Snowe Chairs Hearing On Coast Guard Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan

SNOWE CHAIRS HEARING ON COAST GUARD REVISED DEEPWATER IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Snowe: the Coast Guard should no longer have to say, "we can do more with less."

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), Chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard, chaired a hearing this morning to review the Coast Guard's Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan. Admiral Thomas Collins, Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, Margaret Wrightson, Director of the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Homeland Security and Justice Team, and Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in National Defense with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) testified at the hearing this morning.

Snowe issued the following statement today:

We are here today because this Committee, and this nation, must understand the dire situation in which the Coast Guard now finds itself, regarding its "Deepwater" recapitalization plan. 8 years ago, Deepwater was conceived in the knowledge that the Coast Guard's aging vessels and aircraft needed to be modernized, and they proposed to do this over a 20-year timeline. At the time, we thought this would be sufficient.

But then on September 11th, 2001, everything changed. Everything, that is, except for the Coast Guard's assessment of how Deepwater would help them meet the new terrorist threats facing our nation. They recently issued a report that, shockingly, says it actually needs fewer ships, planes, and helicopters than before 9/11.

That violation of common sense is at the crux of today's hearing. This Committee must expose the heart of the contradictions before us, and help the Coast Guard immediately correct its course. If we let the Administration continue with this way of thinking, the foundations of Deepwater will continue to crumble before our eyes.

I am sure that Admiral Collins will testify that - as always - his men and women can "get by" with what the Administration has requested. As admirable as that stance is, however, the cold hard truth remains that the Coast Guard is experiencing a record number of casualties and mishaps like never seen before, and it is becoming simply unsafe for our young men and women to serve aboard these aging assets. Catastrophic engine failures and main space casualties have risen at an alarming rate in the fleet.

Because my colleagues and I were alarmed to see this chronic downward spiral of asset failures, we directed the Coast Guard to report on how it can reverse this trend. In the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY 2005, as part of our oversight for the largest Coast Guard acquisition in history, we called for this report. We knew that the original Deepwater plan was outdated, since it was developed before September 11th, 2001. We intended to have the Coast Guard evaluate its operational and asset requirements in a post-9/11 environment - in which we have significantly greater knowledge of terrorist attacks and other threats.

As we delve into this new plan for revising Deepwater, however, it becomes glaringly obvious that it does not meet the demands of a post-9/11 world. I am stunned and disheartened to learn that the Administration tells us that this service may not require as many ships in the water and airframes in the sky. They try to justify this by saying that the Deepwater assets will have "greater capabilities" than those in the original Deepwater plan. Therefore, the Coast Guard says it does not need as many assets. While I agree that new technologies are essential to accomplishing the service's missions, such capabilities simply do not substitute for actual on-the-water presence. Capacity is the most important capability of all.

When I study the figures in this report, and compare the number of assets that the service originally called for to what this revised plan says, I can not believe that the Coast Guard wants fewer ships and aircraft. Phrase it however you would like, but nothing will substitute for the fact that our nation requires more new assets - along with more capabilities - in the water and in the air. And we must utilize those assets now.

Despite a massive increase in the Coast Guard's homeland security mission, this report does not propose increasing the number of ships patrolling our shores. Even more disturbing - the total number of cutters could be less than what was originally planned. The National Security Cutter went from 6 to a range of 6-8, the Offshore Patrol Cutter remained the same, and the Fast Response Cutter went from 58 to a range of 43-58. The figures on this chart are not capable of meeting the expanded mission responsibilities that Congress has assigned to the service. Simply put, the role of the Coast Guard in defending our nation has increased exponentially, and its available resources should reflect this reality.

Another aspect of this report I find equally disturbing is the total absence of the word acceleration. I find it shocking that the Coast Guard did not evaluate ways to shorten the time frame for acquiring Deepwater assets. Completing Deepwater on a 10 or 15-year timeline, would not only offer a cost savings of up to $4 billion over the life the program, it also gives the American taxpayers a Coast Guard capable of meeting its vital security missions, sooner rather than later. The Coast even conducted its own acceleration feasibility study and stated that acceleration was possible; it saves billions of dollars, and it provided thousands of more operational mission hours.

I emphasize security, because we are not talking about theoretical threats in some far-off land - the dangers are a reality that we risk facing every day. Therefore, as the GAO rightly noted, we need to focus on how well this service is actually performing in its multiple missions. Simply put, the ships and planes that have served the Coast Guard well for so long can no longer absorb the pace of operations required to secure this nation in today's world.

Having served as Chairman of this Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee for more than 8 years, I refuse to believe this report reflects what you want for the young men and women serving under you. I strongly believe the Coast Guard serves as a cornerstone of our Department of Homeland Security and cornerstones of our national security should not be in the dilemma the Coast Guard now finds itself.

But we would be mistaken to frame this hearing totally around questions of national security, because the Coast Guard has been uniquely positioned to perform a wide variety of missions critical to our nation's maritime needs. Last year alone, the Coast Guard responded to more than 32,000 calls for assistance and saved nearly 5,500 lives. These brave men and women prevented 376,000 pounds of marijuana and cocaine from crossing our borders, stopped more than 11,000 illegal migrants, conducted more than 4,500 fisheries boardings, and responded to more than 24,000 pollution incidents.

The Coast Guard also aggressively defended our homeland as it undertook more than 36,000 port security patrols, conducted 19,000 boardings, escorted more than 7,200 vessels, and maintained more than 115 security zones. The Coast Guard has reviewed and approved domestic security plans for 9,580 vessel and 3,119 facilities, and they verified security plan implementation on 8,100 foreign vessels.

We must all take note of these figures, because with the current condition of its assets and the continued degradation of its ships and planes, the Coast Guard will lose its ability to maintain this impressive track record. For now, we can still applaud the Coast Guard for its success, but my concern at this hearing focuses on the service's ability to carry out these achievements and successes long into the future.

And Deepwater is the future of the Coast Guard. Without the advanced assets and capabilities that this program will provide, our mariners and coastal communities will watch these benefits erode. The nation cannot afford to lose or reduce the on-the-water presence of this vital agency, because if we do, more lives will be lost at sea that is the hard truth. Now is the time for Congress to renew our commitment to properly fund and ensure the Coast Guard is capable of doing all that we ask of it. It is time to turn words into action, so that our Coast Guard is no longer the 40th oldest of 42 naval fleets in the world, an embarrassing fact that I continue to state year after year.

The Coast Guard should no longer have to say, "we can do more with less." It is time for us to remove that phrase from the Coast Guard's vocabulary, once and for all. It is unfortunate that a quote I once heard from a past Commandant is coming true today - that "doing more with less will evolve into doing everything with nothing." I refuse to accept this statement, which undercuts the very core of our homeland security.

http://snowe.senate.gov/news.htm