U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–307 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

(115–40) 

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 14, 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 

Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard ................................ 5 

Master Chief Steven W. Cantrell, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast 

Guard, U.S. Coast Guard .................................................................................... 5 

Rear Admiral Mark H. Buzby, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Administrator, Maritime 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Michael A. Khouri, Acting Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission ...... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Admiral Paul F. Zukunft ......................................................................................... 29 

Master Chief Steven W. Cantrell 1

Rear Admiral Mark H. Buzby ................................................................................ 40 

Hon. Michael A. Khouri .......................................................................................... 49 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Report, ‘‘Federal Maritime Commission 56th Annual Report for Fiscal Year 

2017,’’ submitted by Hon. Michael A. Khouri, Acting Chairman, Federal 

Maritime Commission 2

Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Duncan Hunter of California .................................................................. 37 

Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington .................................................................... 38 

Rear Admiral Mark H. Buzby, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Administrator, Maritime 

Administration, responses to questions for the record from Hon. Rick 

Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington ............. 47 

1Master Chief Cantrell did not submit a written statement. 

2The report entitled ‘‘Federal Maritime Commission 56th Annual Report for Fiscal Year 

2017’’ is available online at https://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/Page/AnnualReportFY17.pdf. 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 31307.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 31307.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 31307.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 31307.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 31307.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 31307.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 31307.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 31307.008
xii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 31307.009
xiii 


Insert offset folio 10 here 31307.010
(1) 

REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE COAST GUARD AND 

MARITIME TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 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 11:07 a.m., in room 

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

Mr. HUNTER. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Today we convene to review the fiscal year 2019 budget request 

for the Coast Guard and maritime transportation programs. 

The United States Coast Guard is a multimission service and the 

only armed service with law enforcement authorities. I have ongoing concerns with the Coast Guard being an armed service within 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

On its face, the Coast Guard should fit comfortably within the 

Department due to its role in defense and homeland security; however, under the Department, the Coast Guard doesn’t fare well. 

The Service is hampered by lackluster funding requests that 

don’t meet the needs of the Service, and as we heard at last week’s 

hearing, the Department restricts what performance measures the 

Coast Guard publicly reports. 

Admiral Zukunft, during your 4 years as Commandant of the 

Coast Guard, we have seen the Service make progress reforming its 

acquisition process, acquisition programs for the National Security 

Cutter and the Fast Response Cutter. While they have had their 

issues in the past, they have been producing much-needed assets 

for the Coast Guard. The Offshore Patrol Cutter is coming online 

this year, and hopefully soon we will see the start of construction 

for a polar icebreaker. 

Last year, the Service was instrumental in the Federal Government’s response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. The Coast 

Guard’s hurricane response efforts were in addition to all of the everyday actions the Coast Guard does to protect our Nation. 

One of which is drug interdiction. Last year, the Service had a 

record-breaking year for cocaine seizures, having stopped over 

450,000 pounds of cocaine worth over $6 billion wholesale. 

These efforts often go unsung, and we do not want that. We want 

the Coast Guard to be known for the valor of their servicemembers, 

2 

because we know they take risks every day in defense of this Nation. 

We need to understand the needs of the Service. Congress needs 

information to conduct proper oversight and to support programs 

with adequate funding. The lack of information on how the Service 

is meeting its statutory missions and how its assets are meeting or 

not meeting performance goals leaves Congress without muchneeded information and could lead to inadequate budget requests, 

and more importantly, inadequate funding levels. We would like 

you to help us help you. 

The Coast Guard already falls behind the other services. It is the 

only armed service subjected to nondefense discretionary budget requirements. So unlike the other services, this is not considered defense spending. This places the Coast Guard in competition with all 

nonmilitary discretionary spending despite the Coast Guard being 

a military service. 

The lack of budget clarity that the nondefense discretionary 

budget has imposed on the Coast Guard has definitely impacted 

the Service in its ability to adequately and consistently fund its 

programs. As I have said before, without question, this is a risk to 

national security and should compel a more serious budget approach. 

When the Service is active in time of war, it works as part of the 

Navy. But its everyday missions are critical to our national defense. I repeat, every day the Coast Guard’s missions are critical 

to our Nation’s defense, and the Coast Guard needs sufficient funding to acquire its assets and effectively do its job. 

Admiral, this is your last hearing in front of this subcommittee. 

And on behalf of the ranking member, I am sure he will have 

something to say, too, but I just want to say thank you for your 

loyalty, steadfast service to this Nation. And we just enjoy being 

with you. 

It is great to see the Coast Guard turn more in a Marine Corps 

direction. So as a marine to coastie, we just want to say thank you, 

and keep on weaponizing your boats. 

MARAD is also with us today. The subcommittee shares jurisdiction over the Maritime Administration with the Armed Services 

Committee, having jurisdiction over the nonnational security aspects of the merchant marine. The subcommittee understands the 

critical role U.S. mariners have in supporting domestic shipping operations, as well as defense operations, including the Maritime Security Program and sealift. 

MARAD has been an integral part of the subcommittee’s Military 

to Mariner roundtables and discussions to assist active and retired 

military mariners to move into civilian mariner positions. 

The subcommittee looks forward to working with MARAD on 

these important issues. I thank our witnesses for being here today, 

and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

I will now yield to Ranking Member Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for calling 

the hearing. 

Once again, it is a welcome change to be able to talk about a 

funding increase rather than to try to figure out what to do with 

less money. 

3 

First off, Admiral Zukunft, thank you so very much for your service. You have been a pleasure to work with over this period of time. 

And the Coast Guard in the recent hurricanes performed admirably, way beyond the expectations—well, not beyond our expectations, but in a very, very difficult environment. And we know that 

has to do a lot with the command structure, and I know that you 

are at the top of that. So thank you so very much. 

I also see that, Mr. Cantrell, you are also going to retire. I want 

to thank you for your service. And I am sure that all of the men 

and women in the Coast Guard appreciate what you have been able 

to accomplish representing them so well in your position as well as 

before this committee. 

I guess we will look forward to Admiral Schultz and see how he 

bears up under our severe questioning. I am sure he will do very, 

very well with it, and I know that he has a significant person to 

follow. 

Now, back to the budgets. It is not just about the numbers, but 

it is really how they all fit together. We have much better numbers 

to work with. That is not my concern. 

Moreover, the real problem with this budget is, does it represent 

a change in which we can look forward to the future with wholesome, full budgets, or is it just an anomaly and we will go back to 

where we have been over the last several years, and that is trying 

to figure out how to do more with less. 

Last year’s budget, by example, requested the Coast Guard be 

cut by 14 percent. This year we are looking at an 11-percent increase. Well, we think that is a significant improvement. But what 

about the years in the future? 

It is my hope that among the options, we are going to see increased budgets for the Coast Guard. 

I note that the President is talking about his wonderful, beautiful border wall. I think he said $18 billion. Probably closer to 

twice that. But nonetheless, if you want to stop the drugs, as he 

apparently wants to do, better to spend that money on the Coast 

Guard where you have an extraordinary record. 

Tariffs. Interestingly, the President unilaterally imposed tariffs 

last week on steel and aluminum, but in his budget he proposes 

not to use that newfound opportunity for the American steel industry to build ships, but rather for MARAD to go out and purchase 

a couple of used hulls and to somehow repurpose those for the 

academies. But what happened to the multiservice vessels that 

were authorized in the budget? 

I am going to ask you, Admiral Buzby, about that. We think that 

we had a pretty good plan, and we are not interested in buying a 

bunch of foreign ships for the maritime academies, but rather to 

make them in America. 

So what are we going to do? Well, we are going to find out where 

you are coming from today. 

Additionally, the Title XI Maritime Loan Guarantee Program 

seems to have been zeroed out. So what does that mean for our 

ships that we need to build for the recycling program and for the 

Marine Highway Program? 

4 

All of this makes very little sense. We need to put together a 

budget that actually meets all of the needs and not cuts inappropriately. 

So while the top line looks good, you get into the details and we 

have problems. We are going to get into that in detail. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the ranking member. 

And I just ask that we put on timers, too, because we never have 

anybody here at our hearings very often, and now we have quite 

a few people. We will stay on track. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I? 

Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely. 

The ranking member of the full committee is recognized. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to congratulate and thank Admiral Zukunft on his 

pending retirement. There was something about severe questions, 

and there don’t need to be any today. I think we have come a long 

way in the last 4 years in terms of the Coast Guard’s future looks 

better. 

We are finally getting some of the recognition that all of us have 

been arguing for in terms of adequate funding for the resources you 

need. Instead of starting with a proposed cut, we have a proposed 

increase. Inadequate, but a start. 

