<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:28756.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-693
NOMINATIONS OF VICE ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN TO BE COMMANDANT OF THE U.S.
COAST GUARD AND ROBERT M. McDOWELL TO
BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 9, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-756 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 9, 2006.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 14
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 2
Statement of Senator Bill Nelson................................. 16
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Witnesses
Allen, Vice Admiral Thad W., Nominee to be Commandant of the U.S.
Coast Guard.................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Biographical information..................................... 8
McDowell, Robert M., Nominee to be a Member of the Federal
Communications Commission...................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Biographical information..................................... 26
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Vice Admiral Thad W.
Allen by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 55
Hon. John Ensign............................................. 35
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 47
Hon. John F. Kerry........................................... 53
NOMINATIONS OF VICE ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN TO BE COMMANDANT OF THE U.S.
COAST GUARD AND ROBERT M. McDOWELL TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:20 p.m. in room
SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Good afternoon. This afternoon, the Committee
will hear from two of the President's nominees, Vice Admiral
Thad Allen, to be Commandant of the United States Coast Guard,
and Robert McDowell, to be a member of the Federal
Communications Commission. We welcome you both, and your
families.
Admiral, you're a native of Tucson, Arizona. You'll become
the 23rd Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, as I
understand it. And we look forward to hearing how you plan to
lead and direct the Coast Guard for the next four years.
Senator McCain will introduce you when he arrives.
Mr. McDowell, I think Senator Allen will be here very soon
to introduce you. We will be happy to have their participation
when they come.
To begin with, I think I'll just start with you, Admiral.
Do you have family with you that you'd like to introduce?
Admiral Allen. Yes, I do, Senator. Behind me is my wife,
Pam, my daughter, Amanda, and my son-in-law, John.
The Chairman. Thank you all for coming. We appreciate it.
We've got several things going on this afternoon, and our
Co-Chairman has been called away on personal family business,
so he will not be here. He sends his apologies. Admiral, please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN, NOMINEE TO BE
COMMANDANT OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I'm honored to be here before you today, and look forward
to listening to your views and answering your questions. I've
prepared a statement that I would ask to submit for the record,
and I have a brief oral statement.
I am grateful for the confidence of President Bush in
nominating me to be the 23rd Commandant of the United States
Coast Guard. If confirmed, my pledge to you and the American
people is to lead this remarkable organization in continued
service to America.
In the last year, we have been tested, from the waters of
the Persian Gulf to the rooftops of New Orleans. I've stood
shoulder to shoulder with extraordinary air crews and boat
crews that literally gave people back their lives. Their
service inspires me daily, and my goal is to sustain the trust
of our citizens for America's Coast Guard.
Today I would like to briefly discuss my priorities and
objectives and give you an overview----
The Chairman. Could I interrupt, just----
Admiral Allen.--of where I intend to----
The Chairman. Admiral, I see that----
Admiral Allen.--lead the Coast Guard.
The Chairman.--Senator McCain has joined us. He intended to
introduce you. And I want to be sure that he has that
opportunity.
And your complete statement will be printed in the record.
Senator McCain?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize for being a few minutes late. And I'm very grateful
that you are having this hearing in such a timely manner. This
is a very important position, as we all know.
And, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to introduce
Admiral Thad Allen. He's a native of Tucson, Arizona, who, as
you know, has been nominated to be Commandant of the Coast
Guard.
I note that this is somewhat ironic, since the largest body
of water in the Admiral's hometown is the University of
Arizona's swimming pool.
[Laughter.]
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, Admiral Allen has dedicated
himself to public service, having served in the U.S. Coast
Guard since his graduation from the Coast Guard Academy.
Presently, as you know, he's serving as Chief of Staff to the
Commandant, and all of us, all Americans, I think, are familiar
with his recent work as the principal Federal official
overseeing the government's recovery efforts in response to
Hurricane Katrina. His leadership style and commitment to the
people affected by the disaster have been roundly applauded.
Hurricane Katrina was not Admiral Allen's only experience in
disaster recovery. He led the Atlantic Forces in the Coast
Guard's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11th. I
believe these experiences will guide Admiral Allen as he leads
the Coast Guard in securing our ports and protecting our
waterways.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, in addition to an undergraduate
degree from the Coast Guard Academy, an institution some might
say he foolishly chose over an appointment to the Naval
Academy, Admiral Allen holds a Master of Public Administration
degree from The George Washington University, and a Master of
Science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I'm grateful that we have
Americans who serve with distinction and honor and courage and
dedication, as Admiral Allen has done. And I'm very--I feel
very humbled to have the opportunity to introduce him to this
Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Please continue, Admiral.
