U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–974 PDF 2009

NATIONAL MARITIME CENTER AND 

MARINER CREDENTIALS 

(111–47) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 9, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Block, Richard, Secretary, National Mariners Association .................................. 25 

Clark, Captain Bill, Owner, South Ferry, Inc.-Shelter Island, New York, 

Representing The Passenger Vessel Association ............................................... 25 

Cook, Rear Admiral Kevin, Director, Prevention Policy, United States Coast 

Guard .................................................................................................................... 6 

Laird, Thomas, Director of New Business Development, American Maritime 

Officers .................................................................................................................. 25 

Rodriguez, Mike, Executive Assistant, Masters, Mates, and Pilots Union, 

accompanied by Bill Van Loo, Secretary-Treasury, Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association ................................................................................................... 25 

Stalfort, Captain David C., Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center, 

United States Coast Guard ................................................................................. 6 

Wells, Ken, President, Offshore Marine Services Association ............................. 25 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Block, Richard .......................................................................................................... 39 

Clark, Captain Bill .................................................................................................. 62 

Cook, Rear Admiral Kevin ...................................................................................... 68 

Laird, Thomas .......................................................................................................... 75 

Wells, Ken ................................................................................................................ 87 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Stalfort, Captain David C., Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center, 

United States Coast Guard: ................................................................................

Responses to questions from Rep. Bishop, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of New York ...................................................................... 13 

Laird, Thomas, Director of New Business Development, American Maritime 

Officers, supplemental testimony ....................................................................... 83 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Bronson, Lawson E., letter to the Subcommittee .................................................. 94 

Meservey, Mark S., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Congressional and Governmental Affairs Staff, letter to Rep. Adam Smith, of Washington ............... 96 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 50974.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 50974.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 50974.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 50974.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 50974.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 50974.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 50974.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 50974.008
xiv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 50974.009
xv 


Insert offset folio 10 here 50974.010
xvi 


Insert offset folio 11 here 50974.011
xvii 


Insert offset folio 12 here 50974.012
xviii 


Insert offset folio 13 here 50974.013
xix 


Insert offset folio 14 here 50974.014
xx 


Insert offset folio 15 here 50974.015
(1) 

HEARING ON THE NATIONAL MARITIME 

CENTER AND MARINER CREDENTIALS 

Thursday, July 9, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

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

Cummings [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. This hearing is called to order. The Subcommittee will convene. 

We convene here today to review the operations of the National 

Maritime Center and the issuance of merchant mariner credentials. 

Over the past 18 months, the Coast Guard has consolidated the 

credentialing functions that were previously provided at 17 Regional Exam Centers into the National Maritime Center, and the 

Center opened at a new facility in West Virginia. 

The Coast Guard has also made significant changes to the actual 

credential that it issues. Specifically, it has consolidated the licenses, documents, certificates of registry, and endorsements that 

it previously issued as separate items into a single new Merchant 

Mariner Credential, which is essentially a passport-sized booklet. 

MMCs began to be issued on April 15th of this year. 

Finally, the Coast Guard has issued new guidelines to govern the 

type of medical information mariners are required to submit at the 

time they apply for a new or renewal credential, as well as the specific review processes to which this information will be subjected to 

assess mariner fitness for duty. 

Each one of these changes is a significant alteration in the way 

the Coast Guard manages mariner licensing and I am hopeful that 

each change will, over the long term, significantly improve the licensing process and the services provided to mariners. That said, 

these hoped-for improvements have not yet been realized. To be 

frank, it appears that the Coast Guard did not adequately plan all 

aspects of the consolidated credential production process and the 

roll-out of the MMC, and this has led to extensive delays in the 

issuance of credentials. 

Let me say this. As I read the testimony of the Coast Guard, that 

became very clear to me. We have got to do better planning. I am 

sorry, we can do better than what we are doing. We can do better. 

This is the United States of America, this is not some third world 

country. I have looked at the testimony and, to be frank with you, 

2 

I think that when we are talking about an organization with the 

sophistication of the Coast Guard, a lot of the glitches that we ran 

into should have been anticipated and we should have prepared for 

them. Most importantly, we should do nothing to stand in—Government must work for the people, not against them, and if I have 

got mariners that cannot work because they cannot get their credentials, that is a major problem, major. 

Further, as one specific area of delay has been resolved, subsequent bottlenecks have developed, and it appears that no significant progress has been made in speeding credential processing 

times. In fact, in a report issued on January 22nd, the Coast Guard 

indicated that the average gross processing time between July 2008 

and January 2009—meaning both the time required by the Coast 

Guard to process an application and the time the service waits for 

a mariner to provide additional information—totaled 83 days. Fifty 

percent of the credentials issued during this period were processed 

in under 52 days. 

Looking just at the time that it took the Coast Guard to process 

an application, and excluding all time spent waiting for a mariner 

to provide additional information, the Coast Guard reported that 

its average processing time in that period was 41 days, and that 

50 percent of credentials were processed in 31 or fewer days. 

By comparison, in a report issued on June 29, 2009, the Coast 

Guard reported that the average gross processing time for a credential between the beginning of 2009 and June 23rd was 80 days, 

while 50 percent of credentials processed during that period were 

processed in 54 or fewer days. That same report indicated that the 

length of time required by the Coast Guard itself in that period to 

process an application was 48 days, and only 35 percent of credential applications were being completely processed in 30 or fewer 

days. 

In other words, between January and June 2009, total processing 

time remained in the 80-day range, and it was actually taking the 

Coast Guard itself longer to process credential applications in the 

January to June 2009 period than in the six months leading up to 

January 2009. 

A credential is a mariner’s ticket to work. Let me repeat that. 

A credential is a mariner’s ticket to work. If the mariner does not 

have that credential, for whatever reason, the mariner cannot 

work. I want to be very clear. I want to make sure that we uphold 

our standards and make sure that those people who are performing 

the job as mariner are properly qualified and we send them 

through the processes that they have to go through. But, as I said 

before, we can do better. 

Unfortunately, the Subcommittee has heard of instances in 

which mariners’ credentials have expired before a renewal application could be fully processed, and these mariners have been left 

without an income while they were waiting for the bureaucratic 

wheels to grind. I am interested to see what the Coast Guard does 

when somebody falls in that position. Is there any priority given to 

that person who is about to lose their license through no fault of 

their own? I would like to hear what you have to say about that. 

This is simply unacceptable. Given all that we are doing to stimulate our economy and to support the growth of jobs, it is inexcusVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:06 Dec 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\50974.TXT JASON
3 

able that any person should be out of work because the Government cannot process a professional credential in a timely manner. 

I look forward to hearing from Admiral Cook, the Coast Guard’s 

new Director of Prevention Policy, and Captain Stalfort, the Director of the National Maritime Center, specifically what is being done 

to ensure that the new credential processing systems finally yield 

real benefits to mariners. 

As I mentioned, the Coast Guard has also instituted new guidelines regarding the assessment of mariner fitness for duty. This 

guideline, known as Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 04- 

08, is intended to provide the level of specificity regarding mariner 

fitness for duty that previous guidance and even statute and regulation have lacked. The NVIC was the product of extensive work 

and consultation, and the National Transportation Safety Board indicated in its report on the COSCO BUSAN accident in San Francisco that it is ‘‘responsive’’ to much of what the Board called for 

in recommendations made after the 2003 allision of the Staten Island Ferry. 

Nonetheless, despite this improvement, there remain issues related to the assessment of a mariner’s fitness for duty that we look 

forward to examining today. Currently, pilots are required to submit to the Coast Guard the results of annual physicals. However, 

most mariners submit medical exam results only once every five 

years, when they seek the renewal of their credentials. 

In its report on the COSCO BUSAN incident, the NTSB, which 

this Congress has a tremendous amount of respect for, noted that 

the Coast Guard has not moved to require mariners to report 

changes in their medical condition during the five-year period between credential renewals as the Board had recommended after the 

Staten Island Ferry accident. We wish to understand why this recommendation remains unaddressed. 

Additionally, in its marine casualty investigation report on the 

COSCO BUSAN incident, the Coast Guard Senior Investigating Officer recommended that ‘‘the Commandant of the Coast Guard 

amend the existing standards in Marine Safety Manual (MSM) Volume III, for medical professionals performing mariner physicals, to 

ensure that physicals are performed only by designated physicians 

with a thorough understanding of the physical and mental demands of a mariner’s position.’’ 

The Coast Guard responded to this recommendation, incredibly, 

by stating these words: ‘‘We believe the guidance provided in NVIC 

04-08 is sufficient to provide medical professionals with the necessary understanding of the occupational demands of mariners to 

perform marine physicals’’ and that the Service therefore does not 

intend to change its requirements regarding the medical personnel 

who perform mariner physicals. 

I tell you, I am looking forward to examining these and related 

issues in more detail today. We look forward to the testimony of 

the industry witnesses assembled on our second panel, who will 

provide a variety of perspectives on these issues. 

I have read all the testimony and I would advise and hope that 

the members of the—I know that you all usually don’t stick around 

for the second panel, but I hope you would at least leave staff here. 

4 

But if nothing else, you need to read the testimony of the second 

panel so you can see what kind of problems are happening here. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. With that, I want to recognize the distinguished 

Ranking Member, Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, as always, 

for holding this hearing. 

All U.S. merchant mariners, from the most inexperienced personnel to the master of the vessel, are required to hold one or more 

credentials issued by the Coast Guard. These credentials prescribe 

the duties these mariners may carry out aboard vessels and are required for maritime employment. As such, we should be very concerned by the situations or conditions which may cause a delay in 

the issuance or renewal of maritime credentials within the Coast 

Guard. 