We are finally moving ahead with the first new icebreaker, but 

we have other things that are still underfunded. Although there is 

$135 million for constructing and renovating shoreside infrastructure, there is still a $1.6 billion backlog. We still have to look at 

a whole new fleet of helicopters, buoy tenders, heavy lifeboats. 

There is an incredible list of things that we still need for the Coast 

Guard. 

And when I think about this idiotic wall, I just think, boy, if we 

had the money that is being proposed for the wall that anybody can 

go over, under, or around, particularly on the oceans, wouldn’t it 

be better to spend those billions of dollars on fully recapitalizing 

and meeting the needs of the Coast Guard and other real defenses 

to the integrity of the United States and to interdict smuggling. 

Chief Cantrell, I also want to congratulate you. Thanks for your 

many, many years of service. And I don’t know where you are 

going, I know he is going someplace warm, but I wish you well. 

This was a new issue to me about OMB and the replacement 

ships with MARAD, and that causes me tremendous concern. And 

like the ranking member, I can’t believe that we can’t find American hulls. And even for that much money, I think we can build a 

couple of ships. I am not quite sure what the specifications are. But 

that seems like a fair amount of money. And if we are going to repurpose foreign hulls, I am going to be really not very happy about 

that. I think three, hopefully, at least, and maybe we can enlist the 

full committee chairman. 

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

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

Today we will hear testimony from Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, 

Commandant of the United States Coast Guard; Master Chief Steven W. Cantrell, Master Chief Petty Officer of the United States 

Coast Guard; Rear Admiral Mark H. Buzby, United States Navy, 

5 

retired, Administrator, Maritime Administration; and the Honorable Michael A. Khouri, Acting Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission. 

Admirable Zukunft, you are now recognized to give your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF ADMIRAL PAUL F. ZUKUNFT, COMMANDANT, 

U.S. COAST GUARD; MASTER CHIEF STEVEN W. CANTRELL, 

MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE COAST GUARD, U.S. 

COAST GUARD; REAR ADMIRAL MARK H. BUZBY, U.S. NAVY 

(RET.), ADMINISTRATOR, MARITIME ADMINISTRATION; AND 

HON. MICHAEL A. KHOURI, ACTING CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL 

MARITIME COMMISSION 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, Ranking 

Member Garamendi, and ranking member of the full committee, 

Mr. DeFazio, distinguished members of this committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and ask that my written 

statement be entered into the record. 

Mr. HUNTER. Without objection. 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. The Congress, and especially this subcommittee, has gone to great lengths to challenge the status quo, 

demand transparency regarding our needs, and serve as a strong 

voice for the men and women of your United States Coast Guard. 

Examples, such as helping us establish the polar icebreaker integrated program office, your support in products like the unfunded 

priorities lists, typify what this committee has done for the United 

States Coast Guard. Your leadership and vision have helped us offset uncertainty in the budget cycle and have positioned us to receive the first meaningful funding increase since the Budget Control Act was passed in 2011. 

And, yes, we are working with the administration to finalize our 

long-term major acquisition project and the latest Capital Investment Plan and unfunded priorities list. Many of these were submitted months ago. We continue to work with our Department and 

with the administration. We know you need those so you can help 

us in your endeavors to support the United States Coast Guard. 

You have my commitment that we will get these to you just as soon 

as possible, Chairman. 

Following a series of devastating hurricanes, the Coast Guard 

launched one of the largest responses ever, culminating in the rescue of nearly 12,000 people. This was an all-hands-on-deck campaign, but it came at a cost. And I thank you and this Congress 

for the $835 million to address Coast Guard response costs and rebuild damaged infrastructure to modern standards. 

And while so many endured these natural disasters, 

transnational criminal organizations continue to raise havoc in the 

Western Hemisphere. Last year, our campaign to protect the U.S. 

border, thousands of miles from our land border, netted over $6 billion worth of cocaine before it could reach our shores. 

And equally important, we referred 606 smugglers to the Department of Justice for prosecution here in the United States where we 

prosecute 100 percent, less than 5 percent prosecution in their 

countries of origin, effectively advancing security and prosperity in 

our backyard. 

6 

Our cybersecurity program of record safeguards cyberspace and 

we secure our maritime critical infrastructure—ports, waterways, 

and commerce—that translates to $4.6 trillion in economic activity 

on an annual basis. 

And we continue to be a sound investment. We earned our fifth 

consecutive clean financial audit opinion, the only armed service to 

do so, and our major acquisition programs continue to deliver assets that meet performance cost and schedule milestones. 

Given our important work in the high latitudes, coupled with an 

ever-increasing assertive Russia and China, I am very pleased the 

President’s budget includes $750 million for the polar icebreaker 

program as well. Our request for proposals, released just 2 weeks 

ago, has energized the U.S. industrial base and keeps us on track. 

We are as close as we have ever been in over 40 years to recapitalizing our Nation’s polar icebreaking fleet, and we must keep this 

momentum going. 

The budget also advances the recapitalization of our aged fleet 

of 35 inland construction and river tenders, some over 70 years old, 

in all with an average age of 56. Replacing these vessels with a 

modern, modest fleet of Waterway Commerce Cutters is a matter 

of economic and National Security Cutters as these ships are necessary to sustain our vital maritime transportation system, part of 

that infrastructure, if you will. 

While this progress is meaningful and very encouraging, it is 

simply not enough. We need to continue building tomorrow’s Coast 

Guard. Years of fiscal constraint under Budget Control Act caps 

have forced funding offsets and reduced our force structure. Going 

forward, we require 5 percent analyzed growth in our operations 

and maintenance account and a minimum of $2 billion in our acquisition account, a small ask for a service that provides great return on investment. 

I have been honored to work alongside you these past 4 years. 

The more predictable the resource allocation process, the more 

ready our Coast Guard becomes. We are on the right track. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of 

this committee, and I welcome your questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Commandant. 

Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Cantrell, you are 

recognized. 

Master Chief CANTRELL. Thank you, sir. And good morning, 

Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and distinguished 

members of this committee. It is a privilege to appear before you 

today to represent the workforce of your United States Coast 

Guard. 

As an Armed Force of the United States of America, as well as 

one of the Nation’s lead maritime law enforcement and marine 

safety agencies, our men and women represent the finest coast 

guard in the world. These dedicated individuals are on the front 

lines every day carrying out major operations globally, as well as 

protecting our homeland at our maritime borders and inland waterways. 

When disaster strikes, your Coast Guard responds with an unmatched humanitarian spirit. And I want to thank committee 

7 

members and staff that have visited various Coast Guard units 

throughout a remarkable 2017. 

While visiting our units, you heard directly from the selfless people who wear the uniform of one of our Nation’s five armed services. I hope those visits provided you with ground truth about the 

effects your decisions have on our personnel, their families, and 

their careers. 

I also want to thank you for your continued support of our recapitalization efforts, which, as you know, are making tremendous 

impact on an international level. Our new platforms are more capable, allowing our personnel to carry out their missions with the latest and most technologically advanced systems available. 

We continue to have devoted Americans volunteer to serve and 

reenlist in our multimission service, and not just as individuals, 

but often as a family. 

I, along with our senior leaders, remain deeply committed to providing our people with state-of-the-art platforms and world-class 

quality of life for them and their families as they serve this great 

country. 

I would continue to ask that we not lose sight of the fact that 

we still have some work to do as many of our Coast Guard men 

and women continue to serve in cutters and at stations that are 

older and less capable. 

But besides the challenges an aging fleet presents to our military 

workforce, in many places members and their families continue to 

face quality-of-life challenges. With many of our workforce serving 

at remote units far from bases or military installations, and in 

many cases high-cost coastal areas, access to affordable housing, 

adequate medical services, and suitable childcare will always be a 

challenge. 

The sacrifices our members and their families make throughout 

a typical career are virtually impossible to quantify, and we simply 

cannot afford not to invest in them and their future. 

I would like to take a moment to thank you for the language in 

the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which amended title 

37, United States Code, section 476, allowing reimbursement of relicensing costs for our military spouses who are forced to move due 

to military relocation. 

I also thank you for the support received in other important 

focus areas, such as professional credentialing and VOW [Veterans 

Opportunity to Work] to Hire Heroes Act requirements for our 

Coast Guard personnel. 

We look at our new ships and aircraft that are the result of this 

committee’s commitment to our Service. However, the efforts that 

we invest in our people are what breathes life into these awesome 

assets and allows our families to continue to support us. 

These investments should be nonnegotiable in budget discussions. Investment and modernizing our aging accession points, 

along with our other shore infrastructure, should be a priority as 

it is just as crucial to Coast Guard mission success as new modern 

ships and aircraft. I ask that you ensure our fiscal year 2019 appropriation reflects your commitment to them. 