Senator are you----
Senator McCain. Thank you.
The Chairman.--withdraw or do whatever you want. It's your
call.
Admiral Allen. Mr. Chairman, I have four priorities for the
Coast Guard.
Job one is mission execution. We must effectively perform
the right task. I intend to aggregate the policy guidance
that's been contained in the Homeland Security Act, the
Maritime Transportation Security Act, and the recent National
Strategy for Maritime Security into a Coast Guard Maritime
Strategy that will serve as a blueprint for legislative,
regulatory, and budgetary recommendations.
The nature of the maritime domain requires an integrated,
layered approach to security, and the Coast Guard strategy will
support that approach. And our day-to-day mission execution
will be guided by the principles of operation that have evolved
over two centuries of Coast Guard operations. They include
unity of effort, on-scene initiative, and flexibility.
The exercise of these principles by our ship captains,
pilots, air crews, and boat crews was never more evident than
in our response to Hurricane Katrina. And I, also, relied on
these principles in the execution of my duties as the principal
Federal official.
My next two priorities are to improve capabilities and
competencies. We are nothing without our people, and our people
cannot be effective without the right tools.
On the capabilities side, the Coast Guard has embarked on a
comprehensive recapitalization of our cutters, aircraft, sensor
architecture through the Integrated Deepwater System. Delivery
of these assets to relieve aging ships, aircraft, and systems
is essential to our force's near-term readiness and long-term
effectiveness.
Extensive effort has been expended to adjust this program
to meet new post-9/11 requirements and address gaps arising
from the increased operations tempo required to meet current
threats. I am personally committed to executing this program in
the most effective manner possible. Our Nation needs these
platforms and the improved operational capability they deliver.
My focus will be on program management, effective cost control,
integrated logistics support, and platform effectiveness.
I am also convinced, based on my experiences in the Gulf
Coast hurricanes, that we can better exploit the unique
operational capabilities inherent in our deployable Coast Guard
units, including our marine safety and security teams, port
security teams, and strike teams. By grouping these
capabilities into tailored force packages under a unified chain
of command, we can sharpen our own toolkit for maritime
disasters and threat response.
If confirmed, my first step will be to align Coast Guard
deployable forces internally, and then seek opportunities to
integrate these forces with other DHS and Federal capabilities.
Regarding our terrific Coast Guard people, I intend to have
an unflinching focus on them. We must provide Coast Guard
personnel the skills, knowledge, and competencies needed to
effectively contribute to mission execution, and, at the same
time, for their individual growth, career development, and
lifelong learning. Identification of core competencies needed
to operate and maintain new boats, cutters, aircraft, and
sensors must be accelerated to complete--and be completed to
allow delivery of new platforms at full operational capability.
And, finally, initiatives to improve law enforcement
competencies, language proficiency, and officer specialty
management must continually become institutionalized in our
resource system.
My final priority is to build a Coast Guard organizational
structure that supports field operations and ensures mission
execution. Every element of our services not involved in
mission execution must be aimed at field support, and we must
be internally aligned with DHS support systems.
Based on the new sector mission delivery system and the new
requirements for deployable forces, I will conduct a
comprehensive review of existing command and control structures
and logistics and maintenance systems to ensure that the Coast
Guard is optimally organized to support field operations.
The Coast Guard's current finance, maintenance, and
logistics systems are based on platforms, such as aircraft and
cutters, not on common functions or processes. This situation,
as well as future requirements, require that the Coast Guard
develop and deploy an integrated transformational business
architecture that aligns with DHS and, above all, facilitates
more effective mission execution.
I'd like to make a final comment about partnerships and
leveraging Coast Guard competencies within the Department of
Homeland Security and the government.
I believe that the Coast Guard is well positioned and
uniquely equipped to contribute to the growing relationship
between the Department of Homeland Security, the Departments of
Defense and Justice, and the Director of National Intelligence.
In particular, the recent issuance of a revised Navy/Coast
Guard National Fleet Policy by the Chief of Naval Operations
and the Commandant focuses on our shared world of work and the
best combined use of our respective capabilities and
competencies in support of the National Strategy for Maritime
Security.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I have spent my
entire life in the United States Coast Guard. I was born while
my father was an enlisted man on the deck force of a cutter
underway. In 1967, I traded my dependent's ID card for an
Active Duty ID card when I entered the United States Coast
Guard Academy. I've seen life from the junior enlisted ranks,
as a dependent, and I've been lucky enough to advance through
the organization as an Active Duty officer.