Unfortunately, we are experiencing such a situation now. Many 

merchant mariners have found it difficult to renew their licenses 

and merchant mariner documents over the previous year have been 

difficult to get. The Coast Guard has taken several actions to address many of these issues over the last six months. The Coast 

Guard recently completed a significant restructuring of its 

credentialing programs, including the establishment of the National Maritime Center. As part of this overhaul, the service consolidated its responsibilities to review and approve applications for 

new and renewed credentials, which previously were handled independently by 17 Regional Exam Centers located throughout the 

Country. 

While the consolidation has succeeded in standardizing the review of applications, it has also coincided with substantial delay in 

the issuance of new and renewed credentials. I hope the witnesses 

will address in their testimony the specific issues which are causing the delays and the actions that the Coast Guard will take to 

rectify these problems. 

The overhaul of the credentialing program also coincided with 

the move of the new Merchant Mariner Credential Center, which 

will bring together licenses, merchant mariner documents, and 

other Coast Guard credentials into one document, and will be responsible for the implementation of the Transportation Worker 

Identification Card, or the TWIC program. We have heard the 

Coast Guard has had some difficulty in switching over to the software necessary to support the new MMC and that this has caused 

administrative delays. 

Additionally, I remain concerned that the delays in processing 

TWIC applications within the Transportation Security Agency will 

cascade into further delays in the issuance of MMCs to otherwise 

qualified U.S. merchant mariners. It is clearly unacceptable to 

have government procedures delaying the review and approval of 

applications that have been correctly completed and submitted. I 

hope that we will hear specific answers on how the Coast Guard 

will address these serious issues in a timely manner. 

This is a matter of extreme importance to the maritime community and I thank all of the witnesses for their ongoing efforts to improve the credentialing process. 

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a moment to recognize the service of two Coast Guard liaison officers who will be 

5 

transferring to their next post later this month. Commander Mark 

Messervy has been a House Liaison Officer for the last three years 

and has provided valuable assistance to everyone on this Subcommittee. Lieutenant Jamie Frederick has served for two years as 

the Assistant Liaison Officer and has likewise be an invaluable resource to all the members and their staff. 

These gentlemen have served as the face of the Coast Guard here 

in the House and have sacrificed countless hours of time with their 

families to respond to congressional requests and to accompany 

members and staff as we travel to learn firsthand about Coast 

Guard missions and policy in the field. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that you and the other members of the 

Committee will join with me in thanking them and their families 

for their service to the House of Representatives and their service 

to the United States of America. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank you, Ranking Member, for your 

statement, and I certainly join you in your words with regard to 

our two distinguished staff members who are leaving us. So often 

what happens is that folks perform duties that, in the words of one 

of my favorite theologians who says that they are unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and sometimes unapplauded. But he goes on 

to say that those are the most important people and they do the 

most important functions, but always do not necessarily receive the 

proper recognition. 

So I take this moment to thank you. I thank you for touching our 

lives. I thank you for being a part of what we try to do here to uplift the people of our Country and uplift the people of the world. 

I just want to let you know that you are not unseen, you are not 

unnoticed, you are not unappreciated, and you certainly are not 

unapplauded. May God bless you on your mission and we thank 

you. 

With that, we now will call Rear Admiral Cook—oh, Mr. Olson. 

I am sorry. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Given the 

Floor schedule, I will be very brief. 

I look forward to hearing how the Coast Guard plans to reduce 

the merchant mariner credentialing backlog that exists today. It is 

important to ensure that the backlog is addressed and that new applications are processed in a timely manner so our Nation’s merchant mariners can continue working without an unnecessary 

interruption. 

I thank you all for joining us today, look forward to hearing your 

testimony, and I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

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

The hearing today is going to be broken up a bit. We are going 

to have, shortly, a number of amendments on the Floor, so what 

we are going to try to do is get through these opening statements. 

If we get through that, we have accomplished a lot, considering the 

limited amount of time we have. 

Rear Admiral Kevin Cook is the Director of Prevention Policy 

with the United States Coast Guard. He will be followed by Captain David C. Stalfort, who is the Commanding Officer of the Coast 

Guard’s National Maritime Center. 

Rear Admiral. 

6 

TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN COOK, DIRECTOR, PREVENTION POLICY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD; AND CAPTAIN DAVID C. STALFORT, COMMANDING OFFICER, NATIONAL MARITIME CENTER, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Admiral COOK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Good morning. 

Admiral COOK. I am Rear Admiral Kevin Cook, as you introduced me, Director of Prevention Policy for the Marine Safety, Security, and Stewardship of the United States Coast Guard. I am 

pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Mariner Credentialing program. 

I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if I could have my written 

statement entered into the record. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Admiral COOK. Thank you, sir. 

I think before I get into what I prepared, I just want to assure 

you that it is our intention to stay for the second panel. That is 

a hallmark for us, to be able to hear from the mariners themselves 

and those that represent them. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I really appreciate that. Thank you very much. 

Admiral COOK. Sure. 

I recently assumed my new duties as Director of Prevention Policy. While I have previously served in a number of marine safety 

capacities, including Captain of the Port in Houston-Galveston, 

where I oversaw maritime operations, including a Regional Exam 

Center, the Mariner Credentialing program and the National Maritime Center fall under my new responsibilities, and while they 

have undergone significant transformation during a restructuring 

and centralization initiative, I know there is much work to do. 

The Coast Guard is fully committed to improving the Mariner 

Credentialing program and strongly believes that centralized operations will improve consistency, improve customer service through 

a dedicated customer service center, and will reduce credential 

processing time. These improvements were unachievable in the 

decades of decentralized operations at the 17 independent Regional 

Exam Centers. 

While there are many benefits to centralization, I am also keenly 

aware of the considerable challenges the centralization has experienced, most importantly our inability to meet the Coast Guard’s 

targeted credential processing time of 30 days. I am extremely concerned that the average processing time remains 80 days, and has 

or may impact the livelihood of individual mariners. This backlog 

is unacceptable and resolving this problem is my first and my foremost priority. 

I would like to take a minute or two first to review key changes 

that have been implemented since October 2007. Through a phased 

approach, all 17 Regional Exam Centers transitioned to centralized 

operations. The new building was built in Martinsburg, West Virginia, where we also introduced new credentialing production processes. A quality management system was created to provide a 

framework for process management, which is now compliant with 

ISO-9001. 

7 

Also, in accordance with the International Maritime Organization requirements, a third-party evaluation was completed by 

Transport Canada in March 2008 and found that the Coast Guard’s 

Mariner Credentialing program fulfills the United States’ obligations and responsibilities under the International Convention for 

Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. A call center was established and is now providing enhanced informational services to 26,000 mariners each month. And, 

most recently, the Coast Guard introduced the consolidated merchant mariner credential in April to coincide with the implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Card. 

These new procedures were established with TSA to share mariner data, eliminating the need for mariners to travel to a Regional 

Exam Center for fingerprinting and identification, saving time and 

money for both the mariners and the Coast Guard. This new passport-style credential also reduces the number of individual credentials a mariner must carry, provides enhanced security features to 

prevent forgery, and reduces U.S. mariners’ problems that they 

were facing overseas when presenting their credentials. Of note, 

since the full centralization in January of this year, the National 

Maritime Center has issued over 35,000 credentials, 12,000 of 

these, or 35 percent, in less than 30 days. 

Immediately after I assumed my duties just two weeks ago, I received a detailed briefing on the operations at the National Maritime Center and conducted a site visit to learn more. This was my 

first step in a holistic look at the entire program, and I have 

worked with my staff to develop an aggressive action plan to resolve current delays and maintain greater oversight and accountability. 

Just this Monday, we stood up a Tiger Team on site at the National Maritime Center to focus exclusively on clearing the current 

backlog. I am arranging to bring in an independent outside expert 

to analyze the credentialing processes and to identify the bottlenecks and opportunities for improvement that we are not currently 

seeing. I am examining to see if our call center and Web site are 

meeting mariner expectations as they work their way through their 

credentialing process. And I will ensure that there is regular communication with the maritime industry to listen to suggestions and 

feedback. 

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks by reiterating that reducing the processing time is at the very top of my priorities. The 

Coast Guard is fully committed to providing efficient, consistent, 

and top quality credentialing services to our Nation’s mariners, and 

I intend to deliver on this commitment. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would now like to have 

Captain Stalfort do some brief introductory remarks. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well. 

Captain? 

Captain STALFORT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee. I am Captain David Stalfort, the 

Commanding Officer of the National Maritime Center. 

I was assigned to the National Maritime Center in June of 2007 

and given responsibilities to transition the Coast Guard’s licensing 

and credentialing program to centralized operations. I have been a 

8 

licensed mariner for 20 years and have been assigned to marine 

safety positions throughout the Country, including assignment of 

Captain of the Port in Memphis, where my duties included oversight of the Regional Exam Center. 

I spent the last two years at MMC leading our team as we 

transitioned all 17 exam centers to centralized operations, working 

to change the culture of the MMC and the RECs to better focus on 

customer service, and I have listened to the maritime representatives to include and incorporate their input into the establishment 

of our credentialing production facilities. I have implemented the 

ISO-9001 compliant quality management system that is being used 

to systematically improve the efficiency of our processes, with our 

ultimate goal of reducing processing time and meeting mariners’ 

expectations. I also led the project design to implement the new 

consolidated merchant mariner credential. 

Shortly after we finished the centralization in January of this 

year, we faced initial bottlenecks with medical evaluations, which 

we resolved by expanding the size of our medical evaluation staff. 

