appropriating funding above the requested 

levels. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has failed to adjust acquisition documents to reflect the funding for additional assets, lessening the reliability and value of the information provided in the 

CIP. 

The Coast Guard’s failure to ensure CIP investment levels accurately reflect its mission requirements and prior appropriations 

leaves Congress without reliable information on which to base future appropriations and perform proper oversight. 

One Coast Guard mission area on which Congress has provided 

significant direction is commercial fishing and vessel safety. Congressional requirements regarding the construction and maintenance of commercial fishing vessels were enacted in 1988 and expanded in 2010, 2012, and 2016. In addition, Congress directed the 

Coast Guard to implement regulations regarding vessel classification requirements and establish alternate safety compliance programs to allow smaller and older vessels to comply with requirements more suited to their unique characteristics. 

Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has failed to act on those directives. Instead, in 2016 the Coast Guard developed a, quote, ‘‘Enhanced Oversight Program’’ using existing policies and authorities 

focusing on older, nonclassified, nonclass fishing vessels that may 

have had an increased risk of vessel and crew loss. 

At the same time, the committee heard concerns from the commercial fishing industry regarding the lack of communication from 

the Coast Guard on the development of required alternate safety 

compliance programs. The Enhanced Oversight Program did not alleviate those concerns due to questions about the program being 

permanent or temporary, and if temporary, whether the Coast 

Guard would work with industry to develop the alternate safety 

compliance programs required by law. 

GAO reviewed the Coast Guard’s implementation of commercial 

fishing vessel classification requirements and its impact on new 

vessel construction and will provide testimony on their findings 

today. I look forward to hearing from the Coast Guard on where 

the Service stands on implementing all of these requirements and 

more that I have mentioned. 

I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward 

to hearing their thoughts on the issues. 

Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have covered all 

of the issues that are before the committee and the concerns that 

the committee has. I would, therefore, like to for the record put my 

statement in. It deals with not only the issues you raised, but some 

3 

of the other things that are before us, which are probably not going 

to be taken up today because of the time element that we have. 

Without a doubt, for us to do our job of authorization as well as 

oversight we need to have a solid foundation. Mr. Chairman, you 

went through that not only with the CIP, but also with the fishing 

vessel issue. 

So let’s get on with it. My statement will be in the record for 

anybody that cares to search through the history. 

Mr. HUNTER. Without objection. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. I yield back. 

[Congressman Garamendi’s prepared statement is on pages 25–27.] 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the ranking member. 

Today we will hear testimony from Rear Admiral Linda Fagan, 

Deputy Commandant for Operations Policy and Capability, United 

States Coast Guard, and Mr. Nathan Anderson, Acting Director of 

Homeland Security and Justice, Government Accountability Office. 

Rear Admiral Fagan, you are recognized to give your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL LINDA L. FAGAN, DEPUTY 

COMMANDANT FOR OPERATIONS POLICY AND CAPABILITY, 

U.S. COAST GUARD; AND NATHAN ANDERSON, ACTING DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Admiral FAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Garamendi, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify today and ask that my written testimony 

please be accepted into the record. 

Mr. HUNTER. Without objection. 

Admiral FAGAN. Thank you for the enduring support and trust 

that Congress and this subcommittee have provided to the United 

States Coast Guard. The recent supplemental appropriation for 

hurricane response allows the Service to rebuild damaged infrastructure and remain resilient into the future. The Coast Guard is 

an integral part of many of these communities that suffered damage, and we were also impacted, as were the communities, and are 

committed to continuing to execute our missions in these regions. 

The Coast Guard operates in an increasingly complex world and 

strives to make the best use of the limited resources we have at 

our disposal. Through a deliberate approach known as the Standard Operational Planning Process, we continuously evaluate maritime threats and opportunities and develop plans to achieve mission success. 

Using national, departmental, and service strategies as guideposts, we leverage the intelligence community and this planning 

process to employ a risk-based approach to prioritize assets where 

they are needed most. Tactical commanders benefit from this process and have the flexibility to allocate resources on scene, ultimately allowing us to address maritime threats with the greatest 

precision and effect. 

The planning process is guided by an annual strategic review to 

assess performance with robust metrics, identify operational gaps, 

and delineate steps needed to close them. We are appreciative of 

4 

the GAO’s recent review of the performance assessment system, 

and we are working to incorporate the recommendations of continual improvement in this regard. And the agility of this system 

was applied during the hurricane responses this past summer 

when we mobilized and deployed nearly 3,000 members and helped 

rescue over 11,000 people in need. 

The performance measures we will discuss today are a result of 

a responsive, transparent, repeatable planning process. We 

shouldn’t lose sight of the danger these measures reflect to our 

men and women who conduct frontline operations, and the decisions we make based on these metrics drive operational change in 

the field that affect our Coast Guard members. These are not just 

members, there are both public and Coast Guard lives on the line 

in these mission sets. 

This risk is always present with me as I work on policy and 

resourcing here in Washington, and I would like to share with you 

a story of how the system has impacted just myself personally. 

My daughter is a junior officer serving on one of our legacy cutters, a 210-foot cutter. It is 53 years old, out of Port Angeles, Washington. And this past October the Active was deployed into the 

Eastern Pacific in support of our Western Hemisphere strategy. 

An aircraft detected two pangas that appeared to be engaged in 

illicit activity. Three o’clock in the morning the Coast Guard cutter 

Active launched their small boat to intercept and interdict the two 

pangas. One panga remained stationary, but the other fled with 

contraband on board, and the cutter small boat gave chase, highspeed chase, as the smugglers were discharging contraband overboard. 

In the darkness and at high speed the cutter small boat and the 

panga collided. Following the collision, the panga swiftly surrendered and the Active’s crew successfully apprehended the smugglers and more than 800 kilograms of cocaine. 

Thankfully, no one was hurt in the incident, but for me and for 

all of us the case is symbolic of the operations that the Service undertakes 24/7/365, and highlights the risk our men and women face 

in efforts to secure our borders, stop criminals, and save lives. 

The Active was directed to the Eastern Pacific as a result of this 

operational planning system and our Western Hemisphere strategy 

provided the framework for operations, and intelligence helped 

showcase the threat in this particular asset. And it was an operational commander that directed my daughter’s ship to face this 

dangerous mission set. 

The Coast Guard’s strategic planning process works. History has 

proven that a responsive, capable, and agile Coast Guard, using a 

deliberate planning process, is an indispensable instrument of national security. 

To protect American security and economic interests the Coast 

Guard continues to improve its strategic planning system. We look 

forward to continue to invest smartly in capabilities, maintain our 

technological edge, recruit, develop, and retain a highly capable 

workforce in order to succeed in this increasingly complex environment. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

5 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Admiral. 

Mr. Anderson, I understand this is your first time. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. Good. Go ahead. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, 

and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. 

My testimony today is primarily based on work we have conducted over the past few years. I will address Coast Guard actions 

needed to improve the quality of data used for program management and improve the transparency of information used for reporting on its mission performance and capital planning. 