I know you are keenly aware of these challenges, and I am grateful for the support from this committee as we continue to address 

8 

each of them. While our recruiting efforts continue to be stronger 

than any time in the last decade, and we are meeting our goals, 

I reiterate that we must continue to invest smartly if we want to 

retain the talent that is lining up at our recruiting offices. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the 

servicemembers of your United States Coast Guard and their families, I thank you for your continued and very public support and 

for the opportunity to highlight some of our successes and challenges. 

And as this will be my last opportunity to testify before you before I retire, let me personally say thank you. It has been a true 

honor to wear this uniform for nearly 35 years in service to our 

great country and such a remarkable opportunity to appear before 

you over the last 4 years to tell you about the needs of some pretty 

amazing Americans, United States coastguardsmen. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Master Chief. 

Admiral Buzby, you are recognized. 

Admiral BUZBY. Good morning, Chairman Hunter, Ranking 

Member Garamendi, distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 

2019 budget priorities for the Maritime Administration. The President’s $696.4 million budget request for MARAD is focused on strengthening the U.S.-flag fleet, investing in the education and training of the next generation of merchant mariners, 

and supporting our Nation’s commercial and national security objectives. In 2014, U.S. maritime freight activity supported $4.6 trillion of 

economic activity, providing access to the world’s markets and generating revenues equivalent to 26 percent of our GDP. 

The U.S.-flag fleet in international trade, however, currently carries less than 2 percent of our annual foreign trade, and the U.S.- 

flag presence in international commercial trade is at a historic low 

of 81 ships. We must grow our share of overseas maritime commerce to remain economically viable globally. 

As the U.S.-flagged deep-sea fleet dwindles and the U.S. becomes 

increasingly reliant on foreign-flagged shipping, we also negatively 

impact national security. The pool of U.S. merchant mariners who 

crew our ships in peacetime commerce are the same dedicated 

Americans we depend upon to answer the call to man our surge 

sealift fleet in times of national emergency. 

The refusal of some foreign-flagged ships to deliver DoD cargo 

during Operation Desert Shield and Storm illustrates the danger 

of relying on another nation’s shipping to move our military cargo 

in a crisis. 

The Maritime Security Program, or MSP, provides direct annual 

stipends for 60 active, militarily useful, privately owned U.S.- 

flagged vessels and crews in international trade. This program ensures access to U.S.-flagged ships in international trade and, critically, the intermodal networks needed to move military equipment 

and supplies in national emergencies. 

The President’s budget requests $214 million, or $3.6 million for 

each ship enrolled in the MSP. This request is recognized as less 

than the fully authorized level for MSP. It reflects hard choices 

that had to be made as the administration pursues rebuilding DoD 

9 

capabilities. The Department and MARAD strongly support MSP 

and recognize the critical contribution it plays in the Nation’s security. 

Funding from the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2019 will 

allow MARAD to maintain 46 surge sealift support and special mission vessels from the Ready Reserve Force in a 5-day readiness status and begin service life extensions for several ships as part of a 

comprehensive recapitalization program for this fleet, which has an 

average age of 43 years. 

Survival of the U.S.-flag fleet and our ability to crew the surge 

sealift force, depend, deploy and sustain our military, requires an 

adequate pool of U.S. merchant mariners. Most U.S. Coast Guard 

credentialed officers who crew these ships graduate from the 

United States Merchant Marine Academy and the six State maritime academies. 

The President’s budget request includes $74.6 million for Kings Point, $70.6 million of it to support academy operations, and $4 

million to fund capital building and infrastructure improvements 

for this 75-year-old institution. Budget requests also includes $24.4 million to support State mar- itime academies, $2.4 million of which is to provide financial assistance to 75 cadets who agree to incur a Government service obligation and $22 million for the maintenance and repair of our aging 

fleet of federally owned training ships. 

The administration is amending the President’s budget request to include $300 million to replace two of the oldest training vessels 

to ensure the availability of safe and efficient vessels to meet critical mariner training needs now and in the future. Finally, the budget requests $30 million for the MARAD ship disposal program, the majority of which will be used to continue the 

required decommissioning of Nuclear Ship Savannah while in protective storage. 

These programs, supported by the President’s fiscal year 2019 

budget request, represent MARAD’s top priorities. We will keep 

this subcommittee apprised of the progress of our program activities and initiatives throughout the coming year. 

I appreciate the subcommittee’s continuing support for maritime 

programs, and I look forward to working with you on strengthening 

our Nation’s maritime transportation system and bolstering our 

fundamental, foundational Jones Act. 

I request that my written statement be entered into the written 

record of this hearing. I am standing by for your questions, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Admiral. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Khouri, but before I do, I want to 

recognize Rebecca Dye, sitting behind you, and Dan Maffei. Rebecca was also a committee staffer and a coastie. You have got the 

trifecta. 

So welcome. 

Mr. Khouri, you are recognized. 

Mr. KHOURI. Thank you. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member 

Garamendi, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

invitation to appear today. With permission, I will summarize my 

written remarks and request that the written testimony and a copy 

of our fiscal year 2017 annual report be included in the record. 

10 

[The fiscal year 2017 annual report of the Federal Maritime Commission 

is available online at https://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/Page/AnnualReport 

FY17.pdf.] 

Mr. KHOURI [continuing]. I also recognize and thank Commissioner Dye and Commissioner Maffei for joining me today. 

The FMC’s mission is to ensure a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. 

economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices. 

As the Commission monitors and regulates key sectors of the 

container shipping industry to assure competition and integrity for 

America’s ocean supply chain, the Commission is meeting its mission, and our U.S. exporters, importers, and consumers are the ultimate beneficiaries. 

We have seen significant change in the ocean transportation system over the last few years. The number of major global shipping 

companies decreased from 21 to 12. With new construction, global 

fleet capacity has increased to 5,200 containerships and 21 million 

TEUs [20-foot equivalent units] of capacity. This capacity increase 

outran global cargo demand, resulting in overcapacity in nearly all 

trade lanes. 

Nine of the twelve major ocean carriers are members of three 

global vessel operation alliances. A reassuring data trend, however, 

shows us that even with the mergers and new carrier alliances, the 

individual ocean carriers continue to independently and vigorously 

compete on pricing and overall capacity decisions, providing evidence that healthy competition continues. 

Industry analysts and shipper interests recognize that the alternative to well-regulated vessel alliances would be further consolidation in the industry with fewer ocean carriers and less service options. 

Another positive development, carrier agreements that contain 

authority to discuss rates, have experienced a steady decline. Five 

such agreements terminated in the past few months. 

The Commission has responded to these structural developments 

with new agreement negotiation practice and enhanced monitoring 

programs. We have insisted on narrower agreement authority and 

more clear, definite language. 

For all agreements, our staff maintains a careful watch on industry trends, being vigilant for indications of anticompetitive behavior. 

Marine terminals and port authorities have shown new interest 

in using cooperative agreements in their operations. Terminals are 

cooperating in new ways as they address the challenges of larger 

vessels unloading more containers at each port call and the related 

port infrastructure requirements and developing collective solutions 

to mitigate cargo bottlenecks. 

On the regulatory front, the Commission continues to look for 

ways to aid compliance with statute and regulatory requirements 

for our stakeholders. Global supply chain operations benefit from 

less regulation through lower cost that pass through to our U.S. exporters, importers, and consumers. 

Commissioner Dye recently presented the final report of the Supply Chain Innovation Team Initiative that highlighted the need for 

11 

greater information visibility across the ocean freight delivery system. 

In December 2016, the Coalition for Fair Port Practices filed a 

petition asking the FMC to begin a new rulemaking proceeding to 

address practices by marine terminals and ocean carriers related to 

demurrage, detention, and related fees. We received numerous 

comments and then held 2 days of public hearings in January. The 

Commission recently voted to institute a formal investigation to develop a full factual record. 

Following her experience with the Supply Chain Innovation 

Team Initiative, Commissioner Dye agreed to serve as the fact-finding officer. The investigation report is scheduled for December of 

this year. 

Regarding our budget, our requested level of funding for fiscal year 2019 is $27,490,000. The FMC is a small agency charged with 

a focused competition and commercial mission and a need for specialized staff, including a high percentage of economists and attorneys, career fields that tend to fall in the upper GS pay scales. The 

bulk of the Commission’s budget, approximately 86 percent, is dedicated to these salaries and rents. 

Thank you for your attention, and I will be pleased to answer 

any questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Khouri. 

I am going to now recognize Members for questions, starting 

with myself. 

Commandant, as you look back over the last 4 years, just, if you 

would, highlight some things, lessons learned, saved rounds, and 

the biggest challenges that your successor is going to have to face, 

from your point of view. 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Thank you, Chairman. 

So as I look back 4 years ago, we were very focused on two major 

acquisitions, and that is security cutter, but more importantly, the 

Offshore Patrol Cutter. But we didn’t really look outside the scope 

of those major acquisition programs. 