We are now facing bottlenecks created by the technical and software issues associated with production of the new credential, 

which, when combined with the surge in new applications submitted by mariners in advance of the April 2009 TWIC deadline, 

created a backlog of about 6800 applications. 

As Admiral Cook has said, this is absolutely unacceptable. While 

we have resolved many of the initial software challenges, we have 

also recently established a Tiger Team, along with their existing 

evaluation team, who is expected to increase the production rate 

substantially and eliminate the backlog as quickly as possible. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and we would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. One of the questions I asked in my opening 

statement was what happens and do we have a way of knowing 

when somebody has made application timely and then they are in 

jeopardy of coming to a point where you all have not done completely your work and the present license will lapse? Do we have 

any way of flagging those people? Because it seems to me that 

those are the people that are in most jeopardy and those are the 

people that are going to lose their jobs. Do you follow my question? 

What happens to that person? Do they get any priority? Assuming 

they have done everything they are supposed to do. 

Admiral COOK. Mr. Chairman, they do get priority. The simplest 

way we are notified is through the mariner call center, and that 

information is relayed directly to the processing people. And I have 

witnessed the great care of how the records are handled within the 

National Maritime Center so that at any point we can find that 

record and move it along. We have a number of examples of cases 

which continue to come in like that. 

The shortcoming is that I don’t know that all mariners are familiar with calling in to the call center. We do receive some from 

RECs; we receive some from Coast Guard units who are made 

aware through industry connections; and, also, their companies will 

call in. So when we know, they do get fast-tracked and a number 

of them have been resolved. 

9 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, it is nice to have these hearings, but 

I am also trying to come up with solutions, because I don’t have 

time to waste, nor do you, nor do the mariners, and I guess you 

just said something that tweaked my interest. So, in other words, 

there is a possibility that a lot of mariners don’t know that they 

can perhaps, when they find themselves, say 15, 20 days, looks like 

they are going to have that problem of not having a license, they 

can call in and try to expedite their situation. 

Until we get all of this resolved and caught up, how can we make 

sure we get that word out to the mariner community so that they 

will know that? I don’t want one person losing one hour of work 

because of something that the Government failed to do. You follow 

what I am saying? And I know you don’t want that either. So how 

can we make sure, coming out of this hearing, that we get that 

word out to let folks know that we have got those kinds of situations? In other words, that they can try to take action or get hold 

of somebody to try to speed up their process? You follow me? 

Admiral COOK. Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly, as I mentioned, 

there were the 26,000 or so mariner hits either on our Web site or 

our call center, so that number is growing. But, in the meantime, 

we could offer to do a targeted outreach through our advisory committees and the major mariner groups, the unions, the major employers, and let them know that if they have anybody that is falling 

into that category, that they need to contact us immediately. 

Of course, that is the short-term solution. We mentioned a couple 

times here about this Tiger Team, and the Tiger Team is going to 

continue to tackle this backlog. At the same time, we have also had 

our internal issues primarily overcome now with the software, the 

training that goes with the new credential. So we continue to see 

the internal production ramping up. At the same time, we are now 

adding a cap group of Tiger Team on top. So we do anticipate that 

we are going to continue to see dramatically less and less mariners 

put in jeopardy like this. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, I understand. What I am trying to do is I 

am trying to get to the one person who may find themselves in that 

predicament. So if you will do that, I would really appreciate it. I 

know you are going to move towards resolving this. 

I am going to allow Mr. LoBiondo to go. I have a lot of questions, 

so you can go ahead. I will yield to you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, are we going to break? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We are going to break when we have five minutes. Right now it is 9:40. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And we can just go back and forth, whatever you 

need. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. All right. 

The Coast Guard has temporarily repositioned personnel to address the backlog by issuing 500 MMCs per day, as we understand 

it. Are your baseline funding and personnel levels adequate to meet 

the baseline goal of issuing 300 MMCs a day? 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, I do believe it is adequate. We believe that this backlog is a temporary aberration caused by first 

processing through a backlog of medical and then a surge which occurred around April with the new TWIC coming on line, on top of 

10 

a seasonal surge, and then the new credential and the software 

issues associated and training with that. So once we have a capability to produce 300 credentials with normal staffing, and that is 

what we have as our incoming load, so we will be at a steady state 

once we get the backlog down. 

So you mentioned 500 or so. That is the number that we are 

tracking, and each day we should be able to whittle down 200 additional credentials against the backlog. So once we get it down to 

the point where we can have 300 coming in, 300 going out, and we 

can conduct that with our normal staffing. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Can you give us your take on if the delays have 

impacted the abilities of maritime employees to get new hires or 

temporary seasonal workers on board? Have they experienced difficulty here? 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, I would like to ask Captain 

Stalfort to answer the detailed questions on some of our expedited 

procedures. 

Captain STALFORT. Congressman, for the entry level mariners, 

those processed applications are expedited at the Regional Exam 

Centers and sent directly to the NMC, where they are fast-tracked 

through the evaluation process. So they are not held up in the 

backlog that we currently have. We did that deliberately because 

the evaluation of those entry level mariners is fairly simplistic, so 

they go right from the Regional Exam Centers, when the mariners 

apply, directly to production, and those are being produced in less 

than 15 days. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Do you have the authority to allow a mariner to 

continue operating under a license on an interim basis in a situation where the mariner, through no fault of his or her own, does 

not receive a new license before the old one expires? 

Captain STALFORT. No, sir, we do not. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. That is it for right now, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What was your question again? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The question was do they have the authority to 

issue an interim license if a mariner, through no fault of his or her 

own, can’t get requalified in time. It seems like they should be able 

to. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Did you have something, Admiral? 

Admiral COOK. Just to add on top of that. We do allow applications to be sent in a year in advance of their expiration date, and 

we will honor the initial date for anniversary and hold that application, process it, and then issue it so the mariner does not lose 

any time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right, Ms. Richardson and Mr. Olson, we 

have six minutes before the vote. Do you want to ask, Mr. Olson? 

Are you ready? Do you have a question? 

Mr. OLSON. No, Mr. Chairman, I am fine. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. We are going to recess. It will probably 

be at least an hour. Someone from the Committee will keep you 

briefed on where we are. We have 13 votes. 

I do want to ask one last question. I noticed that when my staff 

went up there on July 2nd, to the Center, you all had 6,800 applications awaiting review by a professional qualification evaluator. Is 

11 

that backlog 6,800? Back on July 2nd, would that have been about 

right? 

Admiral COOK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so how many applications come in a day? In 

other words, I am trying to figure out how long it is going to take 

you all to get the backlog down. You said you will be able to do 

200 extra a day, hopefully, but how many come in a day? In other 

words, you have got them constantly coming in and you have got 

a backlog, so I am trying to figure out—let me tell you what I am 

trying to do. I am trying to hold you to something. I am trying to 

hold you to getting down the backlog, because it is my plan to bring 

you all back in here in a certain amount of time, and I want to 

hear you say we have resolved the backlog. 

So while we are out, you might want to think about that and 

then be able to tell me how you are going to do it. I just believe 

that we can do it. I believe that the Coast Guard is an organization 

that is capable of achieving it. 

And I tell you, I would not have been so adamant if you had answered the Ranking Member’s question a little different than what 

you did. When he asked you the question was it a personnel issue, 

did you have enough personnel, you said that was fine; you said 

there were just some problems that you had to work out. I think 

we pretty much know now what the problems are, based on your 

testimony, so what I want to do is I want to try to figure out a way 

to come up with some deadlines so that the mariner community 

feels comfortable. But I also want the Coast Guard to feel comfortable. I don’t want the Coast Guard making commitments to 

things that they cannot keep. You follow me? 

So you have got about an hour and a half, maybe, to think about 

that, and then you can let me know when we come back and then 

we will hold a hearing whenever you tell me to so that we can get 

the report back. You understand, Admiral? 

Admiral COOK. Understand, Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. We are going to recess now for at least 

an hour. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Call the hearing back to order. 

Admiral Cook, I had asked you about some type of timetable to 

deal with the backlog. I think we have a 6,800 backlog, is that 

right? 

Admiral COOK. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to propose is 

that you have us come back towards the beginning of the fiscal 

year and, in the meantime, we give your staffers monthly updates 

and give them some progress reports. It is our estimation that we 

will have good news at that point, but along the way we will keep 

you apprised of how it is going. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We will aim for October, is that what you are 

saying? 

Admiral COOK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Very well. 

Tell me something, why is it that the time required by the Coast 

Guard to process an application appears to have lengthened between January and the June reports and why are fewer applications being processed in 30 or fewer days in June, as compared to 

12 

January? I know that the Merchant Mariner Credential was introduced during that period. For how much of the processing delay 

does the introduction of that credential account and what are the 

other major sources of delay? 

Admiral COOK. I think there are three factors, Mr. Chairman. 

The first one is January 2009 was the full centralization such that 

all medical information had to come into the National Maritime 

Center. It was a higher volume than we anticipated; it caused a 

backlog, and that backlog was addressed as it went through the 

medical evaluation. It is now at the professional qualifications evaluation point in the process, which is the final point, and that is 

where the backlog is. 

The second thing that added to it was the applications which 

were caused to be expedited through the deadline for the TWIC. So 

there was an unnatural surge there. We normally also see a spring 

surge in applications, for whatever reason, so that was on top of 

the TWIC surge. 

And then it wasn’t the introduction of the credential in itself, it 

was the fact that some of the software supporting it and then the 

additional training for the staff to be able to do it at an efficient 

rate was the third element. 