With regard to data quality, we have issued three reports over 

the past 2 years which underscore the need to collect and use quality data to make informed decisions. Our recent report on commercial fishing vessel safety illustrates the need for the Coast Guard 

to improve the completeness of mission data. 

Commercial fishing has one of the highest death rates of any industry in the United States. Vessel disasters are the leading cause 

of fatalities among fishers. Although the Coast Guard investigates 

these incidents, we found that rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities involving commercial fishing vessels cannot be determined. 

Reliable data are either not maintained or are not collected by the 

Coast Guard or other Federal agencies. 

Having this information could be useful to carrying out the Coast 

Guard’s marine safety mission. The Coast Guard reported that it 

is taking some actions to address our recommendations, and we 

will continue to monitor these actions. 

Our review of Coast Guard strategic planning illustrates the 

need for the Coast Guard to also use data on actual asset performance to inform its allocations of assets to field units. We found that 

the Coast Guard’s strategic allocations of assets were based on unrealistic assumptions about the asset performance capacities. 

They also did not take into account actual asset condition or 

maintenance needs. For example, the Coast Guard operates cutters 

that are 40 to 50 years old. These cutters are hampered by mechanical problems requiring emergency dry dock repairs, which results in reduced availability to carry out their missions. 

Officials from one field unit told us that they had planned for 

575 hours per vessel per year for one type of cutter in contrast to 

the headquarters’ assumption of 825 hours performance capacity 

for the same asset. As a result, direction from headquarters, which 

is based on asset performance capacity rather than actual performance hours, did not provide the field with realistic goals for allocating assets by mission. 

Now, our review of Coast Guard performance information illustrates the need for the Coast Guard to also improve the data it 

uses for establishing its performance goals. For example, the Coast 

Guard has two performance goals related to its drug interdiction 

mission. While the two goals capture performance data related to 

cocaine, they do not capture performance data for any other illegal 

drugs that the Coast Guard interdicts. 

We and others, including the DHS [Department of Homeland Security] inspector general, have reported on the need for measures 

to accurately assess progress toward achieving desired outcomes. 

6 

We recommended that the Coast Guard develop additional goals to 

address mission activity gaps or explain why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. 

Let me now turn to the issue of transparency. 

Our recent reports have identified areas in which the Coast 

Guard could improve transparency of information used for capital 

planning. For example, our work on the Coast Guard’s annual 5- 

year Capital Investment Plan found that the plan does not consistently show the effects of tradeoffs that are made as part of the annual budget cycle. This could make it difficult for the Coast Guard 

to afford its planned program of record. 

In 2014 we recommended developing a 20-year plan that identifies all necessary recapitalization efforts and any fiscal resources 

likely necessary to build these assets. In our recent work we have 

continued to emphasize the importance of this type of capital planning. 

The Coast Guard generally concurred with our recommendations 

and is in various stages of implementing them. For example, in 

2016 the Coast Guard revised its mission needs statement. This 

statement provides a basic foundation for the long-term investment 

planning that is to serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of various fleet mixes. 

However, the 2016 mission needs statement did not identify specific assets the Coast Guard needs to achieve its missions. It also 

did not update the annual hours the Coast Guard needs from each 

asset class to complete its missions. 

It is unclear when the 20-year plan will be completed, but its 

analysis could serve as the foundation for understanding potential 

tradeoffs that could be made across the Coast Guard’s portfolio of 

acquisitions to better meet mission needs within realistic funding 

levels. Such an analysis would facilitate a fuller understanding of 

the affordability challenges facing the Coast Guard. 

In closing, our work has found that the Coast Guard can do more 

in terms of collecting, using, and improving the transparency of information to help meet its mission. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy 

to take any questions you may have. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. 

Admiral, let’s start here. I want to make it clear so you know 

what this hearing is about. It is about the implementation of Coast 

Guard programs. This isn’t about whether the Coast Guard does its 

job or not, because the Coast Guard does its job. It is not about the 

coastguardsmen not taking risks, because they take risks every day 

in defense of this Nation. You have 11 statutory missions. We are 

not talking about that at all. 

We are talking about things like this, and we will start with this 

one. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 required the following for seamen’s shoreside access. Do you know what that 

means, seamen’s shoreside access? 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. I will read it for the record here. ‘‘Each facility 

security plan approved under section 70103(c) of title 46, United 

States Code, shall provide a system for seamen assigned to a vessel 

at that facility, pilots, and representatives of seamen’s welfare and 

7 

labor organizations to board and depart the vessel through the facility in a timely manner at no cost to the individual.’’ That was 

2010. 

Every year since 2015, which is 5 years after 2010, the Coast 

Guard has said that the seafarer access final rule will be issued in 

the near future. Is it issued? 

Admiral FAGAN. No, Mr. Chairman. The final rule is with the administration. And I am happy to provide a detailed brief once it is 

cleared. But it is in clearance with the administration. 

Mr. HUNTER. So I will just add these up. That is 8 years. 

Let’s go on to the next one. Between 2013 and 2017 Congress ap- propriated over $2 billion more for acquisitions than the Coast 

Guard requested in order to meet emerging needs and appropriately position the Service to meet all the mission demands. For 

the past five budget cycles, that is 10 years, Congress has appropriated $2 billion more for Coast Guard acquisitions than was requested. 

Why is that? That is 10 years, five budget cycles—or is that 5 

years? Am I thinking terms or years? Five years, sorry, so we will 

just go 8, there is 5. 

Admiral FAGAN. So, sir, I am not sure I completely understand. 

Mr. HUNTER. So we—let me phrase it easier. Congress gives you 

more than you ask for, knowing what you need somehow better 

than you know, and that is where the GAO metrics come in. And 

what I am learning this year in the Department of Defense and all 

the different acquisition changes that we are doing, the metrics 

that you are using, whether it is you dotted the i’s or crossed your 

t’s or did every process point that you were supposed to do, your 

outcomes are what we want to measure. And we want to measure 

those, your time outcomes, as well. 

Your time metrics are horrible. I mean, if this was an F–35 being 

built or boats being built, which you went through boats being built 

with no actual boats being built but spending billions of dollars, 

that is what this is coming from. There are no metrics for us, for 

GAO, or for the public to see that you are accomplishing what you 

are telling us you are going to be accomplishing in the future. 

And go ahead and tell us why you don’t request the $2 billion 

for the last 5 years that we have added on to make sure that you 

can do your jobs. 

Admiral FAGAN. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk to how 

we do utilize metrics. And I talked in my opening remarks about 

the operational planning process that we use for a repeatable, recurring, predictable process that allows us to make resourcing decisions and resource allocations against the 11 statutory missions. It 

is a key part of iterating and continuing to approve. 

We absolutely engage with the budget process, understand the 

important oversight role that this committee plays in ensuring that 

the Coast Guard is properly budgeted and resourced. 