We started applying a strategy driving a budget approach to the 

United States Coast Guard, rather than coming to you asking you 

what we need, but explain why we need it, but how that fits within 

the national security framework. 

As we look at where the Department of Defense is going within 

the national military strategy, but where are they not going? You 

don’t see a national military strategy that addresses the Western 

Hemisphere, nor do you see one that addresses the Arctic. As an 

armed service, we can close those gaps, and then with the unique 

authorities that we have, we can play in all of those areas. 

So with the support of this committee, we are now modernizing 

our entire fleet of Coast Guard cutters: the National Security Cutters, Offshore Patrol Cutters, the Fast Response Cutters, polar icebreakers, and now our Waterway Commerce Cutters. 

We have created a cyber program of record. We have a Cyber 

Protection Team up and running. Next year, we will have a cyber 

curriculum at our United States Coast Guard Academy. 

Daily we sail into harm’s way. For the last 2 years, we have had 

record removals of cocaine. I have been able to meet with the Presidents of every country, except Nicaragua, in Central America, mulVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Sep 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\CG\3-14-2~1\31307.TXT JEAN
12 

tiple times with President Santos, to put pressure on them to stop 

the movement of drugs coming through their country destined for 

the United States. 

In 3 weeks, the United States Coast Guard, Mexican Navy, Colombian Navy, we will be patrolling together for the first time ever 

in the eastern Pacific. 

But as we sail into harm’s way, and as we saw during last year’s 

hurricane season, in the last 4 years we have not lost one Coast 

Guard life in the conduct of conducting our hazardous operations. 

And to that, I owe great credit to our officers in charge, our commanding officers, to balance risk and at the same time carry out 

some of these, quite honestly, very heroic missions. 

And as we are modernizing, we have not been doing it at the expense of force structure. We are growing the force and we are growing the fleet. 

There is no better time to join the Coast Guard than right now, 

and we are seeing that at our recruiting stations, the people that 

not only want to join the Coast Guard, they want to stay in the 

Coast Guard. 

So what concerns me as I look out beyond 2019? Uncertainty. We 

have got two tremendous at-bats, as I like to call it, in 2018 and 

2019. But there are many more at-bats. And was mentioned, is this 

an anomaly? And so what we need is going to be predictable funding as we look in the out-years going forward. 

That will be the most critical aspect, is to convey the value proposition of the United States Coast Guard, demonstrate that we can 

be accountable for these dollars, as we have had the last 5 years 

with clean financial audit opinions, with responsible acquisition 

programs that deliver on-time, on-budget programs that easily 

meet and many times these new assets exceed our operational requirements, as we have seen with the National Security Cutter. 

So challenges ahead, but, again, with the tremendous support, 

and taking away some of those huge uncertainties, including what 

could have been a 14-percent reduction to our funding base. We 

would not have prevailed last year during Hurricanes Harvey, 

Irma, and Maria if we did not have that fiscal support. 

So support here, challenges ahead, but we are clearly on the 

right trajectory. And really, since 2011, we are finally seeing an upward turn in our appropriation. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Commandant. 

Master Chief, same question, what do you see as the challenges 

for your successor? And I thought you guys did left-seat, right-seat 

carryover to the next Commandant, but you don’t. The next Commandant brings in his own senior enlisted person, right? 

Master Chief CANTRELL. That is right. 

Mr. HUNTER. So what do you think, Master Chief? 

Master Chief CANTRELL. Well, and I would like to talk about a 

couple of successes and accomplishments. First, we got—well, he 

has left—we got Congressman DeFazio out in a motor lifeboat out 

in the middle of a Columbia River bar last year and got him wet. 

So that was an opportunity for him to see the real good work that 

our folks did. 

13 

But over the last couple years, we have had a couple of housing 

areas that have opened up. We have made some modest investments in some of our older housing. We have been able to get our 

childcare reimbursement program enhanced so that our folks are 

getting their reimbursements a lot quicker. And with the help of 

this committee, particularly over the last 3 years, of being able to 

protect our Basic Allowance for Housing, particularly for dual military couples, and I appreciate that. 

And we have really put our focus on leadership development 

from the time that they leave boot camp all the way through to 

where they are master chiefs, so that we are really training our reliefs and our reliefs’ reliefs in the best possible way. 

And one that we are really proud of is, as an armed service, 4 

years ago, our recruits were not firing live ammunition at boot 

camp. They were using a simulator. And we were able to turn that 

around and get our folks and find resources to get them to where 

they are actually going to a range and shooting live ammunition 

and getting qualified before they go out. And as a leading maritime 

law enforcement agency, that was just really, really important, and 

we have been successful there. 

For my relief, still got work to do. I think we still need some 

more childcare centers. And while we do have money for this year 

and next year to get a new child development center, we need to 

continue to work that, particularly in some of our remote areas 

that don’t have access to DoD facilities. 

A continued investment in our accession point. Our basic training facility in Cape May is old, it is in need of repair. There are 

some plans over the next 10 years to rehab that, and we just need 

to keep the pressure there. 

And professional credentialing and licensing, which was required 

by the NDAA in 2015. We need to get after that and give that to 

our folks as they transition out of our Service and give them the 

things that they need. 

And those are the things that I will pass along to my relief later 

this month, hopefully. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Master Chief. 

And, Commandant, again, the last 4 years, I realize this is my 

sixth budget hearing on this, the last 4 years I think was a sea 

change for the Coast Guard in the direction that you are going, and 

it has been an honor to be a part of it. 

Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have spent the last 4 years trying to figure out how we are 

going to get a heavy icebreaker. We are well on track to do that. 

Admiral, could you bring us up to date on where we are with the 

heavy icebreaker and, specifically, the funding issues for the first, 

second, third? 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Thank you, Ranking Member. And as you 

know, as we look, it is not finalized yet, but certainly the 2019 

budget, very optimistic, with an appropriation that gets us an icebreaker with DHS funding. 

As we all know, there is language in the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, that puts the onus on the Department of 

Defense to provide one icebreaker. 

14 

So there is still more work to be done in terms of how that funding is sequenced. We need more than one icebreaker. The program 

of record, it is six. And then going forward, we need to look at block 

buying these. 

And there is language in the request for proposals for the five potential contractors to submit that as well so we can make an informed decision, because this is the highest risk mission that we 

have right now. I have nothing else I can send down to Antarctica 

in my inventory right now if our only heavy icebreaker should become beset in ice. 

So that is the additional work that needs to happen going forward with our polar icebreaker program. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. The budget augmentation has some $700 million. My personal opinion of that, that is for the second and third 

icebreakers and we ought not relieve the Department of Defense 

from funding the first icebreaker. 

That is where I am coming from on it. We will see how all that 

works out into the future as we put together the new NDAA and 

the appropriation, the omnibus now underway, then the 2019 appropriations. 

I toss that out and say that is the bottom line, and hopefully that 

will be the way it is, so that that $750 million doesn’t relieve the 

Department of Defense from its current obligation to fund the first 

icebreaker. 

Going forward, we have questions, really I want to get to 

MARAD and Admiral Buzby. And this has to do with the National 

Security Multimission Vessel. Once again, the addendum to the 

budget indicates that there is $300 million to buy some laid-up, 

used, rusty foreign-built hulls, rather than the new National Security Multimission Vessel. 

Let’s get into it, Admiral Buzby. Where are we with this? And 

are you really serious as a representative of the administration to 

toss out all the work that has been done and the design? And by 

the way, where is the design of this new multimission vessel? 

Admiral BUZBY. Thank you for the question, sir. 

First, the design is alive and well. It is fairly mature and could 

be built. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Fairly mature is what I would call squishy 

words. Exactly where is the design? Is it completed? 

Admiral BUZBY. It is not ready to build from. It would need to 

go one further step into detail design and advanced procurement. 

That would be the next step, which would—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So it is good to go to the next step. However, 

the administration is taking us to a bunch of rusty buckets. 

Admiral BUZBY. Well, sir, the reason, I think, that the request 

was made the way it was, was due to the timeframe. Given the 

funds that are potentially in the fiscal year 2018 budget, which we 

don’t know for sure yet, given the fact that we are bumping up 

against the stops with the Empire State, having to get something 

in place for her in 2019, the nearest path, now that we are kind 

of getting in against the stops, was to go on the open market to 

find, not necessarily a laid-up ship, a ship that is available. 

And it could still be a U.S.-built ship. We are going to cast a very 

wide net to see what is available to then upgrade. 

15 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So if we follow that, what happens to the whole 

concept of a multimission vessel? 

Admiral BUZBY. I think it is still alive. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think it just sunk. 

Admiral BUZBY. The business case is still there that a new ship 

should be procured. That still exists. 