So those three things combined and they all took place over the 

first six months of the year, and that is why we saw the backlog 

grow, as well as the processing time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How are we coming with regard to training of 

personnel? 

Admiral COOK. Training is very good. I would like to have Captain Stalfort just talk about that. 

Captain STALFORT. Yes, sir. Everybody goes through a deliberate 

process of training when they first come into the program; it takes 

about four to five months through a series of training entry levels 

first, moving up to the different levels of evaluation. The new evaluators are trained by seasoned and they pass a qualification performance standards, and then they are issued evaluations. But it 

is a lengthy process. Part of it is on-the-job training, where they 

start out under the tutelage of an experienced one working on the 

entry level ones before they get up to the harder level, upper level 

licenses. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, one of the complaints—and I am sure 

you will hear it in a few minutes—in the written testimony from 

folks in the second panel was that a lot of the people who supposed 

are trained don’t seem to know what they are doing, and they felt 

that it was unfair to them, that is, the mariners, when they have 

people that were not properly trained. Have you heard that complaint at all? 

Admiral COOK. Sir, it is not a general complaint, but there are 

always training issues, and I think one of the things that we have 

learned in introducing the mariner call center is that initially we 

had hoped that kind of the operator level folks that were in the call 

center would be able to handle some more difficult questions than 

they are able to; they are just too wide of a range. So we have 

adapted that call center and we have a pocket of experts as well 

that can help answer the questions. So I could see why someone 

13 

would get that impression, but we have done some things to address it. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I was looking at Ken Wells’ testimony, the President of Offshore Marine Services Association, and he says inexperienced evaluators, evaluators are new to the licensing system and 

are learning the nuances of licensing on the fly. Not surprisingly, 

they have made mistakes. He also mentions that incorrect interpretations. 

We have also seen evaluators interpret policies and regulations 

incorrectly and then those interpretations take on a life of their 

own and repeating themselves with each new mariner application. 

Again, this is a natural outcome when a new staff learns its job, 

but that does not make it easy for a mariner who is affected by the 

interpretation. 

Are you familiar with those complaints? 

Admiral COOK. Yes, we are. And I know Mr. Wells is a supporter 

of the centralization overall, and he has always been good about 

providing feedback through other forms as well. So we are continuing to work with OMSA and any of the other trade associations 

to take that feedback and make the process better. But I can tell 

you as just a matter of degrees of training, there is a substantial 

improvement in the contractor corps that is doing a lot of the evaluation. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I would suggest that you take a look at his testimony; it is very good. I mean, he really lays it out and I think he 

presents it in a very balanced way that would be helpful to the 

Coast Guard and to the mariners. 

Admiral COOK. We will do that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. LoBiondo? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I am good, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am sorry that I was not here for your testimony earlier, and 

I don’t know whether you have access to the testimony of the people who will be on the second panel, but one of the individuals on 

the second panel is a person I am proud to call a constituent, Captain Bill Clark, of the South Ferry and Shelter Island, and he is 

here representing the Passenger Vessel Association. He is the 

President of that Association and in his testimony he urges the 

Subcommittee to get answers to several specific questions, and I 

would like to formally pose those questions to you now. I don’t expect that you will have the answers to them, but with the indulgence of the Chairman, I would like to formally request that you 

provide answers to these questions, and they are as follows: 

How many qualified medical reviewers does the Coast Guard believe are necessary on staff at the National Maritime Center? That 

is question number one. 

[Information follows:] 

14 


Insert offset folio 16 here 50974.016
15 

Question number two: How many such positions are actually 

filled at present and how many remain open? 

[Information follows:] 

16 


Insert offset folio 17 here 50974.017
17 

Question number three: Of those that are currently filled, how 

many are filled with permanent employees and how many have 

been filled by personnel on temporary duty? 

[Information follows:] 

18 


Insert offset folio 18 here 50974.018
19 

And, lastly: How difficult is it for the Coast Guard to recruit 

qualified medical evaluators for assignment to the National Maritime Center? 

[Information follows:] 

20 


Insert offset folio 19 here 50974.019
21 

As I say, I don’t expect you to have those answers at the tip of 

your tongue, but I do request that you provide them to the Committee in writing at your earliest possible convenience. 

Admiral COOK. We will do that, Congressman. We have general 

flow of information regarding that, but I think putting it together 

in an answer for the record would be the best thing. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you very much. 

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Just a few more questions. Admiral Cook, as you may know, the 

promulgation of the regulations bring towing vessels under inspection is of great concern to the Subcommittee. Your predecessor, Admiral Watson, had promised in a hearing before this Subcommittee 

that he would try to get the notice of proposed rulemaking on the 

towing vessel regulations out by the spring of this year, before he 

transferred out of the position you now hold. 

Obviously, that didn’t happen. The Commandant wrote to me on 

June 25th stating that, ‘‘The Coast Guard has drafted the notice 

of proposed rulemaking and it is in the final stages of review within the Department of Homeland Security.’’ 

Has the notice gone to OMB yet and what is your estimate of 

when it might be released? 

Admiral COOK. Mr. Chairman, it is still in review at the Department. We can’t commit to a time line until we satisfactorily resolve 

whatever issues they may bring up, and we have not gotten feedback on that yet. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. Do you have any idea when we may get 

that? This is my frustration, you see? This is why I set deadlines, 

because over and over again—you go ahead. I am listening. 

Admiral COOK. Well, sir, like I said, the difficult part of anticipating a final outcome is we don’t know what issues the Department may raise. Then we will have to work those and send them 

back to the Department before it gets to OMB. So I am hesitant 

to commit on a time line. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I understand. All right, we will revisit that. 

On mariner medical standards, Admiral Cook, you indicated in 

your written testimony that the centralization of the mariner 

credentialing program to the National Maritime Center revealed 

that a large number of medical waivers were previously granted to 

mariners under the previous mariner credentialing program. How 

many such waivers were issued in the past and how many waivers 

have been issued by the NMC this year? 

Captain STALFORT. Currently, waivers issued by the National 

Maritime Center are about 5,600 since the beginning of this year, 

and that is roughly the same number that were issued in the past 

by the NMC under the decentralized. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So this year you waived 5,000? Is that what you 

said? 

Captain STALFORT. Yes, sir. And the waiver is when we review 

the medical conditions for the five years that the license is going 

to be good for, our physicians look into the mariner’s medical condition and anticipate what changes may take place during those next 

five years. And if the mariner has medical conditions that are acceptable now to issue the credential, but our physicians feel may 

22 

deteriorate, we issue the waiver, meaning that the condition is 

good, but we are concerned that it may change over the future. And 

the text of the waiver would be that the mariner may have certain 

stipulations, but that they need to report changes in their medical 

condition throughout the five year period of the credential. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. The NTSB noted in its report on the COSCO 

BUSAN incident that the Coast Guard has not taken action with 

regard to one deficiency noted in safety recommendation M055, 

that is, the lack of a requirement for mariners to report changes 

in their medical condition between examinations—which are usually conducted every five years, as you just stated—at the time a 

mariner seeks to renew his credential. Why hasn’t action been 

taken on this recommendation? Wouldn’t it be preferable that 

mariners at least be required to report changes in their medical 

status to the Coast Guard during the five year period between credential renewals, Admiral? 

Admiral COOK. Mr. Chairman, we have not solved that entirely, 

that is correct, but I think we have approached it to try and get 

the highest risk personnel first. So you heard about the waiver conditions that a general mariner can get, which requires them then 

to report back changes in their health. We have instituted an annual requirement for pilot physicals, since we know pilots are always operating in the most congested waters. We get that annually, so we do get that update. 

And then what we have, our plans are to bring ourselves in compliance with some international rules which are coming up under 

the STCW Convention, which will require physicals every two 

years for mariners, with the requirement to report changes during 

that interim period if there are changes. Even though it is under 

the Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for 

Seafarers, the STCW, we are going to incorporate that by regulation for all of our mariners. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So now pilots, unlike other credentialed mariners, have to submit to an annual physical, is that what you are 

saying? 

Admiral COOK. That is correct. And they have to submit it to the 

Coast Guard. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And after the COSCO BUSAN incident, the 

Coast Guard issued work instructions to guide the review of these 

physicals to ensure that they are properly reviewed. Does the Coast 

Guard have the ability to identify at any given time those pilots 

who have not submitted the results of their annual physicals or to 

remind pilots that a physical is due? 

Admiral COOK. We are very nearly complete on that, sir. It is one 

of the database fields that was added to our overall merchant mariner document tracking system. So I can’t say that it is 100 percent 

yet, but every time we are getting an annual physical into the 

NMC, it is being recorded and then tracked for anniversary dates. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you don’t know when somebody has failed to 

submit within the five year period, is that it? 

Admiral COOK. There could be some pilots who have not come up 

yet into the program, so we are still—maybe Captain Stalfort can 

give you the exact amount, but we have the process down and it 

is coming right along. 

23 

Captain STALFORT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We know all the mariners that have come up on their five year cycle because that physical is associated with the renewal of their credential. For those pilots that have submitted the annual, we know those and are tracking those for the annual. We are still updating our database to find 

out what pilots have not submitted a physical so we can better 

track those, and that is one of the software changes that are coming forth. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. 

Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank the Chairman for granting me one more 

question. 

Again, I don’t know whether you have had access to the testimony of those on the second panel, but in his testimony, Captain 

Clark makes a pretty compelling case for the increased utilization 

of trusted agents. So my question is how many trusted agents are 

you now utilizing and what impediments, if any, exist for the appointment of additional trusted agents so as to help facilitate the 

process that appears to be pretty severely backlogged? 