Mr. HUNTER. I don’t understand. Why is it $2 billion short every year when we give you the $2 billion that you need? And you spend 

all of it. I mean, you don’t say, ‘‘we don’t need that,’’ and there is 

$2 billion left over every year, right? 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes, sir. And the Commandant has testified and 

has been very consistent in the need for a stable, recurring $2 bilVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:30 Sep 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\CG\3-7-20~1\31306.TXT JEAN
8 

lion CIP, 5 percent annualized O&M growth, and the need to begin 

having stable and recurring money, $300 million a year, to begin 

to buy back some of the shoreside backlog that the Service currently has. 

And we certainly appreciate all of the support that the administration and this committee have given us in ensuring that we are 

resourced in a manner that helps us continue to meet our mission 

needs and requirements. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. So we will hit CIP here last. It is always late. 

And from what I was looking through and reading the materials 

up to this, it looks like the life-cycle cost estimates are always off. 

The last one, the last CIP you had for the NSCs [National Security 

Cutters], didn’t even have the new NSCs on it, the ones that were 

appropriated for that the Senate put in, the extra NSC. 

If you could speak to the CIP. Is it the process within the Coast 

Guard that it is all fouled up so it is not able to be done on time 

for the President’s budget request and for our authorization process 

for the Coast Guard bill? I mean, what is the problem and what 

will help? 

Admiral FAGAN. So, sir, I acknowledge that the CIP, the fiscal 

year 2019 CIP is late. We are as anxious to deliver the CIP to the 

committee and our overseers as you are to receive it. I assure you 

that it is a critical document to us as it is to you, and we are working with due diligence and a sense of urgency to complete that document. 

So the bad news is it is late, I acknowledge that. We are working 

to be responsive and deliver it to this committee, sir. 

The good news is when the CIP is delivered some of the life-cycle 

cost estimates, particularly with regard to the NSC, will have been 

updated and revised, and I think you will be pleased to see that 

progress, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. And hopefully it will be 2018 and not 2016 or 2017. 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes, sir. I am hopeful that we will deliver the 

fiscal year 2019 CIP shortly, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. All right. 

Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Your line of questions raises a significant problem for us in that we are given information about what the Coast Guard wants and it is significantly 

different from what we anticipate the Coast Guard needs, and you 

were referring to the couple billion dollars annually. 

I would like to go into the process a little more deeply here. The 

budgeting process generally begins with OMB [Office of Management and Budget] sending the various departments its expectations, that is OMB’s expectations for the coming year. You then 

have a pass back and OMB then checks that out, and then that 

eventually becomes the President’s budget. 

Is that essentially what happens here? 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought so. So the question is, is it an answer 

to the chairman’s question that the problem begins with OMB 

sending the Coast Guard a minimum budget that doesn’t reflect 

what we perceive the needs of the Coast Guard to be? And I am 

not sure you want to answer that. Let me just make that a stateVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:30 Sep 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\CG\3-7-20~1\31306.TXT JEAN
9 

ment. My recollection when I was at the Department of the Interior, that is how it works, and so there is a constant tension back 

and forth. 

What we need, therefore, is at the end of our process to have a 

clarity over the 5-year period as to what is expected, what we expect the Coast Guard to do that is consistent with our authorization. Can the Coast Guard provide that information to us without 

OMB sidetracking the data? 

Admiral FAGAN. We engage in the budget process as you have 

outlined it, sir, and we are working with a sense of urgency and 

diligence to deliver that 5-year outlook to the committee. We understand how critical it is for the oversight and investment decisions 

that need to be made, and we are fully engaged with the budgetary 

process, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Perhaps a way that we could address this issue 

is that at the conclusion of our annual or semiannual authorization 

for the Coast Guard we have authorized a plan, a certain number 

of ships for this class or that class, certain number of personnel 

and so forth for the out-years. And perhaps maybe the answer here 

is for us to require the Coast Guard to report its progress in the 

authorization that we have provided in the most recent reauthorization of the Coast Guard functions. 

Could the Coast Guard do that without OMB screwing up the 

numbers? I should not add that last clause to it. Let me just say, 

could the Coast Guard report back on its progress in meeting the 

authorized activities? 

Admiral FAGAN. Sir, we would absolutely be responsive to the desire to understand how the authorizations have been executed. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think there may be a way of having the Coast 

Guard be responsive to the authorization, rather than responsive 

to the annual instructions from OMB. I will just let that hang out 

there and consider that myself and perhaps with the chairman and 

staff that that might be way we can be up to date and require that 

the Coast Guard at least be responsive to what we have authorized 

to be done, recognizing that we are not the only player in the game. 

Certainly the President and the administration are as they allocate 

in their minds the resources of the Nation. 

Just generally, Mr. Anderson, it appears as though your report 

indicates that the Coast Guard is making steps to and progress in 

answering the performance questions that you, GAO, have raised 

over the years. Is that correct? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, that is correct. And I would like to applaud 

the Coast Guard for concurring with virtually all of our recommendations on improving data quality in the context of performance goals. 

I would also like to note that the Coast Guard routinely develops 

corrective actions and articulates those corrective actions when a 

goal is unmet. They put these corrective actions into the APR [Annual Performance Report], and we applaud them for that. 

I think our point on the corrective action score in terms of those 

unmet goals is that some of the corrective actions aren’t measurable or time bound, and those are criteria that we would like to see 

for full closure of those recommendations. 

10 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. Before the chairman disciplines me, I will 

yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Weber, you are recognized. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Fagan, a couple of questions for you. 

Does the administration get periodic updates or do they just 

when the OMB—when you all come in for a request, does the OMB 

just get it once a year and look at it? 

Admiral FAGAN. So, again, sir, we fully engage in the budget 

process at all of the multiple steps and endeavor to be responsive 

to each of the pieces in the process as the President’s budget is developed. 

Mr. WEBER. So is there someone who interacts with the White 

House kind of on a periodic basis or is it just you walk in there 

and present a budget proposal to him? 

Admiral FAGAN. We have a budget shop within the Coast Guard 

that engages the Department and the administration and entities 

as other organizations do as the budget process is developed. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. Of course you know about the annual report 

that says if your stated goals were modified to address ‘‘mission activity gaps.’’ Is that addressed periodically or is that something you 

all report with the GAO, back to GAO, on an annual basis? Or do 

they monitor? 

Maybe that is a question for Mr. Anderson. 

Do you monitor that periodically? 

Mr. ANDERSON. We monitor that when we have ongoing engagements, looking at that within the scope of our work for Congress. 

So as that comes up in our ongoing engagements that would be 

something that would be reportable. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. 

And, Admiral Fagan, do you agree with that assessment? Do you 

all have that kind of dialogue periodically? 

Admiral FAGAN. I do, with regard to measures in the operational 

planning process that we utilize. It very much is an ongoing 

iterative discussion. We work with the Department, with GAO. The 

goal is to be better at the end of each cycle than we were when 

we started it. 

Mr. WEBER. So they have stated that you have mission activity 

gaps. Do you—‘‘test’’ is not the right word—but do you monitor 

that, do you come back and say, ‘‘Here is how you can address that 

gap and how you can do it better’’? Do you all have that kind of 

interaction on a periodic basis? 