My Coast Guard service has ingrained me with an abiding
respect for its people, their work, and the value this work
provides to the Nation. My pledge to the Committee and the
public we serve is to effectively lead and improve this tested
and trusted organization.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of
Vice Admiral Allen follow:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen, Nominee to be
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard
Introduction
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
Committee. I am honored to be before you today and look forward to
listening to your views and answering your questions. I am grateful for
the confidence of President Bush in nominating me to be the 23rd
Commandant of the United States Coast Guard. I can think of no greater
honor and no better way to continue serving our Nation than through our
Coast Guard, a Service whose embedded responsibilities impact every
American. Today I will discuss my priorities and objectives and provide
an overview of where I intend to lead the Coast Guard. First, let me
comment on our world of work.
The Coast Guard's ``World of Work''
The Coast Guard's ``world of work'' is our oceans, seas, lakes,
rivers, bays, sounds, harbors and our waterways--this is the maritime
domain and it is unique. Distinct from land borders characterized by
clear legal boundaries, our oceans represent the last global commons.
As the Committee knows well, we live in an interconnected world.
Nowhere is this fact more exemplified than in the maritime domain. It
is fundamental to our own and the international community's economic
prosperity. As a result, maritime safety and security are not just
issues of U.S. national interest and security, but of global stability.
The maritime domain is also enormously complex, with an unparalleled
variety of users. From the world's largest cruise ships and tankers to
professional fishermen and weekend boaters, the profiles of maritime
users are as varied as the jagged coastlines surrounding our country.
Thankfully, the Nation has built a Coast Guard able to successfully
operate in this complex and unique environment. Single-purpose agencies
such as the Revenue Cutter Service, the Lifesaving Service, and the
Lighthouse Service have been integrated over the last century into the
uniquely effective and efficient Service we are today. The Coast Guard
you oversee, the Coast Guard that we have collectively built has a
relatively straightforward purpose--exercise authorities and deploy
capability to guarantee the safety and security of the U.S. maritime
domain. That is who we are, what we are charged to do, and represents
the core character of the service. We are military, multi-mission, and
maritime.
While the character and nature of our Service are clear, our
missions are not static. New threats emerge as others are mitigated and
Coast Guard capabilities, competencies, organizational structure, and
processes must change accordingly. If confirmed, my enduring goal will
be to lead a Coast Guard that is steadfast in its character but
adaptive in its methods.
The work of this Committee helped ensure that the Coast Guard was
transferred intact to the Department of Homeland Security. We now must
adapt to the reality of an ever-changing maritime domain. Our mandate
and responsibility, indeed our passion, is serving the Nation with the
best leadership, authorities and capability we can muster.
Priorities . . . Right Tasks . . . Right People and Tools . . .
Effective, Integrated Support
Secretary Chertoff has set forth a six-point agenda to guide near
term Department of Homeland Security priorities and initiatives.
<bullet> Increase overall preparedness, particularly for catastrophic
events;
<bullet> Create better transportation security systems;
<bullet> Strengthen border security, interior enforcement, and reform
immigration processes;
<bullet> Enhance information sharing with our partners;
<bullet> Realign the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
organization to maximize mission performance; and
<bullet> Improve DHS financial management, human resource
development, procurement, and information technology.
These are the Secretary's priorities, and they are mine. If
confirmed, I will work collaboratively throughout the Administration
and with the Congress to translate this agenda into action. I will
focus on:
<bullet> Mission execution . . . performing the right tasks with the
right doctrine that reduce risk, mitigate threats, improve
response, increase preparedness, and enhance our ability to
recover from events that occur;
<bullet> Capabilities and competencies . . . we are nothing without
our people, and our people cannot be effective without the
right tools; and
<bullet> Coast Guard organizational structure that optimizes mission
execution . . . aimed at field support, leveraging partnerships
at all levels of government, and internally aligned with DHS
systems.
Mission Execution . . .
The Right Tasks
The nature of the maritime domain requires an integrated, layered
approach to its security. With 95,000 miles of coastline and 360
primary commercial ports, there is no fence or barrier that can be
erected to protect our maritime borders. We are bounded by the oceans
but we're not protected by them. It is precisely this reality that led
the President to issue in September 2005 the National Strategy for
Maritime Security (NSMS). This strategy is unprecedented in its
dedicated focus on the maritime domain and the necessity for its global
security. The NSMS addresses the full range of maritime threats and is
not limited to terrorism. With the structure provided by the Congress
in both the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Maritime
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002, together with the
International Ship and Port facility Security (ISPS) code, the
requisite pieces are in place to provide a maritime policy framework
appropriate to the risks we collectively face.