If money were to materialize and we could get started on a ship 

sooner, a new ship, we could build a new ship. We have the capability to do that. But the time is what is working against us right 

now. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me just be very clear: No way, no how are 

we going to allow you to go out and buy a bunch of rusty old hulks 

rather than continue with what we have been working on for the 

last several years, and that is the concept of a multimission vessel. 

So keep that in mind. 

Admiral BUZBY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. There is $300 million that is somewhere out 

there. And I will do everything I can, and I think the committee 

may very well be supporting it, at least the ranking member indicated he did. 

Admiral BUZBY. I look forward to working with you on that, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. My time has expired, and we are going to do the 

best we can to stay to our 5 minutes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Mast is recognized. 

Mr. MAST. Thank you, Chairman. 

I will just start by saying, Master Chief, I think you are at about 

2 months and a wakeup from what we talked about. Congratulations. Thank you for your service to this country. It is incredible. 

It has been an honor to be able to question you numerous times 

out here. And I am just very proud to have you join us numerous 

times on these panels here. So thank you for your service to this 

country. 

Commandant, I have just got a couple of quick questions for you, 

one local, one more broad about airframes. But locally, at my level, 

you guys have been doing a great job doing a navigation feasibility 

study in my area on our big waterways. If you could just have your 

folks get me a completion date on that, it doesn’t have to be in this 

hearing, but get me a completion date on that, I would appreciate 

that greatly. I just thought I would take the opportunity to ask for 

that. 

Looking more at the airframes, what I wanted to ask was about 

this. And I understand that the Coast Guard is looking at a lot of 

different courses of action to keep the fleet of MH–60Ts up, operational, your workhorse for search and rescue. Love having them 

in the area. You know, I am a boater that gets out in Fort Pierce 

and Fort Lauderdale and Miami, so I like having you guys out 

there. 

But if you are going to keep those flying until the 2030s, I am 

also told that those average flight hours on those airframe are 

about 15,000 hours, so it is a pretty good amount of time. And, of 

course, we all realize on this committee how the Coast Guard is 

really constrained in terms of resources. 

16 

And so in that, I was wondering if you could answer, have you 

guys been looking at the purchasing of new cabins or airframes 

that would basically zero-time those aircraft? Is that something 

that you all look at? 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Thank you, Congressman, and we will get 

those waterway studies to you as well. 

So with our two helicopters, the H–60 Sikorsky, which is our 

long-range helicopter, we are actually taking what we call sunset 

airframes from the other armed services, and we completely renew 

these, re-engine them. And what we end up with is a like-new H– 

60 airframe. We reset the hours on it. And we are acquiring these 

at half the cost of a new airframe. 

Our H–65 Dolphin model is now in its fifth spiral development, 

if you will. They have been re-engined. It is a composite airframe. 

And when I first deployed with these helicopters on my ships back 

in the late 1980s, when they first hit the fleet, they actually have 

a much greater reliability today than they did when the first generation of this airframe came out. And much of this is being done 

through self-help. 

As we look at our 20-year investment plan, starting in about the 

year 2033 is when we start recapitalizing our short-range airframes. And then overlaid with that is going to be our long-range 

H–60 airframes. 

And the key decision point at that point will be, what do we have 

in our unmanned aerial inventory? We are also working on manned 

aerial systems to include land-based. And then, do we look at a 

one-airframe model or do we look at a two-airframe model, recognizing there are great economies of scale, training, and the like, inventory, parts management, if you have one airframe? 

And then looking across the Department of Homeland Security, 

especially within Customs and Border Protection, to look at commonality across the Service, but we are also part of a joint service, 

to make sure that we have interoperability there as well. 

I feel quite comfortable with the timeline that we have set right 

now, just given the reliability and the work that we are doing organically within the Coast Guard to maintain these airframes. 

Mr. MAST. So this helps you stretch the dollar, and you could 

easily say this is much more than a Band-Aid, this is good long 

term. 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Near term and long term. And these are more 

than Band-Aids. We are flying these 800 hours a year. The reliability rate, we had over 90 airframes down in Harvey, Irma, and 

Maria, not one of those airframes missed a mission. I think it is 

a testimony to the wrench turners that often don’t get the due 

credit, the maintainers, if you will, of this squadron of aircraft. 

Mr. MAST. Thank you. Thank you, Commandant. 

And, Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Plaskett. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, gentlemen, for being here. 

Admiral, thank you so much for the work that you all have been 

doing in the Virgin Islands and the Caribbean. And you and I have 

had several encounters in both good and bad times, and I am grateVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Sep 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\CG\3-14-2~1\31307.TXT JEAN
17 

ful for the support that you have given to the people of the Virgin 

Islands and Puerto Rico as well. 

Following the passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act, for the fiscal 

year 2018, the administration delivered a wish list of how it would 

want to have that funding spending. 

I guess my question to you would be, is that reflective of where 

the Coast Guard most needs additional funds for the rest of fiscal 

year 2018? 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Yes, ma’am. And what I am most encouraged 

by is the supplemental relief that we are seeing, especially from 

Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 

As you well know, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, these 

are Coast Guard communities as well. And so when you see the 

Coast Guard is still there, as these communities are still trying to 

get back on their feet, these are Coast Guard families in that very 

same predicament as well. 

So what this supplemental relief does is, rather than build a 

house out of straw, let’s build one out of brick and mortar. In other 

words, let’s harden these facilities so they could withstand at least 

a category 3 hurricane. 

We made a similar investment out of Great Inagua with our hurricane hangar out there. It experienced 155-knot winds during 

Hurricane Irma. It sustained no damage whatsoever. 

So we need to use these dollars and invest smartly because we 

are in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico for the long haul. 

These are Coast Guard communities as well, and we are proud to 

be part of those communities. 

Ms. PLASKETT. OK. I also wanted to ask you, the majority of the 

illegal contraband is being interdicted in the eastern Pacific, but 

you know there is a significant drug smuggling threat that reaches 

the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico from South America. 

How will the additional National Security Cutters and the future 

Offshore Patrol Cutters defend against this threat? And do you believe that it is the sufficient amount and the appropriate number? 

Would you want more vessels to be able to take on this threat in 

that area? 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. So numbers do matter. And the National Security Cutter has clearly been a game-changer. We are seizing 

nearly a ton of cocaine a day, and that is between the Caribbean, 

the eastern Caribbean, and in the eastern Pacific today. 

What has changed in the last year is we have seen a significant 

decrease in the number of Cuban migrants attempting to cross the 

Florida Straits. We have a fleet of Fast Response Cutters homeported in San Juan, and we have been able to repurpose those 

ships and apply a lot more pressure on the approaches to Puerto 

Rico, to the Dominican Republic, and to the U.S. Virgin Islands for 

shipments that are leaving the Guajira Peninsula on a direct run, 

because the flow rate coming into Puerto Rico right now has gone 

up over 30 percent. 

Ms. PLASKETT. It has grown over 30 percent? 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. It has grown over 30 percent over the last 2 

years. It is not staying in Puerto Rico. It is being transshipped elsewhere, to include the U.S. Virgin Islands and to include the continental United States as well. 

18 

So we are repurposing resources. All this based on intelligence. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And is it the sufficient amount that you need to 

be able to address this increasing threat in the area? 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. The U.S. will never get in front of this problem by itself, which is why we need allies. The interagency is contributing as much. And as many ships as we have put out there, 

what we have soon run out of is surveillance aircraft, which is why 

we are looking and experimenting with land-based UAS. We have 

done a couple of prototypes out of Puerto Rico as well. 

We need to look at state-of-the-art sensors to put into these unmanned aerial systems. But the intelligence is good. We do not 

have enough ships or aircraft to be fully effective in this mission. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

Administrator Buzby, thank you so much, sir, for your service. 

And I wanted to ask you, with regard to the Maritime Administration, can you tell us what, if any, activities or support that your 

agency and your group, particularly your Ready Reserve Forces 

and your own fleet, were able to provide during the hurricane season in the Caribbean? 

Admiral BUZBY. Yes. Thank you, ma’am. 

We were very proud to play a significant role, clearly not as significant as the Coast Guard who were heavily involved. We had 

three of our school ships and one of our Ready Reserve Force ships 

active, participating in hurricane relief for all three hurricanes. We 

were active in Texas, we were active in the gulf coast, in Florida, 

and most heavily in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Because I know that one of the issues that we 

had on the islands was that the inability to have cargo, particularly 

food relief and others, come in. I know that most of your support 

is not related to those things, but related to military equipment. 

But could your fleet also be used to support the additional food and 

other supplies and equipment that were needed in places like Puerto Rico and elsewhere? 

Admiral BUZBY. Actually our Jones Act fleet of commercial ships, 

we had 24 ships that were providing support to Puerto Rico 

throughout the thing. So there was plenty of capacity. 