Admiral FAGAN. Where there are gaps there is a very healthy 

discussion of what the gaps are, how to make the measure more 

reflective of performance in the mission set. And, again, it is very 

much an ongoing and continuing conversation so that we have the 

best, most reflective measures of performance available to our overseers and to the public. 

Mr. WEBER. Other than not calling you all in here to testify to 

too many hearings, how can Congress help you all make that goal? 

In other words, close those gaps. How can we help you do that? 

11 

Admiral FAGAN. So, generally, sometimes the gaps are a result 

of how the performance measure is framed. Others can be a result 

of not being the only entity that controls an outcome. 

Congress has been exceptionally supportive of the Coast Guard 

and of helping us to ensure that we are best meeting those performance metrics and measures, and we look forward to continuing 

an open and continuing dialogue with our overseers and with the 

other governmental agencies that share that same—— 

Mr. WEBER. And we appreciate that. Vice Admiral Karl Schultz 

came to my district in Texas, the three coastal counties, after Hurricane Harvey and just did an absolute—the Coast Guard just did 

an absolute yeoman’s job. And I am not even sure that is accurate 

enough. So we appreciate that. 

Would you give us any suggestions, Admiral, as to—and I have 

got about 1 minute left—how else we could help you? 

Admiral FAGAN. Sir, this committee and Congress have been exceptionally supportive. We absolutely are committed to providing 

the information the committee has asked for to enable the oversight and resourcing conversation that is so critical to the success 

we achieved in Texas this past summer and the ongoing successes 

in the mission sets around the country, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. You betcha. 

All right, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

I think what you have done, you have actually beat us down. We 

know if we require more reports from you, we just won’t get them 

in the future, so we won’t ask for any. 

Ms. Plaskett is recognized. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And first I want to just let everyone know how incredibly pleased 

and grateful I am to be here on this subcommittee and to have my 

first subcommittee hearing with Admiral Fagan. 

Thank you so much for all that you and your men and women 

of the Coast Guard did for the Virgin Islands. I have been grateful 

for you even bringing me back home once or twice on some of your 

vessels as I was trying to make my way back home during the 

aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 

So the people of the Virgin Islands are enormously grateful to 

you all for the work that you have done and continue to do on our 

islands. 

When I was looking at the GAO report one of the things that I 

noted was a discussion about the use of more realistic asset performance data. And they said that they reported ‘‘that the Coast 

Guard’s strategic allocations of assets were based on unrealistic assumptions about the performance capacity of its assets and did not 

reflect asset condition and unscheduled maintenance.’’ 

Can you talk just briefly about what your assessment of that portion of the report means? 

Admiral FAGAN. So we continually evaluate what type of performance and effect we would be able to achieve with the assets 

that we have assigned. And performance measures that we use for 

the different asset types have served us well. There are some areas 

GAO has pointed out, and we are looking at how to refine those 

12 

measures to best reflect how the resources are able to perform in 

the mission sets. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Well, to me, in a best case for the Coast Guard 

scenario, what this appears to me to mean is that you are trying 

to outperform yourself on assets and with material that doesn’t 

meet the needs of what you all would like to do, that you are pushing your people and maybe performing in a manner that outperforms antiquated or old, you know, when they talk about unscheduled maintenance and the need for cutters that were 50 years 

old and the cutters were hampered by mechanical failure requirements. 

If, in fact, you had the assets that you needed and were the best 

case scenario in terms of your budget allocations and the budgets 

that we have given you, then you would be able to perform more 

effectively. You know, as a parent that is what I would tell if my 

kid got a bad grade and they said that about me. What do you 

think? 

Admiral FAGAN. So thank you. 

Which is why we have undertaken the significant recapitalization that we have of the Coast Guard. The legacy assets do experience increased maintenance days, and those are days that they are 

not employed against the mission set. 

The quicker we are able to bring the new assets online, I will 

use, for example, particularly in the Virgin Islands and the Caribbean, the Fast Response Cutters that are being deployed into that 

region are being deployed for great effect against some of the 

threats and the mission set and are experiencing some significant 

success. 

Ms. PLASKETT. But as you talk about the fast cutters that are 

being used, I know, in the Virgin Islands, how is the effectiveness 

of that in comparison to the use of National Security Cutters or 

Offshore Patrol Cutters or having a larger amount of cutters to be 

able to meet the needs of what you see are the national security 

threats in that region? 

Admiral FAGAN. So the new modernized cutters, the National Security Cutters, operational, the OPCs [Offshore Patrol Cutters] and 

the FRCs [Fast Response Cutters], are incredibly capable assets 

that with other force packages, aircraft and small boats, increase 

the effect that we are able to achieve in the mission sets. A National Security Cutter, a day afloat on a National Security Cutter 

provides a much larger impact than that same day afloat on a legacy 378-foot High Endurance Cutter. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

And just in closing, do you have any report on the status of the 

Coast Guard marine debris removal operations? I know there have 

been recent Washington Post articles about the state of debris removal in the Virgin Islands, and I know a lot of that is the Army 

Corps of Engineers. But has the Coast Guard been deployed to assist in moving those things directly off the island and are facing 

regarding these activities within the Virgin Islands and Puerto 

Rico, as well? 

Admiral FAGAN. We were heavily involved under ESF–10 in a 

number of spill responses and heavily involved in removal of recVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:30 Sep 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\CG\3-7-20~1\31306.TXT JEAN
13 

reational vessels. The larger debris removal I don’t have any information on. 

Ms. PLASKETT. OK. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Graves, you are recognized. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, thank you very much for being here. 

First issue. In August of 2016 the Coast Guard proposed a final 

rule for TWIC [Transportation Worker Identification Credential] 

card readers at certain facilities adjacent to waterways. We had 

strong concerns that we spoke about in this committee room. We 

had subsequent followup meetings with the Coast Guard on that. 

And we are seeing inconsistent guidance coming out of the Coast 

Guard to some of these facilities. 

And just to give you a little background, I think you know this, 

but you have a number of facilities that may have maritime access 

or a maritime component, but that can be a very minor component 

of a much larger facility. Yet you are requiring TWIC card readers 

at the entire facility. 

These can be costly. Some of the information or guidance on securing some of the private information related to this has not been 

provided to some of these facilities. And I will say it again, that the 

Coast Guard indicated to us in this room and indicated to us in 

meetings that this could be delayed and sort of probably some 

stakeholder engagement, maybe looking at some tweaks to it. 

So now we are in a situation where August of this year is implementation. All these facilities have been operating under the assumption for the last several months that there was going to be 

some type of change or revoking this rule while folks thought 

through it a little bit more. And now we are getting inconsistent 

guidance on whether or not this is going to actually apply in 2018 

of this year. 

Can you give me a little bit of an update on what we should be 

telling our constituents? 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes, thank you. The Coast Guard is working in 

support of DHS—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Would you mind going closer to the 

microphone? 