To further strengthen maritime border security, I will develop and
deploy a supporting Coast Guard Maritime Strategy. In December 2002,
the Coast Guard published its Maritime Strategy for Homeland Security
and it has served us exceedingly well. Under Admiral Collins'
leadership, we have moved boldly to accomplish its objectives and
execute its directed initiatives. Now is an appropriate time to ``take
a fix'', and layout a trackline for the future. The Coast Guard's
Maritime Strategy will directly support both the NSMS and MTSA and
integrate our activities related to security, safety, preparedness,
response and recovery. With that strategy as a foundation, I will work
closely with DHS, the Administration and with the Congress to align
legislative, budgetary, and rulemaking activity in support of national
policy.
The Right Doctrine . . . Improved Response, Ability to Recover
The Coast Guard's capstone doctrinal publication, what we call
``Pub 1,'' is entitled America's Maritime Guardian. It describes how,
while executing multiple missions, we ``harmonize what seem to be
contradictory mandates. We are charged at once to be policemen and
sailors, warriors, humanitarians, regulators, stewards of the
environment, diplomats, and guardians of the coast. Thus we are
military, multi-mission, and maritime.''
Our value proposition to the American public lies in our ability to
shift among roles with the same platforms and personnel, capable and
competent of performing a range of missions. This is made possible by
adhering to Coast Guard principles of operations that have evolved, and
been tested, over two centuries of maritime operations. They are
codified in ``Pub 1'' and listed below:
<bullet> Clear objective,
<bullet> Effective presence,
<bullet> Unity of effort,
<bullet> On-scene initiative,
<bullet> Flexibility,
<bullet> Managed risk, and
<bullet> Restraint.
The application of these principles across a wide-ranging mission
portfolio is the mission model of the Coast Guard. The exercise of
these principles by our ship captains, pilots, air crews, and boat
crews was never more evident than in the response to Hurricane Katrina.
These principles were also the tools I used in the execution of my
duties as Principal Federal Official for the response to Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. From national incidents to day-to-day operations,
from local responses to interagency efforts across broad regions, from
domestic enforcement to international partnership--these principles
empower and enable execution of all our missions. If confirmed, I
intend to build on the time-tested strength of this operational model
and ensure it is ready for the dynamic maritime domain we face.
The Coast Guard is well versed in operating land-based and large
mobile assets such as cutters and maritime patrol aircraft. However,
deployable units such as strike teams and port security units have
evolved in the last thirty years and are relatively new force
structures in the Coast Guard. After September 11, 2001, additional
capability was added to these forces in the creation of Maritime Safety
and Security Teams. Based on my experience leading the Federal response
to the Gulf hurricanes, I am convinced we can better exploit the
special operational capabilities inherent in these deployable units. By
grouping these capabilities into tailored force packages under a
unified chain of command, we will sharpen our own tool kit for maritime
disaster and threat response. More importantly, we will be better able
to integrate these Coast Guard capabilities with other DHS and Federal
capabilities such as Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) law enforcement, urban search and rescue
teams, disaster medical assistance teams and, when deployed, DOD
forces.
If confirmed, my first step will be to align Coast Guard deployable
forces internally and then seek opportunities to integrate these forces
with other DHS and Federal capabilities.
Capabilities and Competencies . . .
The Right Tools
The Coast Guard has embarked on a comprehensive recapitalization of
our cutters, aircraft, and C4ISR \1\ architecture through the
Integrated Deepwater System. Delivery of these assets to relieve aging
ships, aircraft, and systems is essential to our forces' near-term
readiness and long-term effectiveness. Extensive effort has been
expended to adjust this program to meet new post-9/11 requirements and
address gaps arising from the increased operations tempo required to
meet current threats. I am personally committed to executing this
program in the most effective manner possible. Our Nation needs these
platforms and the improved operational capability they deliver. My
focus will be on program management, effective cost control, integrated
logistics support, and platform effectiveness. In addition, successful
stewardship and program execution associated with both the Rescue 21
and Response Boat--Medium acquisitions are critical to current and
future operations of our shore-based and coastal operating forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ C4ISR is an acronym for Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Right People
Under Admiral Collins' watch words of Readiness, People, and
Stewardship, we have significantly grown and improved the competency of
the Coast Guard's work force. This unflinching focus on people has
benefited the Service at every level. The challenge I accept is to
continue to provide Coast Guard personnel the skills, knowledge, and
competencies needed to effectively contribute to mission execution and
at the same time further individual growth, career development, and
lifelong learning. Identification of core competencies needed to
operate and maintain new boats, cutters, aircraft, and sensors must be
accelerated and completed to allow delivery of new platforms at full
operational capability. The terrific work of the current Master Chief
of the Coast Guard Frank Welch to provide leadership training at key
accession and transition points must be sustained. Leadership training
and broader exposure to homeland security policy and operations should
be provided to mid-level managers. Finally, initiatives to improve law
enforcement competencies, language proficiency, and officer specialty
management must continue.