Admiral COOK. Okay, first off, Congressman, until we can make 

it so that mariners didn’t have to go to an REC, then we really 

couldn’t use trusted agents the way we envisioned it. So with the 

adoption of data sharing from the TSA TWIC, we now are able to 

do our identification and fingerprinting through that database and 

they no longer have to go to an REC. 

So I know at that point Captain Stalfort introduced the trusted 

agent concept and solicited for agencies that might want to participate, and he has got a list. I think the only thing that has held 

us back is our own internal workload. So we are looking to this fall 

to be able to go back out to those companies with a robust company, because it will require some oversight on our part and we 

think that, by the end of the year, the companies that are capable 

of doing the job as a trusted agent will be empowered to do so. 

Mr. BISHOP. But you have a fairly well-established backlog of 

companies that wish to be employed or engaged as trusted agents? 

Admiral COOK. I know we have a number of associations like 

PDA, some union interest, as well as some—— 

Mr. BISHOP. But you have no shortage of those who are interested in serving, is that correct? 

Admiral COOK. That is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. BISHOP. And you believe that you will be able to begin to engage them in a formal way by the end of this calendar year? 

Admiral COOK. We do. And we see that as part of a long-term 

strategy to alleviate our own workload. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank you gentlemen very much. You 

all are going to still stick around, right? 

Admiral COOK. We will. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right, thank you very much. I had a number 

of questions, but I am going to submit them in writing. One of 

them concerns this NVIC 04-08. I don’t know why you all are resistant to going along with NTSB. Why is that? 

24 

Admiral COOK. Mr. Chairman, we think we have gone along with 

them in spirit, like I said, addressing the highest risks first. But 

as far as the mechanics of then producing regulations which we can 

go along—and we want to get the industry support too. Right now, 

mariners are not looking forward to that additional requirement. It 

is an added expense; it is potentially putting their license in jeopardy. 

So I think we have a way to go to work this up from the NVIC, 

which now includes the pilots and other people that have waivers, 

to getting the full spectrum of seafarers. But, regardless, we will 

be doing that to come in compliance with the STCW and draw that 

into our general mariner pool. So there will be regulations. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right, thank you very much. 

We will now call our second and final panel. Mr. Ken Wells is 

President of the Offshore Marine Services Association; Captain Bill 

Clark is the Owner of the South Ferry, Inc. and is President of the 

Passenger Vessel Association; Mr. Richard Block is Secretary of the 

National Mariners Association; Mr. Mike Rodriguez is Executive 

Assistant to the President of the Masters, Mates, and Pilots Union; 

and he is going to be accompanied by Mr. Bill Van Loo, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association; 

and he will also be accompanied by Mr. Thomas Laird, who is the 

Director of New Business Development with the American Maritime Officers. 

So basically we have Mr. Wells, Captain Bill Clark, Mr. Richard 

Block, and Mr. Rodriguez will be testifying in that order. And it is 

my understanding that Mr. Bishop will be introducing Mr. Clark 

when Mr. Wells finishes. 

Mr. Wells, thank you very much. 

I want to thank all of you for sticking around. I really appreciate 

it. I know it is a long day. What we can do is we have read your 

testimony, but, having been here this long, we want you to say 

what you have got to say. But if you don’t feel like saying it all, 

it is okay; we are not going to be mad at you. 

But we get the gist of it. And as you could tell from the testimony of our two witnesses from the Coast Guard, we have our concerns. So I would like for you to, if you don’t mind, keep in mind 

what we have already said. And if there are things that you are 

concerned about that were not said or you want to bring out, I 

think the best and beneficial use that we can have is for you to 

highlight things that you are still concerned about, even with all 

that has been said. Does that make sense? 

Mr. Wells. 

25 

TESTIMONY OF KEN WELLS, PRESIDENT, OFFSHORE MARINE 

SERVICES ASSOCIATION; CAPTAIN BILL CLARK, OWNER, 

SOUTH FERRY, INC.-SHELTER ISLAND, NEW YORK, REPRESENTING THE PASSENGER VESSEL ASSOCIATION; RICHARD BLOCK, SECRETARY, NATIONAL MARINERS ASSOCIATION; AND MIKE RODRIGUEZ, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, MASTERS, MATES, AND PILOTS UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY BILL 

VAN LOO, SECRETARY-TREASURY, MARINE ENGINEERS’ 

BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION; AND THOMAS LAIRD, DIRECTOR 

OF NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, AMERICAN MARITIME 

OFFICERS 

Mr. WELLS. Thank you, sir, and good afternoon, Chairman 

Cummings, Ranking Member LoBiondo, members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify. 

OMSA is the national trade association representing the owners 

and operators of America’s offshore work boat industry. The American citizens who work onboard OMSA member vessels make it 

possible for our Country to explore and produce its offshore oil and 

gas, and soon they will be instrumental in the construction and 

maintenance of offshore wind and other renewable energy facilities. 

It is worth noting these mariners are among the largest group 

of U.S. seafarers who are currently required to meet STCW requirements. 

I will just touch on my testimony. 

We raise some concerns about the NMC. They have been very 

well vetted by the Committee members and the Coast Guard itself 

has raised some of those concerns. It is not surprising that there 

have been glitches in this process. We haven’t managed to avoid 

Murphy’s Law. The thing we would stress is that for each problem 

there is a mariner whose livelihood is at stake. We think the Coast 

Guard knows that, but it raises the stakes very, very high; it 

means that we need to be virtually error free. 

However,—and this gets to our conclusion—we can only make 

the system so efficient if the product is still a bad product. We can 

only deal with the structure of the NMC so much before the real 

problem emerges, and we think the real problem is that the licensing and documentation system itself is broken. Evaluators can only 

do so much when the system is so complex that the mariners can’t 

even fill out the forms correctly and only the most experienced 

evaluators can figure out how to apply this patchwork of regulations, policies and interpretations correctly. 

First, the Coast Guard has broached the idea of making this a 

computer-based application process. It is a good idea. They have 

talked about making it like Turbo Tax. That is a good example. 

And we have to remember 7 million Americans receive a notice 

every year from the IRS saying they made a math error. So the licensing process is not the only one that is prone to error. We would 

urge the Coast Guard to move forward to allocate the proper resources to make that electronic system work. 

Secondly, we need to simplify the process itself. We have to recognize in the process that one size doesn’t fit all. We train mariners 

to work on OSVs. There are tow boat captains, there are supertanker captains. As we said in the testimony, there are different 

skills at work. Most captains in the U.S. fleet try to avoid large obVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:06 Dec 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\50974.TXT JASON
26 

jects at sea. Our captains try to get as close to them as they possibly can without hitting them. We need a system that allows people to advance in all of those areas. We need a system that allows 

the hawsepiper to have as much chance of success as the academy 

grad. 

The system needs to make logical sense. We need to remove any 

of the barriers that don’t allow Americans to succeed based on their 

own hard work and skill. We need a system that works for the 

mariner, not against him. We think the Coast Guard shares that 

vision, but we think the Coast Guard needs to put the proper resources into simplifying the entire system; otherwise, all of the efficiencies—to use a phrase that came out of the former Louisiana 

senator is like putting socks on a rooster. It is not going to solve 

the problem, it will just dress it up. 

A couple of other issues that we raised. Mr. LoBiondo has very 

accurately brought up the TWIC problem. I won’t go into it here. 

Only to say that after having TSA promise so often that they would 

make this process seamless and efficient, it is inexcusable that we 

find the problems we find. 

The final thing I would raise is there have been some experiments in privatizing course approval. Course approval gets to the 

heart at the whole licensing process. The MTSA required mariners 

to have security training through STCW. Most of the vessel captains on those vessels are required to have vessel security officer 

training. A private company was brought in early to develop the 

courses, handle course approval, and then oversee the quality control. This was originally done under a grant, but the grant ran out, 

and then a fee was assessed on the training institutions. That fee 

was then passed on as a cost to mariners or their companies, who 

paid for the training. 

Without anybody really intending it, what we found was we have 

an unfunded mandate, paid for by the maritime industry, with not 

the sort of responsibility and control that we think it should have. 

So if the Coast Guard is going to continue this experiment, we hope 

that it will be vetted with the maritime community. 

And that concludes my testimony. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Recognize Mr. Bishop for introduction. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is my honor to introduce Captain Bill Clark, President of the 

Passenger Vessel Association for 2009, and who, along with his 

brother Cliff, own and operate South Ferry, Incorporated, a yearround ferry service between the towns of Shelter Island and Southampton in my congressional district. 

Bill and Cliff are fifth generation ferry operators whose family 

business has provided ferry service to the south fork of Long Island 

since the early 1800s. Bill and Cliff are both merchant mariners 

holding captains licenses issued by the Coast Guard. As it relates 

to today’s hearing, over half of Bill’s employees are credentialed by 

the Coast Guard. In addition, Bill is a retired Coast Guard captain. 

His active duty spanned nearly 30 years. He commanded three 

Coast Guard cutters and also had several assignments in the marine safety mission, including marine inspector, commanding officer 

27 

of a marine safety office, captain of the port, and officer in charge 

of marine inspection. 

South Ferry’s five double-ended ferry boats vary in size and can 

carry up to 20 vehicles, and each year transports more than 

700,000 vehicles and 1.3 million passengers over its five-minute 

single route. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for inviting Bill to testify before us 

today, as he is an ideal witness to discuss the issues we are exploring. I welcome him to Washington, D.C. and I thank him for his 

participation and thank you for allowing me to introduce him. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Bishop, thank you very much. 