Admiral FAGAN. I am sorry, sir. The Coast Guard is working in 

support of DHS, who is the regulatory lead on the effort. We are 

well aware of the confusion that when the final rule was published 

this summer with regard to extent of applicability, and particularly 

the concern no opportunity to comment. And so we are working 

with DHS to ensure that we provide the clarity that has been 

sought by your constituents. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. So it is March now. We are talking 

about August. That is 5 months. And some of these potential 

changes to comply with the rule candidly would probably take 1 

year of construction and in some cases maybe even longer. 

And I know you are aware we have all these chemical facilities 

along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, one of the largest industrial corridors in the world, and all of 

them have been operating under the assumption that this was 

14 

going to be pulled back, because that was the signal that we were 

all given. 

And so we have strong concerns with the certainty and the ability of these facilities to even comply. And, again, we really need to 

know what to tell them to do at this point. I don’t think it is fair, 

quite frankly, to come in and say, well, no, actually we are going 

to leave it in place as it was before, because I think we all acknowledge that the ability to comply probably was a little bit too challenging for some facilities based on how they are laid out. 

I am really just looking for some guidance on what we are supposed to tell them. And what would you do if you were a plant or 

some other type of facility adjacent to one of these waterways right 

now? 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes, sir, I understand the need for clarity. 

Again, we are working within the rulemaking process at DHS diligently to provide better clarity and certainty for the entities impacted by that rulemaking, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. All right. I am going to say it one 

more time, that you can’t comply with it at this point. You can’t. 

Most of these places don’t have enough time. 

And if this is a problem at DHS or somewhere else I really would 

appreciate you all helping us identify where the challenge is, because it is just not fair. There was an opportunity for stakeholder 

input, and it is not fair at this point to come back and say, well, 

we are just going to leave the previous rule in place and apply it 

in 5 months. 

So I appreciate you taking that back. If you want to talk to us 

offline about where we should be directing our phone calls or other 

things, I would appreciate that. 

The fiscal year 2019 budget has approximately $720 million in 

it for three heavies. And I understand that last week it went out 

for an RFP on design and construction. 

Can you talk a little bit about what your expectation is for 

timeline moving forward on when those would actually be operational and just some type of Gantt chart on what we are looking 

at moving to the right? 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes. On Friday we did release the RFP broadly, 

looking for resource proposals for beginning construction of a heavy 

icebreaker. The Gantt chart moving forward is hopeful that the 

first heavy is delivered 2023 with then out-year delivery of additional hulls. 

We used industry studies as a best practice to help in development of those RFPs and as a means to just help accelerate the 

quality of the design and the timeframe moving forward, and we 

are standing by and ready to execute when additional moneys are 

appropriated. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. All right. So first hull 2023. The next 

two obviously to the right of that. And you think things stay on 

schedule right now and anticipate funding obviously in the outyears to keep this thing going? 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes, sir we have never been closer to having a 

heavy icebreaker as a Nation. It is critical. My first assignment 35 

years ago was on the Polar Star. I am well aware of the criticality 

15 

and national security need of replacing that vessel, and I am confident we are on a positive timeline, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. They are not paying attention, so I 

am going to keep talking. 

Can I keep going? Is that all right? 

[Audio malfunction in hearing room.] 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Oh, come on. You know what, Mr. 

Garamendi, you all go so far over. I sat here and watched you all 

like go 20 minutes in the red. So you all just keep talking. You all 

are good. 

Three mediums. The budget—I am sorry, I am going to talk 

about three mediums then talk about another issue in the budget. 

Can you talk about three mediums and sort of just what you expect timeline on that and a little bit about operations and again delivery on something on three mediums? 

Admiral FAGAN. So the priority are the heavy icebreakers. We 

are focused right now on opening the delivery and product line on 

the heavy icebreakers, and the medium becomes part of those outyear conversations as we bring the first heavy online. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Am I correct in recalling, though, that 

you all did identify the requirements for three mediums as well? 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes, sir, three heavies, three mediums. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. OK. And so you are focusing on the 

three heavies, and obviously those are going to be significant costs 

on those. The mediums you are expecting further right. So you are 

expecting all three heavy hull deliveries, then moving to mediums. 

Do you expect any concurrent—— 

Admiral FAGAN. The exact timeframe on the mediums moving 

forward are very much part of the ongoing discussions. Focus absolutely is on the heavies, and then we will look to leverage what we 

can from the heavy icebreaker. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. OK. I think I can speak for Mr. 

Hunter, Mr. Garamendi on this, I am not sure that Congresswoman Plaskett cares about icebreakers in the Virgin Islands 

maybe. But as you know, the comparison of U.S. capabilities to 

other Arctic nations, we are significantly further behind where we 

are. You have a number of advocates here to ensure that we have 

the capabilities we need to address many missions of this Government. And just want to urge you to keep that on the front burner. Last issue. The Waterways Commerce Cutter, I think there is $5 

million in fiscal year 2019 budget for that. Just curious if you can 

just very quickly again give us a summary of what you expect that 

to look like moving to the right. 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes, sir, there is money in the budget for the 

Waterways Commerce Cutter. Again primary focus with regard to 

the next major project is the heavy icebreaker, but very much beginning requirements development and the work that marches us 

forward with regard to acquisition and replacement in the Waterways Commerce Cutter. That timeline, as well, will resolve itself, 

but again, a sense of urgency again and another major recapitalization need. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield back all of my remaining 

time to Mr. Garamendi. 

16 

Mr. HUNTER. You owe us now. 

Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized for further statements or 

questions. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Given the extraordinary response of the Coast 

Guard to the hurricanes, I would expect that this year’s metrics are 

not going to meet what was anticipated. Unintended or unanticipated events will undoubtedly modify those metrics. 

And so in the reporting to us and to the GAO how can this be 

taken into account, by simply noting that we had 2,000 personnel 

that were doing things other than chasing drugs in the Caribbean? 

They were chasing survivors. Does that work? Does that fit for the 

GAO and how you might respond? 

Admiral FAGAN. So you very accurately identified the opportunity 

cost to the organization associated with the responses this summer. 

How those are accounted for and the impacts on the performance 

metrics and measures will be part of the operational planning process in our internal look, the repeatable, reliable process. 

I am not an expert on how we will do that bookkeeping, but I 

would expect that there will be some adjustment that reflects the 

significant level of effort expended by boats and assets and cutters 

against the disasters this past summer. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And I suppose GAO, as you do your reviews, 

you take these things into account. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Absolutely. Our October 2017 report did focus on 

the goals and the reasons for unmet goals and highlighted seven 

case studies where we took a look at performance goals that 

crossed a variety of missions. And we analyzed some of the meaning behind why goals weren’t met. 

We would just like to point out, though, that your question does 

underscore something very important about the handful of reports 

that we have used to support this testimony statement, and that 

is, good data is needed for good allocation of assets. And we pointed 

out several times where there is a bit of a mismatch between the 

actual use and the assumed use of a handful of assets, which could 

limit the ability of the Coast Guard to surge. 

So bringing this back to our central message, better data available on actual asset use will provide a clearer picture for the Coast 

Guard to then reallocate when there are unanticipated events. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. Thank you. 