But to directly answer your question, yes, there is additional capacity that could be brought into play with our Reserve ships to 

augment that should it be necessary. 

Ms. PLASKETT. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. MAST [presiding]. The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Graves. 

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

First of all, Admiral, I want to thank you very much for your 

service to the Coast Guard and to the Nation. I think we first started working together about 8 years ago when we were both in different capacities. And I remember one of us getting fairly excited 

and maybe yelling a good bit and things like that across the table 

at one another. And thankfully, your temper has subsided since 

then. 

I am kidding. I might have been the one doing that. 

No, but, again, I just want to thank you very much for your service to our Nation. I also know that your wife and family have sacVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Sep 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\CG\3-14-2~1\31307.TXT JEAN
19 

rificed much for your service in the time away, and I do want to 

thank you. 

I know that Chairman Hunter talked to you a little bit about 

some of your lessons learned and advice on the way out, and we 

are going to keep your cell phone number and keep bothering you 

as things progress to continue to get your advice on how we best 

handle maritime policy, maritime security, and many other challenges that our Nation is facing. 

But your service to the Coast Guard was one, as we have discussed at the last few hearings, one of where the Coast Guard has 

evolved into sort of this Swiss army knife in this post-9/11 and 

evolving-threat era that we are in now, where the Coast Guard’s 

presence on the water has just continued to evolve as the threats 

have. And you all are an extremely agile, multimission agency. 

And, again, your leadership during those challenging times has 

very much been appreciated. So thank you very much. 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Chief, same to you. I always appreciate your absolute, unconditional support for the coasties out there 

and advocating on their behalf. You have been a great voice, a very 

passionate voice for the men and women of the Coast Guard. And 

have appreciated very much your fighting for the people that are 

on the ground, that are the people that are literally protecting our 

Nation on a daily basis. And I want to thank you for your service 

as well. 

Admiral Buzby, before I jump back to Coast Guard, I want to 

jump over to you just for a minute. You have some pretty strong 

words for the importance of a domestic fleet in your testimony. You 

talked a little bit about the important role that Jones Act vessels 

play, U.S.-flagged vessels play in terms of ensuring that we have 

the capability to deliver our military men and women, our equipment around the globe. 

And you also talked about some of the challenges associated with 

our increasing reliance upon foreign-flagged vessels. I believe you 

noted in your testimony that there were 177—give me a little leeway there—foreign vessels that were used. And I believe you noted 

that in at least 13 cases that those foreign vessels had apprehension, hesitation, or refused to go into some of these areas where 

there was tension or conflict. And that, obviously, is exactly where 

we need our military men and women and exactly where we need 

our equipment. 

Do you care to expand or comment on that and just sort of your 

vision on how we ensure those types of situations don’t happen in 

the future? 

Admiral BUZBY. Thank you for that question, sir. 

It really is critical to my way of thinking, and I think to most 

of the military, and certainly to General McDew of USTRANSCOM 

[U.S. Transportation Command], that we have reliable sealift for 

this country. And that has to come from a combination of Government-owned ships that we hold in reserve in our sealift fleet, but 

more importantly, from the U.S.-flag fleet. Those are the ships that 

we can rely upon. 

And some of the cargo that we have to move is critical to whatever mission we have to do. And to entrust that to a foreign-flag 

20 

ship with an unknown crew, and as we have seen historically, some 

of those declined to do that. They declined to carry that to where 

we needed to go. And that is simply unacceptable. We depend on 

our sealift forces to move our military overseas, period. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. And I do appreciate you 

providing us that feedback or guidance. And I just want to ask if 

we can continue to work perhaps offline a bit on steps we need to 

take here to ensure that we don’t run into those reliability problems in the future. But I think it does, just to reinforce as this committee has on numerous occasions, the importance of having a robust U.S.-flag fleet that can deliver for us. 

Admiral, coming back to you, Admiral Z, the icebreaker is something we have talked about a good bit over the last few years. We 

have had a number of meetings discussing that. I always get this 

mixed up—the Polar Star is the one that is still floating, right? All 

right. 

So the Polar Star, we are in a situation now where the service 

life of the Polar Star is already, while you all did a phenomenal 

job with duct tape and bubble gum keeping that thing floating, the 

service life on it is somewhat tenuous, I think it is safe to say. Yet, as I recall, the Coast Guard has indicated that a $2 billion 

annual investment in a heavy is really what we need to get us to 

the place we need to be, to have the capabilities we need, and also 

to have a seamless transition from the Polar Star into a new 

heavy. I think it is fantastic that the budget request does have, 

was it $725 million in there, for a heavy for fiscal year 2019. 

Can you just comment on sort of how those things transition? Be- cause if the $2 billion figure was our target, if the service life is, 

what is it, 2023, I think, on the Polar Star, it seems like we are 

going to have a problem, if we are not fully investing in the program annually. 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Yeah, I am concerned, as I look at the 5-year 

budget bill, when I am asking for a $2 billion floor, and we are seeing our acquisition budget continuing to be funded below that floor. And icebreaking is clearly the biggest risk. There is a $15 million 

annualized appropriation to keep the Polar Star in service, so there 

is a smooth hand-off between the Polar Star and the next heavy 

icebreaker. 

That gets us right back to the status quo, though, and we are 

still only a Nation of one heavy icebreaker, which means we need 

to continue to build out that program of record. We need to provide 

predictability for our shipbuilders as well. Our shipyards have not 

built a ship of those scantlings, of that design, laying up that much 

steel since these ships were built over 40 years ago. 

It is an investment in our industrial base at the same time. And 

this will be built in the United States and with United States steel 

as well. 

So of all our appropriations, this is the one at greatest risk, and 

it does concern me. And there is going to be tension as we look at, 

how do we fund other priorities within the Department of Homeland Security? 

And a concern that I will pass on to my relief is you may enter 

another cycle of flatline budgets at a point in time where our needs 

are continuing to grow, particularly in this domain. 

21 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. OK. Bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, I 

just want to highlight, I think we do have some problems with this 

current schedule in that the service life on the Polar Star, we are 

looking at 2023. Am I remembering that correctly? 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. 2023 is when we anticipate taking delivery of 

the first heavy icebreaker. We want to sustain the Polar Star for 

2 years beyond that to make sure as we go through sea trials we 

are fully mission ready. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. OK. So we have got major concerns 

with the Polar Star still floating by, I think, 2025 then. 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. That is right. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. And actually having the ability to replace it with a new heavy. And then, of course, we have you, in discussions in another formal setting, the administration has indicated the need also to have medium capacity. And so that is going 

to need to come on. And if all we are doing is $700 million, then 

we are not able to even deliver the heavy, much less coming behind 

on the medium, which is really important. 

If I can change gears real quick. Patrol Forces Southwest Asia 

has six 110s right now. We certainly want to make sure that the 

men and women that are out there helping to support our military 

in that region, that they have the equipment they need, have the 

resources they need. 

I am a little partial to the FRC [Fast Response Cutter], as you 

know, and I just am curious if you could talk at all about, perhaps, 

the need or timelines on replacing the 110s with FRC out there. 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Yes, Congressman. I have had a number of 

high-level engagements. I have written when we want to restore 

readiness, a letter that went through the Secretary of Homeland 

Security that I addressed to the Secretary of Defense, to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. 

I have met with General Votel, CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command], I have met with Vice Admiral Aquilino, he was commander 

of the 5th Fleet in Bahrain, with the Secretary of the Navy, and 

with the CNO, and that we have a hot product line that are building these ships on time, on schedule, because the 110s that are 

there will time-out in 2022. 

The PCs that the Navy operates, they will start timing out a 

year later. So there is an opportunity, using DoD funding, to keep 

this product line going, to reconstitute the fleet that is over there 

right now. And we need a decision by 2022 so we can make those 

informed decisions to keep that product line going, to roll out that 

next fleet of ships. 

So, Congressman, that is where it stands right now. And it does 

have the highest level of attention from the Secretary of the Navy 

on down, to include the combatant commander in charge of that 

theater. The return on investment is huge. The mission is not 

going away. The demand signal remains high. And so that is where 

we stand right now. 

But 2020 is where the shipbuilder needs to be informed that this 

order is coming in so they can keep that product line going. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, there is this weird clock thing in front of me, I 

am not sure what that is, but I want to yield back. 

22 

Mr. HUNTER [presiding]. The ranking member and I stayed 

under our time so that we could give everybody else a chance. We 

are just happy you are here. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Lowenthal is recognized. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. It is a pleasure to join the Garret Graves show. 

Admiral Buzby, I want to ask what to me has become kind of a 

conundrum, and let me lay it out. It has to do with the President’s 

budget request for MARAD’s Title XI, the loan guarantee program. 