We welcome you, Captain Clark. 

Captain CLARK. Thank you so much, Congressman Bishop, for 

that kind introduction. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting 

us to participate today. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Captain CLARK. PVA is aware of too many instances in which a 

mariner has been prevented from working because of credential 

processing delays, even when the mariner has submitted a complete application well in advance. We don’t buy into the notion that 

a properly completed application should be held up in system, 

awaiting processing or assignment to an evaluator, and we object 

to delays when an application is stuck in the pile. 

The Coast Guard acknowledges that the average processing time 

for credentials is 80 days. That is far too long. We know of a number of PVA members who have endured much longer experiences 

getting their licenses renewed. 

What is more, the Coast Guard estimates that at least 29 percent 

of the processing time is totally within their own control in the system. 

Here is an example from a PVA member in New York, on Long 

Island. The company owner applied to the NMC for renewal of his 

captain’s license more than 90 days in advance. The medical application took over three months to clear the medical review branch. 

Then more delay occurred at the professional evaluation branch. 

His license expired and he was unable to captain his own boat for 

a month, until he received his renewed credential. His small business had to incur the unnecessary expense of hiring another captain. 

The NMC should set tight standards in which each step of the 

evaluation process is accomplished. There are a number of steps. 

We understand the need for such steps and such orderly process, 

but there needs to be a time frame and we need to meet that time 

frame. 

We appreciate the Coast Guard’s commitment to improving the 

situation; we think it is sincere. We have seen them work wonders 

with the RECs in the past, where they brought failing units up to 

speed, and we expect that will happen this time and we need it to 

happen. 

The National Maritime Center has taken on too many changes 

in too short a time to effectively serve its customers. The mariners, 

as one customer of the NMC, are bearing the brunt of these 

changes. Neither Congress nor the Coast Guard should be content 

with the current level of service. 

28 

Congressman Bishop covered my questions, so I am going to skip 

past that. 

The Coast Guard may be considering a medical examination—I 

think we heard it today—every two years. If the Coast Guard can’t 

handle the volume of five-year medical reviews now, how does it 

expect to deal with the flood of two-year medical evaluations? We 

urge the Coast Guard to delay any move toward two-year evaluations or any other additions to the licensing requirements until 

such time that the current system stabilizes at a satisfactorily level 

of service. 

And, again, I will just hit on this. Congressman Bishop has covered this one also, and I think the Coast Guard thoroughly agrees 

on this. NMC should make expanding the trusted agent program 

a top priority. It sounds like they have, but I think that is going 

to add a lot to the equation by not having the Coast Guard return 

incomplete documents and then start the process all over again 

sometime later. 

Communication difficulties between applicants and the NMC 

continue to be of concern. Mariners must have real-time, accurate 

information about the status of their applications. PVA proposes 

that there should be a merchant mariner on staff at NMC who can 

serve as point of contact for applicants having difficulty with the 

process and who can advocate for these mariners within the NMC 

apparatus. I think this is similar to something you put forth as an 

omnibus program in the last Coast Guard authorization bill. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, please accept my 

sincere appreciation for inviting me to participate today and for 

your obvious keen understanding of the issues. I appreciate your 

plans for follow-up. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Block? 

Mr. BLOCK. I wish to thank you, Chairman Cummings, for extending this kind invitation to appear before your Subcommittee 

today. I represent the National Mariners Association that speaks 

on behalf of limited tonnage credentialed merchant mariners, all of 

whom are directly impacted by the quality of services provided by 

the National Maritime Center. 

I have actively participated in credentialing—to use the new terminology—for the past 40 years. My day job is as publisher of Marine Education Textbooks, which is a small business that has been 

preparing instructional material to help mariners pass the lower 

level Coast Guard license exams for vessels up to 1600 tons. 

I am Secretary of our Association and I previously prepared and 

transmitted two reports to the Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee dealing with today’s topics, the first in February of 

2007, two years ago, the second one in May of this year. I prepared 

both reports in collaboration with our Association President, Captain Joseph Dady. Your staff has electronic copies of these and all 

numbered reports referenced in my testimony. I don’t think I have 

to go into any more detail on those reports. 

The 126,000 credentialed mariners that we speak for, the lower 

level mariners, pay user fees and expect timely service on obtaining, upgrading, and renewing their credentials. Delayed credentials 

cost money, job opportunities, and even loss of employment, all esVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:06 Dec 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\50974.TXT JASON
29 

pecially important in today’s tough economic times. Delays cost the 

National Maritime Center as well by fruitlessly fielding repetitive 

telephone calls from our frustrated mariners. Our mariners frequently tell us about useless calls that they have made to the NMC 

help desk in painful detail. 

Under Captain Fink, the former commanding officer of the National Maritime Center, mariners who faced personal crises received prompt and personal attention when our Association 

brought these problems to his attention. He extended similar courtesies to our board members, who also serve on several advisory 

committees. 

Statistics don’t tell the whole story; however, manipulating statistics and putting the best possible spin on them appears to be 

standard practice at NMC. We review NMC from our mariners’ 

perspective, that of working mariners who pay user fees in return 

for services that should help them continue and keep on the job, 

and not interrupt and delay, deter, or discourage them, as frequently happens. 

Most credentialed mariners are independent and self-reliant. 

They only seek our help after their best efforts fail. Each mariner 

presents a unique set of problems, as our two reports show. In 

most cases, they already have asked advice from their friends, coworkers, employers, and schools. Occasionally, we remain their last 

resort. 

We have had some problems with the present commanding officer of the National Maritime Center, who has totally sabotaged the 

efforts of our Association to deal with many of these problems. This 

is covered in our written testimony, and I don’t see any reason to 

drag it out here. 

We appreciate the work of this Subcommittee and we support 

H.R. 2652, and especially in U.S. Code Section 7508, which would 

provide authority to extend the duration of licenses. We hope that 

you will be able to craft this legislation in a manner that will protect individual mariners from the type of losses that have been discussed today, resulting from needless delays and possibly end the 

adversarial relationship with our mariners that has erupted during 

the current administration of the National Maritime Center. 

I seek to extend the duration of licenses long enough so that 

somebody who has lost his or her license or stands to lose it may 

possibly be covered for a week or a month, or whatever time is necessary to straighten out their application and carry them through 

without loss of job, opportunity or pay. 

Thank you very much, and I apologize for over-extending my 

time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Good afternoon, Chairman Cummings, Ranking 

Member LoBiondo, and members of the Subcommittee. The American Maritime Officers, the International Organization of Masters, 

Mates, and Pilots, and the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association are grateful for the opportunity to appear today before the 

Subcommittee. 

30 

Accurately documenting merchant mariner qualifications is critical to our industry and to the individual mariners who make it 

work. 

For mariners, licensing and documentation is not about metrics, 

action plans, surging resources, or outreach to the industry; it is 

about our ability to maintain employment that provides for our 

families, maintains health care and pension benefits, and allows 

mariners to advance in the seafaring profession. 

In 2004, when the Coast Guard began revising its medical review 

process by proposing a new Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular, or NVIC, we agreed that the system of medical review needed to be improved. However, we also expressed our concerns that 

the NVIC was excessive and overly complex, and that the Coast 

Guard had underestimated the number of mariners affected, the 

number of requests for medical waivers, and the size of staff and 

the level of resources required. We, among many others, predicted 

that the system would be prone to delays and that mariners would 

lose income and essential benefits. 

It is absolutely unacceptable that any mariner should be out of 

work due solely to the failure of the system to adequately anticipate problems that we have experienced, especially after the agency was repeatedly warned that these problems were coming. We 

have come to the conclusion that the present Coast Guard medical 

review process is a flawed system that seriously needs to be revisited. And I would add that on the Senate side there is some legislation to do just that, Senate Bill 685. 

Merchant mariner licensing and documentation, now called 

credentialing, is an area of great concern to us as well. Accurately 

documenting mariners is critical to our ability to provide qualified 

mariners to every sector of the industry, including U.S. flag and 

international flag sector. There is general concern among the licensed mariner community that the Coast Guard is deliberately diminishing the professional standing of merchant mariner officers 

by eliminating the word ‘‘license’’ from their regulations in favor of 

the terms ‘‘credential’’ and ‘‘officer endorsement.’’ We recall that, in 

2004, Coast Guard legal personnel issued a legislative change proposal to rewrite 46 U.S.C. 7101, the statute that establishes merchant mariner licenses. Among other things, the term ‘‘license’’ 

would have been dropped from that statute. 

In our view, by eliminating the word ‘‘license’’ from its regulations, the Coast Guard is doing by regulation what the Congress 

would not allow it to do in statute. 

In addition, we have other serious and specific concerns over the 

credentialing functions. Mariners are receiving their documents 

with necessary endorsement stripped away from them. Mariners 

wait for months in order to have their documents updated, and several of our members complained that advice from the NMC help 

desk is inconsistent or just plain wrong. 

In the past, mariners went to one of the Coast Guard’s Regional 

Exam Centers, or RECs, to initiate and complete their licensing 

and documentation transactions. The benefit to the mariner was 

the availability of REC personnel to address problems on the spot. 

Centralization of licensing and documentation has concentrated the 

workload at the NMC, eliminated the professional discretion of the 

31 

RECs to fix problems, and has deepened the split between the 

Coast Guard and the mariner community. 

In conclusion, we hold the view that our merchant mariners are 

a national asset. They contribute to the quality of life around the 

world by maintaining and upgrading their skills and professionalism, carrying our commerce, supporting our armed forces, 

and assisting during national disasters. They deserve no less than 

the best efforts of our Government to assist them in providing their 

service to our society. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. Van Loo, you are not testifying, are you? 