One of the results of the hurricanes was a significant loss of 

property assets, Coast Guard assets, and we have approved a budget for the replacement of those assets, or the replacement improvements, and whatever other maintenance might be required, to the 

tune I think of something less than $1 billion. 

Here is where I want to go with this question, and I want to use 

this for the other programs of record that are out there, and that 

is that it is important to me and I believe to this committee that 

we have a continuing update not every month, perhaps not every 

other month, but maybe on a 6-month cycle on the progress of 

these measured programs. 

Mr. Graves spoke at length on things that are really not his turf, 

that is our turf, my turf, the chairman’s turf, we call that our icebreakers, not Graves’ icebreakers, but we will get over that, and we 

will deal with that personally here. 

17 

But he raises a very, very important point: What is the progress? 

How is it going? What problems have you encountered in the design, the money, the contracting, and the like? And then carrying 

on to the other light icebreakers, other heavies and other lights. 

We need to know that. 

And so for all of the major programs that you have underway, 

the Offshore Patrol Cutters, the other various capital programs 

that you have, and now the followup on the hurricane repairs, 

these are important things for us to keep track of for two reasons. 

One, we may want to modify the program of record. Or we may 

want to cancel or augment. And we can’t do that unless we know 

where you are in the process. 

Now, I understand you do this occasionally, but not in a periodic 

way, so that, say, every 6 months where are you with the I think 

it is Fast Response Cutters that are built in Mr. Graves’ district? 

Where are you with the Offshore Patrol Cutter? All of those things. 

Where are you periodically along the line so that we can say, oh, 

my, there is a problem that comes about for whatever reason, and 

then we can address it or not, or encourage you to address it? Is 

that a sensible way for us to keep track of where we are in these 

programs that we have laid out for the Coast Guard to do? And can 

you do it? 

Admiral FAGAN. We very much do what you have described with 

regard to program management and oversight of our major acquisitions, any one of which you have named. It is a regular, recurring, 

senior leadership-driven review. We are responsible to DHS as 

well. 

And so the process is there. And to the extent that we can and 

should share information with our overseers I am confident we 

have got a well-developed ongoing process with regard to ensuring 

that we are responsibly and transparently and reliably spending 

the resources that are generously allocated to us. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So internally it is being done on these major 

programs. 

Admiral FAGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And I suppose on the other, the 11 specific 

tasks that you are required to carry out, search rescue, so on and 

so forth, drug interdiction, and the like. 

I am going work with the chairman and see if there is some way 

that we could receive just a periodic review of that. 

Much of the GAO report appears to me to be one of setting up 

systems of metrics so the Coast Guard knows where it is on all of 

these tasks that it has to do, that there is a methodology of reporting, so many sailors doing—excuse me, so many coasties doing 

whatever they are supposed to be doing, so much drug interdiction, 

so much work on boating accidents and so forth. And that seems 

to me to be useful internally for the Coast Guard to keep track of 

where it is and what it is supposed to be doing. 

For us, we have a somewhat different task. We will be looking 

at the larger picture, reviewing particularly where the big money 

is going, where the big tasks are going, and if we can set up some 

sort of a repetitious, not every month, maybe every 6 months, but 

certainly no less than every year, where we are reading, OK, where 

are you on the icebreakers, which probably would be like once 

18 

every other month because of the way in which it is now gearing 

up. 

Anyway, that is kind of where I am coming from, and I would 

like to see if there is some way we can keep track of that. 

Right now it is hit and miss depending upon when we are able 

to call a hearing, and maybe we are asking for it and maybe we 

are not. But just as a way of keeping track of where we are on 

these major programs would be useful as I look at what the Coast 

Guard is responsible to do. 

With regard to the annual budgeting and so forth, I understand 

OMB, and I understand all the games that you have to play there, 

and I understand that you really don’t control your budget, and 

that the Department of Homeland Security is probably ripping 

your budget off to build something, maybe a wall, I don’t know. But 

whatever. We understand you don’t control all of that. We can, if 

we have knowledge and information. 

So thank you. I will let it hang out there and see. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

That is a great question, if you could track the icebreaker 

progress. But if you can’t do the CIP and everything else is late 

and your internal metrics and targets don’t match your external 

outside-in metrics, I think it is a futile thing to ask you to report 

to us because you will just be late and say: We are working on it, 

it is important to us and we are working on it. But we can talk 

about that. 

Mr. Anderson, let’s go here, because we are talking about DHS. 

Is it DHS’ prohibition on the Coast Guard that does not allow them 

to release a full annual performance report? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I believe that would be a better question for the 

Coast Guard witness. 

Admiral FAGAN. So, Mr. Chairman, with previous negotiations 

with DHS with regard to releasing the full report, the preference 

was for partial reporting within the totality of the DHS report. 

We have every intent this year and are very close to publishing 

the full performance measures report. I am confident that here 

quite soon that will be publicly available, the total report will be 

fully published. 

Mr. HUNTER. Does the Coast Guard feel that it is being asked 

to record too many metrics, too many things that don’t have anything to do with the outcome of your 11 missions? 

Admiral FAGAN. The performance measures report and the process that we use to look at those measures and evaluate our performance and effectiveness are part of the process, the annualized, 

repeatable process, and are absolutely critical and essential to us 

continually evaluating how we are performing and how—— 

Mr. HUNTER. But it can’t be that essential, because a lot of these 

reports are late. 

Admiral FAGAN. So are you referring to the performance report, 

sir? 

Mr. HUNTER. No, CIP. But I am just saying these are all things 

that are due, these are all things that inform you about your 

progress and what you need and how much money you need and 

how well the Coast Guard is doing. If they are not on time, like 

the CIP, how do you use that to inform yourselves? 

19 

Admiral FAGAN. So, sir, we are absolutely committed to delivering a CIP. I acknowledge that we are late on the deliverable. But 

that document is as valuable to us as it is to you, and we are committed to getting it to the committee as soon as possible, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. Let me ask you this, Mr. Anderson. How do the 

Service’s 11 statutory missions align with the DHS goals for the 

Coast Guard? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, in our recent review, we found there were 

37 performance goals that are meant to align with the 11 statutory 

missions. Those goals either fully or partially aligned with the statutory missions. 

Where there wasn’t perfect alignment, we did recommend that 

the Coast Guard identify new goals needed or, alternatively, explain to Congress and to others why these proxy goals fit the bill. 

One example here is on drug interdiction. The Coast Guard uses 

cocaine as a proxy. That doesn’t reflect the entire suite of drug 

interdiction activities or all the narcotics that the Coast Guard ultimately interdicts. So we asked the Coast Guard—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Wait. What you are saying is they have metrics for 

coke, but not marijuana or heroin or whatever? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Reportable metrics. The Coast Guard does—— 

Mr. HUNTER. They obviously have metrics on how much weed 

they interdict every year, right? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. They just don’t give that to you? 

Mr. ANDERSON. They don’t give that to you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. Why is that? 