You know, the program has been in operation for over 80 years. It 

guarantees financing for the construction of American-made U.S.- 

flagged vessels. It is a longstanding public-private partnership. It 

has helped to build the U.S.-flagged Ready Reserve Fleet, supported American shipyards. 

These loans were crucial to help finance the construction of the 

world’s first LNG-powered containership, which was built here in 

America. 

President Trump talks about reviving American manufacturing 

and just last week announced tariffs under a rationale that certain 

industries are vital for our national security. I thought for years we 

have considered shipbuilding one of those vital industries. 

My first question is, and let me ask the whole thing, is that still 

the case? And help me to understand the logic that if this program 

has an important role, which you say, and the President talks 

about American manufacturing, but the budget calls for no new authority to guarantee loans. That seems to me to be a contradiction. 

Can you respond to that, please? 

Admiral BUZBY. Yes, sir, happy to. 

We believe that it is an important program also. This really 

comes down to a funding issue in a very difficult budget year. It 

is a good program. It has built over 1,900 vessels for this country. 

It has done some good things. It has had some defaults in the recent past, which have been difficult to get through, but it has been 

a general benefit to the Nation. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. So you are very supportive of the program and 

the importance of the program? 

Admiral BUZBY. I think it has made great benefit to our country. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Acting Chairman Khouri, I have a question. Last year the subcommittee passed legislation to amend the Shipping Act to increase 

FMC’s authority to oversee and enforce antitrust requirements that 

would prevent the ongoing consolidation among American—among 

foreign-flagged containers, not American, foreign-flagged containers, container carriers, from disadvantaging the U.S. maritime 

and port service industries. 

And I have been told we expect Congress to clear this legislation 

later this year. So my question, when final agreement is reached, 

I think, on the Coast Guard Authorization Act—there are two questions. 

One, what is the status of consolidation in the container trades? 

Are there now fewer carriers than there were in 2017? 

And is there sufficient funding in the administration’s request for 

the FMC to ensure that the Commission has the personnel and reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Sep 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\CG\3-14-2~1\31307.TXT JEAN
23 

sources necessary to conduct very effective oversight during this 

very kind of dynamic period of consolidation that is taking place? 

If you can tell, do you have the resources? And what is the latest 

status on consolidation of the U.S. container trades? 

Mr. KHOURI. Thank you for the question. Let me answer the second one first, if I may. 

We do have the resources to continue our monitoring of the ocean 

industry, ocean container industry. We do have in our budget 

money for additional people, especially in our economist group. We 

just received notice that we are going to lose two economists via 

retirement. That area is sort of the heart and soul of everything 

that we do. 

So we are actively getting ready. I think tomorrow we will have 

new notices for recruiting economists. These are somewhat specialized transportation economists. But I do feel confident that we can 

continue that mission and do it effectively. 

On the status, as I said in my testimony, the number of major 

carriers has gone from 21 down to 12. There are a total of 36 different carriers that currently serve U.S. trades. Now, obviously, the 

smaller carriers are not up to a scale as a Maersk or Mediterranean Shipping. However, bear in mind to some extent, when you 

have a commoditized marketplace, that the smaller carriers do effectively, from a pricing standpoint, set a lid on how all of the other 

carriers react. 

We watch like hawks, I can promise you, the pricing activities 

and all of this pricing and decision—excuse me, capacity decisions 

are regularly filed with the Commission. We follow that closely. We 

see where different carriers are making pricing decisions this way 

and that. They are making their short-term decisions on putting 

ships in or out of a trade lane. 

And then there are long-term decisions, similar to the Coast 

Guard, when you build a ship you have got it for 30 years, that the 

long-term decisions that various carriers are making in terms of 

new-builds continues to show diversity. 

So this is all evidence to us that you still have a very competitive 

marketplace. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. OK. 

Mr. KHOURI. So I think, as we speak today, the HerfindahlHirschman Index, not to get technical, but this is the same type 

of analysis the Department of Justice uses to look at industries, et 

cetera, that our main East-West trades, Asia to U.S., and the Atlantic trades are still in a very comfortable, what is called safe harbor area, under HHI. 

So we feel confident that it still has a very competitive marketplace overall to protect our exporters, our importers, our consumers, and the various service providers that you mentioned in 

terms of the tug companies. So we do feel confident. We would like 

to have full funding so that we can go ahead and hire some of these 

extra folks into the 2018 and 2019 budget periods. 

So that is where we are at this point. Thank you, sir, for the 

question. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

24 

We are going to start another round of the hearing by recognizing myself. This is more what it looks like usually here. 

FMC questions really quick. We all raised concerns last year. 

And, by the way, we have a bipartisan FMC bill, that is a Senate 

bill as well, so it is bicameral, bipartisan, to help do the things that 

we talked about last year. I think you got yelled at by just about 

everybody up here. 

So in regards to that, we talked last year about you agreeing to 

allow a group of international car carriers to collectively negotiate 

with U.S. tugboat service providers. In light of the concerns that 

we have raised, is the Commission now more closely overseeing negotiations between ocean common carriers and the U.S. domestic 

providers? 

Mr. KHOURI. Thank you for the question. The very short answer 

is yes. And just perhaps another sentence or two. 

It has been interesting that some of the alliances have visibly 

backed away from even pursuing some of that activity. So I think 

it was heard by everyone in the industry where the Congress 

stands on the issue, and I feel comfortable that it is in good shape. 

And I think the other thing that is in the, if I may, in the pending bill, I mentioned in my testimony that five different price discussion—what we call price discussion agreements, agreements 

that allow for discussion of pricing, I just note, I am not going to 

say because of, but I note that they have filed agreement terminations at the Commission. So that is a very positive trend of 

eliminating price discussion through the trades. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Khouri, then, you have seen the legislation 

that we have put forward, right? 

Mr. KHOURI. Oh, yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Do you think that gives you more tools in your toolbox? 

Mr. KHOURI. Yes, I do. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. 

Admiral Buzby, I would ask you more questions, but in the 

NDAA and our other committee, we are both on the Subcommittee 

on Seapower and Projection Forces, we are both, John and I, we 

are both on the Armed Services Committee. You get authorized by 

the NDAA for MSP, it gets paid out of DOT, and the difference, the 

delta between what we authorized, the $300 million and your $216 

million that you are putting towards MSP with the old $3.5 million 

number, instead of the $5 million per ship, we are going to work 

that. 

I am sure we are going to find the money in the Armed Services 

Committee, because even though DOT pays for that, the difference 

needs to be made up in the NDAA, from what I understand. So we 

will work that going forward. 

I guess the one question I have is, do you expect if the number stays at $3.5 million, you have 59 MSP ships now, right? 

Admiral BUZBY. Sixty. 

Mr. HUNTER. You have 60 now? 

Admiral BUZBY. We are up to 60. 

Mr. HUNTER. What do you expect that to go to? Because when 

we made this change it was for a reason. It was because ships were 

dropping out, right? 

25 

Admiral BUZBY. Right. We work very closely with our operators. 

They are very supportive of our program. I do not anticipate anybody that will drop immediately. We will be working very closely 

with them, however, if it has to stay at that lower number. It is 

a concern, no doubt. They have voiced their concerns. We are concerned about it. We would have liked to have absolutely funded it 

to the $300 million level, but just budget-wise we were restrained. 

Mr. HUNTER. But also it looks like you have got money in to 

build two merchant mariner training ships—not to build, to buy. 

Admiral BUZBY. Right. 

Mr. HUNTER. Right? And those would not be U.S. built? 

Admiral BUZBY. They could be. 

Mr. HUNTER. They could be U.S. built, but the numbers you have 

I don’t think are. 

Admiral BUZBY. Well, if we have to go out and get used ships, 

the estimate is that to purchase a used ship and then convert it, 

it would be about $200 million or so to do that for a used ship to 

then modify it. 

Mr. HUNTER. And right now you have two in there, right, you 

have the money for two? 

Admiral BUZBY. Right now the language calls for two for $300 

million. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. But you could theoretically build one. 

Admiral BUZBY. We could build—that same number, that 300 

number—— 

Mr. HUNTER. And put the money back to MSP. 

Admiral BUZBY. It is theoretical, but, yes, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. Those are all possibilities. 

Admiral BUZBY. It is a possibility. And we look forward to working with Congress on this. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. 

Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Just to follow up on some questions the chairman raised. 

How many ships would be in the MSP fleet if the 29-percent cut 

were to take place? 

Admiral BUZBY. In other words, if we were to fund it to the $3.5 

million, we believe that all 60 ships would remain, sir, at this point 

at least. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So you intend to negotiate down the subsidy per 

ship? 

Admiral BUZBY. That is something we would have to kind of look 

at. You know, that is a policy thing we would have to talk to the 

Secretary about for sure. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, you also talk to us about these things. 