[No audible response.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. 

Mr. Laird? 

Mr. LAIRD. No, I am not. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

I am going to go to Mr. LoBiondo. I will go to you first, then we 

will go to Mr. Bishop, then I will clean up. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Captain Clark, your testimony notes that the Coast Guard has 

implemented a consolidated merchant mariner credential and entered into a partnership with the TSA to coordinate certain aspects 

of TWIC and the MME processing program; implemented a new 

medical review system; implemented new endorsements for standards of training, certification, and watchkeeping; and, in addition 

to these changes, the Coast Guard has also established the National Maritime Center and consolidated many activities formerly 

conducted in the 17 Regional Exam Centers. 

I understand your argument that, in the short-term, the Coast 

Guard is having difficulty absorbing all of these changes; however, 

in the long-term, do you believe that these changes will result in 

a stronger, more effective credentialing program or that there will 

still be problems? 

Captain CLARK. You are asking me that question? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes, Captain Clark. 

Captain CLARK. I think the Coast Guard is doing their level best 

to make this new credentialing system work, and time will tell. 

When you go to a centralized system, you have a better opportunity 

for consistency than you would at 17 independent RECs that we 

had around the Country. But I think the other side of that argument is, if it is not a top-notch central organization, the mariner 

has no place else to turn. 

I am from a port where we had an option for two RECs in the 

day of the RECs, where you went to the REC, they had somebody 

at the REC that would look at your application, would tell you 

there are things missing here, so you get them corrected immediately. 

We actually had a situation where one of the RECs that was 

within our reach was doing an abysmal job and the other one was 

doing an outstanding job, so all of our mariners had an option and 

they all went to that port that was doing well, and it was remarkable because it wouldn’t have been the first choice, but geographically it was similar traveling time and all those things. 

32 

So I think we have an opportunity here for uniformity, if we can 

produce a central system that demonstrates excellence in all 

phases of this. But when the mariner is removed by geography and 

there is question as to the ability to communicate specifically about 

his case, we have opened the door to some of the concerns that we 

have heard expressed today. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Captain Clark. 

Captain CLARK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wells, you indicate in your testimony that the credentialing 

system should be simplified and that obstacles that, in your view, 

serve no purpose, should be removed. Can you be specific about 

some of the obstacles that currently exist that serve no purpose, 

that you believe should be removed? 

Mr. WELLS. To cite specific examples, I would like to go back and 

think about it and provide it to you in writing. 

Mr. BISHOP. But you will submit that for the record? 

Mr. WELLS. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Captain Clark, I am going to guess that a fair number of the 

members of the Passenger Vessel Association are seasonal businesses and, thus, the consequence of a credential expiring during 

the height of a season can be particularly difficult for that business 

to accommodate. In our testimony, you cite one example of a vessel 

owner who had to hire someone to operate his own vessel. Are 

there other examples that you can cite and can you just sort of 

walk us through the consequences of a credential expiring? 

Captain CLARK. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. I have one 

of my two senior pilots, he has been working at South Ferry for 40 

years, and I guess that means he is on his eighth issue of a fiveyear license. In the middle of June, he brought to my attention that 

he had submitted his renewal package to the NMC six weeks ago, 

and he just then, six weeks later, in the middle of June, when our 

big season is coming up and we need him more than ever, received 

a letter regarding his medical condition. There was an existing condition. 

I fully understand why we need to get to the bottom of any existing medical situation that could compromise safe transportation, 

but the delay between the time he sent this completed package in 

and he got the notification that now we need more information, he 

got that information within, I would say, three working days and 

did just what I told him, to make sure you get that right there, 

overnighted to the NMC so they can get right to work on it. 

But now we are getting towards the end of June and his license 

is due to expire next week, on the 14th. I think that exemplifies 

for me and others why we need to have a special queue for people 

that have submitted everything they need to submit and their license is going to expire, and in most cases it is going to get issued. 

But don’t make it so he has to stop working, he can no longer do 

his job just because of an administrative situation. 

And we do have other situations like that where mariners have 

just been caught up in a system that is backlogged, quite frankly. 

33 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay, thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Captain Clark, as you were talking, I was seeing 

that the Rear Admiral—I guess you all were talking about the 

problem that Captain Clark just stated. I hope that you all can talk 

afterwards and perhaps get the information about this situation. 

Captain CLARK. Well, thank you so much for that comment, Mr. 

Chairman. We have talked and we will continue to talk. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Oh, good. Good. So your family has been in this 

business for a long time? 

Captain CLARK. It goes back to—and we are trying to nail down 

the exact date, but early part of the 1800s, when our forebearer, 

Samuel G. Clark, came all the way from Connecticut, a small-time 

farmer, found that he could pick up a few extra bucks rowing people across the small passage. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is that right? 

Captain CLARK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you have lived basically by the water. 

Captain CLARK. We grew up right by the water and the ferry 

boats are right in front of the house when they are not in service 

on the route, which is right next door. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And I take it, in listening to your testimony, all 

of you, you have tried to be balanced. I mean, you understand the 

Coast Guard has a job to do, but I take it that you are trying to 

make sure that, in the process of doing that job—and this is to all 

of you—that they do their job, but that job does not interfere with 

commerce unreasonably and unnecessarily. Is that a pretty 

good—— 

Captain CLARK. That is an excellent way of putting it. And I will 

say this, we need to do our part as mariners. We need not wait 

until the very last moment. But that is exactly what we are looking 

for. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, if you notice in my questions to the members of the Coast Guard, officers from the Coast Guard, one of the 

things I said, I kept asking assuming that people submit their paperwork in a timely fashion, why we are having this problem? Because I agree with you, I think it has to be a two-way street. 

Captain CLARK. It has to be. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We have got to make it as easy as we possibly 

can. We have got to go by the rules, as far as mariners are concerned, to do the right things. But then, once we do the right 

things, do them timely, then Government has a duty not to stand 

in the way. It has a duty to do its job, but, at the same time, not 

to stand in the way because we can’t get our act together, and that 

seems to be the problem. 

I just want to go to the four of you. If you had something that 

you would really want to see—I mean, you have the Coast Guard 

right here, you have the folks who are in charge of the program. 

If there is something that you really would want to see them do, 

I mean, I know you have testified, but if you could just give us a 

sentence or two that would make a big difference, we just want to 

hear that, because we want to be effective and efficient. 

And I have got to tell you, working with Mr. LoBiondo, our 

Ranking Member, we really work together well, and our Committee 

34 

has worked together trying to figure out how to not get so caught 

up in politics and deal with curing people’s problems, because we 

only have one life to live, and this is it. 

So we will start with you, Mr. Rodriguez. And I want it just to 

be brief; we are going to end this hearing in the next few minutes. 

But I just want you to let us know what is your number one thing 

that you want them to do? You have got them sitting right there. 

They are taking notes. It looks like they are running out of paper 

and ink, but they are taking notes. But they are listening. 

Mr. Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first—may I—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Two. I will give you two. All right, two. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The first would be the trusted agent proposal. 

We would like to explore that and expand it and make it work. We 

have people in our schools around the industry who have the expertise to help the Coast Guard with some of these problems. They 

have the proper interest because they would be helping their fellow 

mariners through the process and—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And the trusted agent concept is to try to help 

make sure the application process is complete so they don’t have 

to start all over again, is that pretty much—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It could be that. It could be expanded to a number of different areas where there is a problem with the volume of 

work that is going to the National Maritime Center. 

My second wish would be to revisit the medical review process. 

We have never been in agreement with centralizing the medical review process because we have a system now where fitness for duty 

is determined by somebody in West Virginia who has never seen 

a mariner, has never examined the person, and is making a determination based on paperwork traveling back and forth. That has 

resulted in a number of delays. We have a medical profession out 

there that is perfectly capable of making physical examinations and 

determining whether a mariner is fit for duty. 

Now, I think what was missing in the old system was the ability 

of the Coast Guard to communicate consistent policy to its RECs 

and also to physicians who were examining mariners. In our written testimony, we talk about a system that is in place in the 

United Kingdom, I believe, and that is a system where the maritime authority in the U.K. sends some very clear and very understandable guidance to physicians around the U.K. to do the mariner medical evaluations. So we have always advocated for a system like that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. This medical review process is just too complex, 

it is too difficult, and results in many, many delays, as we have 

seen. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Block. 

Mr. BLOCK. My wish for the day is in four words for the Coast 

Guard: respond to our letters. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Captain Clark? 

Captain CLARK. I would emphasize that, when we have a licensing situation in extremis—and by that I mean if this thing doesn’t 

get renewed in a very short period of time, this mariner is going 

35 

to be out of work—when we have that kind of an extremis situation, follow the rules of the road and avoid a collision. 

And I think the Coast Guard is working very hard to put a process in place that they can depend on that will kind of put the thing 

on automatic pilot, and I think, to some extent, if it is done right, 

it can do that. But they will never get past the point where certain 

situations arise and we get into that extremis situation, and that 

needs to be a priority. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why, 

if the mariner is going to get his credential, let’s get it now. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, it is interesting. Mr. LoBiondo had asked 

a question about whether, when they fall into that category, was 

there any authority to give them at least a temporary kind of license or something to hold them over, keep them working, and the 

answer from the Coast Guard was no. We might want to look into 

that. 

Go ahead. 