Mr. ANDERSON. That would also be a better question for the 

Coast Guard. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. Admiral, why would it affect—is this just an 

oversight or—— 

Admiral FAGAN. So we do use—cocaine, volume cocaine interdiction is one of our key metrics within the counternarcotics mission 

set. We acknowledge that there are—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Is that because it is the most expensive drug out 

there or most prevalent on the high seas or what? 

Admiral FAGAN. It is the metric we are currently using, sir. We 

acknowledge that there are other indicators that would perhaps be 

better indicators of performance in the mission set, and we are very 

much—we look forward to having that conversation with GAO. 

Mr. HUNTER. But you keep track of that. 

Admiral FAGAN. We do track interdictions, detainees, yes, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. You just don’t—OK, so just help clear this up. Why 

don’t you give it to us? 

Admiral FAGAN. I guess I was not aware that we weren’t sharing 

that information. 

Mr. HUNTER. Have we not requested it? 

Admiral FAGAN. We do track that. We do track that, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK, thank you. 

That is really all I have unless Mr. Garamendi or the other members here. 

Ms. Plaskett, you are recognized. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Sure. Thank you. 

20 

Mr. HUNTER. We are always happy to have somebody else chime 

in besides me and John. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Anytime. 

I just wanted to ask a couple of questions regarding commercial 

fishing classification. The classification standards that apply to virtually every other class of commercial vessels, in general, these 

standards have improved greatly the overall safety record of commercial vessels. 

Mr. Anderson, does the GAO agree that classified standards improve the safety of the commercial vessels? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, that is an area where we don’t believe data 

exists. When we performed our performance evaluation, one of the 

key takeaways was that the Coast Guard needs data to determine 

whether classing has a positive effect on safety. So this is where 

there is a paucity of data. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So it may not. It may or may not. You are still 

looking for the data to make that determination? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. We have ultimately recommended that a 

working group be formed to go get data such as that, because we 

believe that first we need the data to determine whether or not 

classing has a positive effect on safety. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And why don’t you have the data at this point? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, there are various entities that ultimately 

collect the data. Coast Guard collects some. Other Federal agencies 

collect others. State regulators also collect some. 

Hence, our recommendation for a working group to bring together those parties, to identify data on the number of commercial 

fishing vessels, which basically puts the Coast Guard in the position of having a denominator. Right now it essentially has a numerator. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So in your recommendation for this working 

group, you mention that the Coast Guard, NIOSH [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health], National Marine Fisheries Service should form the working group. Do you think that 

other stakeholders, such as State organizations or industry representatives, should be in that working group as well? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. We do believe that others should be in that 

working group, in large part, for the reasons I stated, that some 

of those entities have data on commercial fishing that may not currently be available to the Federal agencies. 

Ms. PLASKETT. OK. And it is your recommendation as well that 

the Coast Guard issue regulations or guidance to clarify or implement alternative safety compliance programs, which you referred to 

as alternative to class approach. Is it necessary to issue formal regulations or would guidance be sufficient in this area? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I think in this area there are some advantages to regulations. Regulations set up a formal process. Regulations also invite a number of different perspectives to the table— 

including industry representatives. And it is time-bound. So I can 

see some advantages to the regulations route. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Now, were you also able to determine whether the 

regulations or guidance was helpful in less than commercial class 

vessels that the Coast Guard reviews? 

21 

Mr. ANDERSON. I don’t believe that was within the scope of that 

engagement. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Have you done it in the past, do you know? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I would have to get back in touch with you with 

an answer for that one. I can talk to my subject matter experts 

back at GAO. 

Ms. PLASKETT. OK. 

Admiral Fagan, do you know if that has been done, reviewed in 

the past, the effectiveness and the efficacy of the regulations to 

safety, of the Coast Guard having regulations or guidance on other 

vessels that are not commercial vessels? 

So I am thinking in the Virgin Islands, we don’t have large commercial vessels that one thinks of specifically, but we do have 

smaller vessels that are constantly around the island, whether they 

are yachts or individuals going on excursions or even private boaters in the area. 

Do you know if there are studies that determine the effectiveness 

of those guidelines versus regulations? 

Admiral FAGAN. I am not aware of a study that looked specifically at guidelines versus regulations. We, as we look at different 

types of vessels and the risk, use regulations and policy and voluntary safety systems, a whole host of tools, to help bring better 

safety records and safety for the people that are operating those 

vessels. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Because I know, while I don’t mind and I see the 

benefit to all coming on a lot of the vessels in the Virgin Islands 

for security reasons as well, not just safety of the vessel, I know 

that our weekend boaters, going to Buck Island in particular, you 

know, might have a different view of that. 

So having the data I think would be really important. And I 

think that GAO, have they looked into the implementation of the 

classification requirements, whether or not which ones are necessary and which ones are most effective, if that has been put in 

place as well? 

Mr. ANDERSON. The scope of that report was really on the need 

for more reliable data in these commercial fishing vessels. 

With your permission, I do have one of my experts here to assist, 

if you would like an answer to that question specifically from one 

of my colleagues. 

Ms. PLASKETT. If you could give that to us afterwards, that 

would be helpful. 

OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think I will do this for the record, just to save 

some time here, to follow up on what Ms. Plaskett was talking 

about, and it is the fishing classification standards. We have that 

for the larger commercial vessels. They are in line with the IMO 

[International Maritime Organization] standards. I believe that we 

have exempted the smaller boats, smaller fishing boats. 

And the question is, from the experience of the Coast Guard, 

would we improve the life safety if the smaller boats were not exempted and had to meet higher standards or perhaps the international commercial standards? 

22 

Just we need to get into that. That is an issue that comes back 

here on a regular basis. And it would be helpful to have some of 

the Coast Guard experience and advice on that issue. 

So I will let that hang out there. I doubt that you will have an 

answer right now, but we will give it to you for the record. 

[The information from the U.S. Coast Guard follows:] 

Operators of all vessels, both commercial and recreational, benefit from enhanced safety standards and practices. Preventative minimum safety is the 

basis of meeting the standards and regulations presently available, whether 

at the industry, Federal Government, or international convention (treaty) 

levels. For commercial vessels, the standards and regulations are based on 

the vessel’s operations, the size of vessel, the amounts and types of cargo 

or passengers carried, and where the vessel operates. The standards and 

regulations for commercial vessel operations and construction are based on 

the vessel’s intended use and the types of waters in which the vessel will 

operate. 

Mr. GARAMENDI [continuing]. Also, the chairman and I were just 

trying to figure out how we can stay on top of the activities, the 

major programs that the Coast Guard is responsible to carry out. 

There are 11 of them. Then there are all these new ships that you 

are building, cutters that you are building, aircraft that you are 

repurposing, the C–27s and the like. And you, obviously, have 

heard frustration about the CIP and the lateness of it. 

In a question that I asked a while ago, Admiral, you indicated 

that you do quarterly reviews, or maybe more often than quarterly, 

probably 6 months also, updates on how these major programs are 

going in the internal management of the Coast Guard. And I assume that is all the way up to the Commandant, sit around a table 

and say, what is happening with the C–27s out in McClellan. Are 

we getting them done? Are we not getting them done? What is the 

problem? 