Admiral BUZBY. Certainly. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think the chairman and I have made it clear 

where we are coming from on this. We think the MSP program is 

exceedingly important and that the subsidy level at $5.2 million 

was necessary. 

Also, I note that the administration proposes to end the Public 

Law 480 program, which I think directly affects the MSP issue. I 

don’t see the logic of that. I think that I don’t see the logic of most 

of that budget, to be quite frank about it, except we are happy to 

26 

have the additional money for the Coast Guard, as long as they 

spend that money appropriately on the things that we are talking 

about. 

We talked earlier about the multimission training vessel and the $300 million. I want to be very, very clear where I am coming from. 

I think this committee is supporting that position that we are not 

going to buy a foreign-built ship, we are not going to abandon the 

multimission. 

So what does it cost to build those multimission ships? 

Admiral BUZBY. A single vessel we estimate about $302 million. If we were to build two or three, it drops down to about $280 million to $290 million. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So we would need somewhere around another 

$300 million over the course of the next couple of years to build two 

of those multimission ships. 

What is the purpose of a multimission ship? What is the multimissions? 

Admiral BUZBY. The reason that we are building the ship and 

calling it a National Security Multimission Vessel is its primary 

mission will be as a training vessel for the State maritime academy 

that it would be assigned to. 

Its secondary mission would be, as we have seen this past summer, it would be used in a natural disaster relief sort of role, and 

as designed would have good capability to perform that role even 

better than our ships that were not purpose-built. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And these rusty hulks that are being discussed 

to be purchased, would they be able to do the multimission? 

Admiral BUZBY. They would have some capabilities, clearly not 

as much as a ship that was purpose-built for that mission, no, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So we have got to find a couple hundred million 

dollars to build the two ships and do it right the first time, right? 

Correct? 

Admiral BUZBY. That would be the best way to go forward, yes, 

sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am sorry, that would be the—— 

Admiral BUZBY. The very best way to go forward. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. The very best, most wonderful, beautiful way. 

Admiral BUZBY. If we can all afford it, yes, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am learning the language of the administration. 

We talked earlier about a big, beautiful, wonderful, border wall 

with steel that now has a 25-percent tariff on top of it, so the cost 

probably will end up some—but, in any case, that $18 billion. Admiral Zukunft, you said there were how many metric tons of cocaine did you seize on the low seas, the high seas? 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. 233 this past year. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. My information that I have received recently is 

that on the entire land border about 20 metric tons were seized. 

That is about one-tenth of what you seized on the high seas. 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. What is most vulnerable is where it moves in 

bulk, and that moves predominantly in the maritime domain way 

beyond our border. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So my message to the President is, from yesterday, he seemed to be really interested in stopping the importation 

27 

of drugs, the illicit drugs coming into the Nation. And if he really 

wanted to get the best for the money, he would fund the Coast 

Guard. It is 10 to 1. You don’t need to comment, but I put that out 

there. 

Mr. President, we want to stop illegal drugs entering the United 

States. You want to spend your money in the very best, most efficient way possible. Take the $18 billion, spend some portion of it 

to rebuild the fences that we presently have. They can be big, beautiful fences or walls. But don’t spend $18 billion that way. Spend 

it where it has the most effect, which is the U.S. Coast Guard. 

And you need autonomous vehicles, drones and the like. You 

need better capability. You continue to work with the Latin American countries. All of this takes money. 

And so if we want to get the very best, most efficient way to stop 

drugs coming into the country, it is the U.S. Coast Guard, not a 

beautiful wall paid for by the American taxpayers. 

Enough of that. I think I am out of time once again, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me for being so blatant. 

Mr. HUNTER. We actually did great compared to the other Members today. 

Admiral Zukunft, I have one last question. The fiscal year 2017 

approps, you had about $1.3 billion. This year, even though you are 

under a CR [continuing resolution] still, it will be $1.8 billion 

minus the months we have been in the CR, but it will be at $1.8 

billion level, if everything goes the way it is supposed to go; 2019, 

you are almost at $1.9 billion. So you have 2 years at about $1.8 

billion, $1.9 billion. 

But 2020 it drops down to $1.4 billion. It doesn’t go above $1.7 

billion. It never reaches $2 billion at all going forward. Is that because we are just looking out basically 2 years at a time, or is that 

because of some other reason? 

That is a precipitous dropoff. That is a $400 million drop. 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Right. Where you see the dropoff is in the 

polar icebreaker program. And this is at a point in time where we 

will have awarded final design, and we will be in a position to 

make an informed decision to do a block buy. 

And so that is a concern when I see that precipitous of a drop, 

because that drop is mostly in the polar icebreaker building program. So that is a significant add-on that we are going to need 

going forward in order to look at—— 

Mr. HUNTER. So you are saying from 2020 forward, that does not 

include icebreaker funding? 

Admiral ZUKUNFT. Well, where we see that significant drop, it 

really comes within the icebreaking account. That accounts for almost all of that reduction of nearly $500 million. 

Mr. HUNTER. Gotcha. 

OK. That is all I have. 

Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Two more very quick questions. 

This is kind of like your mantra, Mr. Chairman, and you have 

gone through all of the reports that we have not received in the 

timeliness of those, and I appreciate you continuing to stay on that 

issue. 

28 

However, Admiral Buzby, there is one other report that we authorized or asked for in 2014. The previous administration didn’t 

get it done, although I understand there was a draft that was held 

up in OMB. So where is the National Maritime Strategy? 

Admiral BUZBY. Thank you for that question. 

I am pleased to report that the National Maritime Strategy, in 

its revised state, has left my desk. It is now routing through my 

staff, prior to going up to the Secretary. And I believe it will be 

going very quickly. 

It was a good piece of work. It needed just some touching up. I 

participated in its construction as a contributor earlier, prior to 

this current position. 

So it is moving along. My goal is to deliver it to you, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think I have heard this before, with no offense 

to your good efforts. But please understand that we await that. 

And your good efforts were repeated—actually you repeating the 

good efforts of your predecessor—and it got held up somewhere 

above your level. 

Admiral BUZBY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. We look forward to that. 

Second question. It looks to me like the FMC isn’t going to be 

able to have a quorum. This seems to be a problem that plagues 

the administration on appointments. I think Mr. Maffei’s appointment ends in June and then you will be down to two people. 

Mr. KHOURI. It is my understanding that even with two we still 

have a quorum. It is also my understanding that the Surface 

Transportation Board has operated with one and they continue to 

do business. I am not suggesting that that is recommended, optimal, or anything else, but our charter does not prevent us from 

continuing to operate. 

I think each independent agency, you have to look at their individual charter to see what is required for a forum. But it is something we have thought about and looked into, Congressman. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think by raising the question, I make my 

point. If one were to look at the White House, it appears as though 

there will be one person there also. 

Thank you so very much. I yield back my time. 

Mr. KHOURI. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. 

I thank all of you for being here and sharing with us and your 

testimony. 

Admiral, again, Master Chief, whatever you guys say in the 

Coast Guard, fair wind, safe travels, good seas, all those things. 

Thank you very much for your service to this Nation. It will be remembered. Thank you. 

We are now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

29 


Insert offset folio 11 here 31307.011
30 


Insert offset folio 12 here 31307.012
31 


Insert offset folio 13 here 31307.013
32 


Insert offset folio 14 here 31307.014
33 


Insert offset folio 15 here 31307.015
34 


Insert offset folio 16 here 31307.016
35 


Insert offset folio 17 here 31307.017
36 


Insert offset folio 18 here 31307.018
37 


Insert offset folio 19 here 31307.019
38 


Insert offset folio 20 here 31307.020
39 


Insert offset folio 21 here 31307.021
40 


Insert offset folio 22 here 31307.022
41 


Insert offset folio 23 here 31307.023
42 


Insert offset folio 24 here 31307.024
43 


Insert offset folio 25 here 31307.025
44 


Insert offset folio 26 here 31307.026
45 


Insert offset folio 27 here 31307.027
46 


Insert offset folio 28 here 31307.028
47 


Insert offset folio 29 here 31307.029
48 


Insert offset folio 30 here 31307.030
49 


Insert offset folio 31 here 31307.031
50 


Insert offset folio 32 here 31307.032
51 


Insert offset folio 33 here 31307.033
52 


Insert offset folio 34 here 31307.034
53 


Insert offset folio 35 here 31307.035
54 


Insert offset folio 36 here 31307.036
55 


Insert offset folio 37 here 31307.037
56 


Insert offset folio 38 here 31307.038
57 


Insert offset folio 39 here 31307.039
58 


Insert offset folio 40 here 31307.040
59 


Insert offset folio 41 here 31307.041
60 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 42 here 31307.042