Captain CLARK. If I may, I think the Coast Guard feels like they 

are bound by a Congressional mandate that says you can only issue 

a credential for five years, and one of the tides that is working 

against us here is that if mariners have a disincentive to send it 

in a year ahead of time, as was mentioned, or six months, because 

traditionally that has led to a loss of some percentage of your license—in other words, now it is a four and a half year license— 

I think there is a process in place now where they can do a delayed 

action and maybe minimize the loss of time on your license to 

maybe one month under a delayed issuance program. 

But I think all those kinds of things need to be made better 

known to the mariners. PVA needs to do its part to get that word 

out; Coast Guard needs to do their part. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Before we get to you, Mr. Wells, I just want to 

ask you one other thing, Captain. You indicated that many queries 

to the National Maritime Center go unanswered. Is this still the 

case, and how long do you have to wait, on the average, to receive 

a response? 

You also indicated that you support the establishment of an ombudsman to help. The only reason I am mentioning it now is Mr. 

Block had a similar concern when he said the four words, and basically he is saying just respond to us, let’s keep the communication 

going. I am just trying to figure out are you still having problems 

getting your—now, the Coast Guard claims they are in pretty good 

shape as far as—— 

Captain CLARK. Interaction. 

Mr. CUMMINGS.—interaction. 

Captain CLARK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But if we have a breakdown where people are 

not at least getting some type of response, all that does is lead to 

total frustration and it puts the mariner in a position and the employer of the mariner in an unpredictable position. I try to tell people all the time, as one who ran a small business for several years, 

the most important thing you can do for a business person is give 

them a decision, be it good or bad. They need to know something 

so that they can plan. 

So I am just trying to figure when you say—and I know you 

want to be fair to the Coast Guard. Are you still having problems? 

36 

Because I don’t want that to hang out there if it has been resolved 

or whatever. 

Captain CLARK. I think the problem is not so extreme that you 

just can’t get an answer, because you can get somebody on the 

phone. But I think the problem that I see and that we see in the 

PVA is getting enough information about exactly where that document is that is in for renewal, or if it is a new issue, where we 

stand on that. 

It seems like that is the part of the puzzle that is so important 

to the mariner. If it is not specific information, if it is just sitting 

in the pile, that makes him feel worse than before he picked up the 

phone. If he can get some information—he is wondering is there 

something I have done to make this worse? If I have, I need to fix 

it. And they understand that. Mariners know that. I think that has 

been, to me, at the crux of the problem, just getting the specific information that they need. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Wells? 

Mr. WELLS. It sounds a little corny, but I think the message we 

would want to pass on is we would want the Coast Guard to wake 

up in the morning knowing that day, if this system doesn’t work 

for the individual mariner, that mariner’s ability to earn a livelihood or advance in his profession is at risk. To own that fact and 

put the resources in place to fix it. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Bishop, did you have anything? 

We are going to end the hearing, but let me just say this. I want 

to thank all of you for your testimony. 

Mr. Laird, did you have anything? Yes, please do. You sat here 

all day. 

Mr. LAIRD. Okay. Thank you, sir. I just want to say that we have 

a fledgling project here all three unions are involved with that was 

really initiated in 2007 by MARAD, the LNG international business, and everything has been said as far as disadvantaging the 

mariner and the things that we are doing. I agree with everything. 

I like the dialogue. 

The issue is here we are making our debut internationally, and 

when we go on these international contracts, they are evaluating 

whether or not we can deliver. We have a couple of contracts, one 

is with a major oil company, and they put these people through 

complex training programs, and, at the end of the day, at the end 

of the time of the four months, they are looking for these people 

to go in service. They don’t want to hear that it is going to be another four to eight weeks, because there are tens of thousands of 

dollars at stake, not just the mariners’ pay. 

So that is all I want to say, because there is a government initiative with the MARAD project that we have put a lot of time and 

effort into, and we don’t want to see it vanish, because mostly it 

is for the new generation of officers coming up the line. We want 

them to have—I sailed LNG captain and I had a great career there, 

and we see, luckily this week we had nine new juniors from a couple of the maritime academies start out with this major oil company. 

We want them to have a career at sea and many more of these 

young officers out of these maritime academies. We have to prove 

ourselves to these international companies that, first of all, we 

37 

know we can do the job and we can be competitive. The third thing 

is that we need to be able to do our job with our documents in a 

timely way, basically. 

Thank you for giving me that time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Laird. 

Mr. Van Loo? 

Mr. VAN LOO. In my file, I have numerous examples of mariners 

that are experiencing difficulties in renewing their documents. It is 

our wish that the Coast Guard would expedite the process and get 

these guys back to sea. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, I would appreciate it if you would—since 

you have the main people here—that you talk to them before you 

leave. 

Mr. VAN LOO. I will. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank all of you for being here. I want 

to make sure that we are very clear. This is not a bash the Coast 

Guard hearing. This is about how do we work with the Coast 

Guard so that they can accomplish their mission and so that the 

mariners can accomplish theirs. I think sometimes we can make 

things more difficult than they have to be. 

But I think that, listening to all of you, the Coast Guard included, we can do this. This doesn’t sound like rocket science stuff. 

I think Mr. Wells said it, and perhaps it was some philosopher that 

said it even better than I can say it, that if we would just take a 

moment to put ourselves in the other person’s shoes sometimes, we 

would have a greater sensitivity and could probably work things 

out better. That is both ways, by the way. 

All I am saying to you is that we are going to work with the 

Coast Guard. I think we can do better. We need to get rid of this 

backlog. We just simply cannot—even if the economic times were 

not what they are today, we simply cannot afford to have one single person out of work because the Government cannot get its act 

together, as I said a little bit earlier. So we are going to work hard 

with the Coast Guard and we are going to follow up with the Coast 

Guard and make sure that we address this backlog. 

Again, going back to Mr. LoBiondo, our Ranking Member’s question, probably one of the most crucial questions during this hearing 

is when he asked the question does the Coast Guard have what 

they need; and the Coast Guard said they have what they need. 

Once you answer that in that form, we expect results. 

We also expect something else. We expect the Coast Guard to be 

able to look and see certain things coming. We don’t expect them 

to be the person that can see every single thing, but there are certain things that you just see coming, and you all are in the business of seeing things coming out there on the water. 

So all I am saying is that I think probably a little bit more foresight would have been helpful and then acting on that foresight 

would have been helpful, and perhaps we would not find ourselves 

in the situation that we are in today. That doesn’t mean that we 

would not have had problems, but maybe not to the degree that we 

have them now. 

And I don’t want us to underestimate how serious this is. I think 

we need to resolve it, because the one thing we don’t want to do 

is we don’t want it to get worse. So, again, I want to thank you 

38 

all for your patience. Speaking of foreseeability, we could not foresee that we were going to have this problem to delay you all for 

so long, but we really do appreciate the fact that you stuck around 

and made your voices heard. 

So, with that, we will adjourn the hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 2:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

39 


Insert offset folio 20 here 50974.020
40 


Insert offset folio 21 here 50974.021
41 


Insert offset folio 22 here 50974.022
42 


Insert offset folio 23 here 50974.023
43 


Insert offset folio 24 here 50974.024
44 


Insert offset folio 25 here 50974.025
45 


Insert offset folio 26 here 50974.026
46 


Insert offset folio 27 here 50974.027
47 


Insert offset folio 28 here 50974.028
48 


Insert offset folio 29 here 50974.029
49 


Insert offset folio 30 here 50974.030
50 


Insert offset folio 31 here 50974.031
51 


Insert offset folio 32 here 50974.032
52 


Insert offset folio 33 here 50974.033
53 


Insert offset folio 34 here 50974.034
54 


Insert offset folio 35 here 50974.035
55 


Insert offset folio 36 here 50974.036
56 


Insert offset folio 37 here 50974.037
57 


Insert offset folio 38 here 50974.038
58 


Insert offset folio 39 here 50974.039
59 


Insert offset folio 40 here 50974.040
60 


Insert offset folio 41 here 50974.041
61 


Insert offset folio 42 here 50974.042
62 


Insert offset folio 43 here 50974.043
63 


Insert offset folio 44 here 50974.044
64 


Insert offset folio 45 here 50974.045
65 


Insert offset folio 46 here 50974.046
66 


Insert offset folio 47 here 50974.047
67 


Insert offset folio 48 here 50974.048
68 


Insert offset folio 49 here 50974.049
69 


Insert offset folio 50 here 50974.050
70 


Insert offset folio 51 here 50974.051
71 


Insert offset folio 52 here 50974.052
72 


Insert offset folio 53 here 50974.053
73 


Insert offset folio 54 here 50974.054
74 


Insert offset folio 55 here 50974.055
75 


Insert offset folio 56 here 50974.056
76 


Insert offset folio 57 here 50974.057
77 


Insert offset folio 58 here 50974.058
78 


Insert offset folio 59 here 50974.059
79 


Insert offset folio 60 here 50974.060
80 


Insert offset folio 61 here 50974.061
81 


Insert offset folio 62 here 50974.062
82 


Insert offset folio 63 here 50974.063
83 


Insert offset folio 64 here 50974.064
84 


Insert offset folio 65 here 50974.065
85 


Insert offset folio 66 here 50974.066
86 


Insert offset folio 67 here 50974.067
87 


Insert offset folio 68 here 50974.068
88 


Insert offset folio 69 here 50974.069
89 


Insert offset folio 70 here 50974.070
90 


Insert offset folio 71 here 50974.071
91 


Insert offset folio 72 here 50974.072
92 


Insert offset folio 73 here 50974.073
93 


Insert offset folio 74 here 50974.074
94 


Insert offset folio 75 here 50974.075
95 


Insert offset folio 76 here 50974.076
96 


Insert offset folio 77 here 50974.077
97 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 78 here 50974.078