To ameliorate the frustration that we have about the CIP, which 

seems to be not timely, presented to us in a timely way, I think 

I am going to suggest that we pursue a more informal but more 

often review of where we are on the major programs that we follow. 

There is a lot of money involved. They are critical to the future 

work or the ability of the Coast Guard to carry out its missions. 

And if you have that internal information, I don’t know if it needs 

to be edited, but it would surely be helpful to us to keep track of 

where we are as we do our work on authorization and appropriations. 

We are not the appropriating committee, but we do talk to them 

from time to time, and they should see things our way, and when 

they don’t we try to persuade them otherwise. 

But, taken together, I think we would be able to keep better 

track of where the Coast Guard is on its major programs and activities and simultaneously be able to be of more immediate help 

when needed on whatever the problem might be. 

So I am going to let that hang out there for your review and 

someday over a cup of coffee maybe we can pursue that. Do you 

think that would be helpful, Mr. Anderson? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I am sorry. Could you specify the part about 

which part would be helpful? 

23 

Mr. GARAMENDI. That it would be helpful to receive a, I don’t 

know, let’s say a quarterly or at least a semiannual update on 

where the major programs are. The Coast Guard apparently does 

it internally. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I am aware that we provide a similar service for 

other major programs and other departments where we do speak 

to the appropriators and authorizers on a routine basis, such as 

quarterly. 

[Nathan Anderson of the U.S. Government Accountability Office added the following post-hearing supplement to his remark:] 

We also provide information on Coast Guard programs in our annual assessment of major DHS acquisition programs. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought you might. And it would be helpful, 

I think, for us in our oversight review. And we do—what, every 

other year, or every year, every other year—a reauthorization. 

Every other year a reauthorization. And the appropriations are annual. 

And so if we can be helpful with the appropriators, this kind of 

information is important. Maybe less formal, but maybe we just sit 

on it with a cup of coffee and review where we are. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the ranking member. 

Let me add, too, I was looking at your program baseline, the approved program baseline, which I assume informs the CIP, right, 

Admiral? 

So that your program baselines, which I imagine a bunch of bars 

on charts, informs your capital investment for your 5-year building 

plan, basically. But your baseline doesn’t have C–130J, C–27, C– 

144s, the ninth NSC that we gave, or the six FRCs needed to replace the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] FRCs. 

If that is needed to inform your CIP, we might even be happy 

just seeing the program baselines that you have right now until the 

CIP is completed, whenever that may be. I am not enthusiastic 

about seeing anything, frankly. 

On the Armed Services Committee we do mean things, like take 

away Suburbans and airplanes from four-stars when they don’t get 

us the things that we require. 

We are going to make sure too that we are not overburdening 

you with reports. Otherwise, that is our fault. Last authorization, 

we gave you a whole section with the reports that we thought were 

important. We changed the structure, right? 

So now you have one section. We are going to go through that 

and look at those to make sure that you are not being overburdened and you are only reporting to us what you need to so that 

those few things could be on time for once, ever. 

Lastly, with performance tracking, Mr. Anderson talked about 

how the higher headquarters says 800-something hours, the guys 

actually driving the boats say 500 hours, and that leaves you with 

a 300-hours-something gap. That doesn’t help anybody, it really 

doesn’t. 

And I am just not sure why it is done that way. It is not done 

that way for any other service that I have seen. If your aircraft is 

this many years old and it has this many hours on it, here are how 

24 

many years or hours we expect out of it, right? That is how it is 

normally done. It is not a top-level thing where they say, this is 

what it is supposed to do if it was brandnew, and the people on 

the ground say, well, this is what it can actually do. 

Am I getting that right, Mr. Anderson? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, you are. That report from about 2 years ago 

that we issued did say that there was a difference between what 

the field units knew could be used for a particular asset and the 

direction it was getting, the strategic intent from headquarters. 

There was a delta there. For the example that you are citing, it 

was 575 hours versus 825 hours for a cutter. 

Mr. HUNTER. I think in the end, Admiral, it looks like the Coast 

Guard is making things harder on itself by not using consistent 

metrics, by not aligning with DHS, and not aligning with us on this 

committee so we can say, hey, your outcomes were great. Because 

if you look at your missions and you really delve into them and you 

don’t do the 800 hours versus 500 hours, but you look at your outcomes, right, those things that we don’t get all of that GAO was 

talking about that we would like to start getting, if you look at 

those you are successful. 

So it looks to me like it is a problem between point A and point 

Z. You are getting to point Z and doing a great job. Point A sounds 

good. But everything in between, it is not matching up. And it is 

providing us with trouble, and it is providing you with trouble, and 

it is providing GAO with trouble, and probably DHS with trouble 

too. 

So we will look through this and see what we can do to assist 

you to cut down on the reports you have to do that aren’t necessary 

and to require the reports that we need. There are only a few of 

them, because we are not going to tell you how to tend buoys. We 

are not going to tell you how to jump out of a helicopter and rescue 

somebody. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, come on. You can do that. 

Mr. HUNTER. Right, we would like to. Marines don’t do that; we 

just kill people. 

But what we can ask you to do and what we need is a Capital 

Investment Plan, so we can say, here is how much money you are 

going to need, so we can go fight for it on your behalf. 

And we can’t do that the way that we have been doing it, which 

is with our secret handshakes with OMB and the administration, 

figuring out what you really need and then adding that to what 

you ask for, right. 

It is not going to go that way forever, because you might have 

different personalities sitting here and a different personality sitting there, or vice versa, where the handshake control thing just 

doesn’t work. 

So, with that, I am not sure we—I mean, we accomplished a lot 

of venting here, and that is about it, I think. 

So thank you very much for being here. 

With that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

25 


Insert offset folio 6 here 31306.006
26 


Insert offset folio 7 here 31306.007
27 


Insert offset folio 8 here 31306.008
28 


Insert offset folio 9 here 31306.009
29 


Insert offset folio 10 here 31306.010
30 


Insert offset folio 11 here 31306.011
31 


Insert offset folio 12 here 31306.012
32 


Insert offset folio 13 here 31306.013
33 


Insert offset folio 14 here 31306.014
34 


Insert offset folio 15 here 31306.015
35 


Insert offset folio 16 here 31306.016
36 


Insert offset folio 17 here 31306.017
37 


Insert offset folio 18 here 31306.018
38 


Insert offset folio 19 here 31306.019
39 


Insert offset folio 20 here 31306.020
40 


Insert offset folio 21 here 31306.021
41 


Insert offset folio 22 here 31306.022
42 


Insert offset folio 23 here 31306.023
43 


Insert offset folio 24 here 31306.024
44 


Insert offset folio 25 here 31306.025
45 


Insert offset folio 26 here 31306.026
46 


Insert offset folio 27 here 31306.027
47 


Insert offset folio 28 here 31306.028
48 


Insert offset folio 29 here 31306.029
49 


Insert offset folio 30 here 31306.030
50 


Insert offset folio 31 here 31306.031
51 


Insert offset folio 32 here 31306.032
52 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 33 here 31306.033