Coast Guard Organizational Structure That Optimizes Mission Execution .
. .
Focused on Field Support
The Coast Guard has taken bold steps to consolidate shore-based
forces at the port level into single, mission-focused Sector commands.
This consolidation will provide a single point of accountability for
operations. It will also unify resource allocation and enable risk-
based decision making tools to focus Coast Guard capability and
competencies to reduce risk and mitigate threats.
Based on the new Sector mission delivery system and the new
requirements for deployable forces, I will conduct a comprehensive
review of existing command and control structures, and logistics and
maintenance systems to ensure that the Coast Guard is optimally
organized to support field operations. In addition, we will develop and
enhance partnerships within DHS and at all levels of government to
improve interoperability, joint operating procedures, and employment of
finite resources.
Leveraging Partnerships
The vastness and complexity of the maritime domain make public and
private partnerships a prerequisite of preparedness and effective
response. For example, the standards-based approach of MTSA and ISPS
regulatory efforts explicitly recognize that security and commerce
cannot be competing interests. The combination of detailed performance
standards and rigorous Coast Guard enforcement has made us safer.
Additionally, the creation and regulatory enforcement of security
partnerships at the port and national level will allow us to make
continual enhancements to our collective effort.
In the public arena, I believe the Coast Guard is well positioned
and uniquely equipped to contribute to the growing relationships
between DHS and the Departments of Defense and Justice, as well as the
Director of National Intelligence. For example, the recent issuance of
a revised Navy-Coast Guard National Fleet Policy by the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Commandant focuses on our shared world of work and
the best combined use of our respective capabilities and competencies
in support of the NSMS. Similarly, the recently published Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) speaks directly to the need and value of fully
integrating Coast Guard capabilities into defense planning. Further,
the President has laid out a specific vision for global maritime
intelligence integration. As a member of the Intelligence Community, I
will seek to strengthen the Coast Guard's relationship across the
community to help facilitate DHS' achievement of the President's
vision.
Aligned With DHS Systems
In too many cases, the Coast Guard's current finance, maintenance,
and logistics systems are based upon platforms (e.g., aviation,
surface) rather than common functions or processes. A unified financial
accounting system is a requirement for effective support to the field,
necessary for the deployment of internal control systems, and
fundamental in addressing material weaknesses identified in recent
audits. At the same time, the Integrated Deepwater System acquisition
is transforming our maintenance and logistics systems. The inadequacy
of the status quo as well as future requirements require that the Coast
Guard develop and deploy an integrated, transformational business
architecture that aligns with DHS and, above all, facilitates more
effective mission execution.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee--I have spent my entire
life in the United States Coast Guard. I was born while my enlisted
father, a Seaman on the deck force, was underway on a Coast Guard
cutter. In 1967, I traded my dependent's ID card for an active duty
card when I entered the United States Coast Guard Academy. I have seen
life from the junior enlisted ranks as a dependent, and I have been
lucky enough to advance through the organization as an active duty
officer.
The entirety of this experience has prepared me to sit before you
today, and I am truly honored by the trust that the President and
Secretary Chertoff have placed in me. My Coast Guard service has
ingrained in me an abiding respect for its people, their work, and the
value this work provides to the Nation. My pledge to the Committee and
the public we serve is to effectively lead and improve a tested and
trusted organization that provides value to people's lives every day.
______
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Thad William
Allen
2. Position to which nominated: Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.
3. Date of Nomination: January 25, 2006.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: 2100 2nd Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
5. Date and Place of Birth: January 16, 1946, Los Angeles, CA.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Pamela Ann Allen (Spouse), Assistant Dean for Student Services,
School of Management, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Amanda Jo Foley (Daughter, age 29).
Meghan Colleen Altobello (Daughter, age 27).
Lucas Matthew Allen (Son, age 25).
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 1967-1971, B.S., 1971.
The George Washington University, 1984-1986 MPA, 1986.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School, 1988-1989
M.S., 1989.
8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs
that relate to the position for which you are nominated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Name of Employer Address Type of Work
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967 1971 U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Coast Guard Cadet
Academy, New
London, CT
1971 1973 U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Deck Watch
ANDROSCROGGIN, Officer
Miami Beach, FL
1973 1974 U.S. Coast Guard Greater Antilles Search &
Section Office, Rescue
San Juan, PR Controller
1974 1975 U.S. Coast Guard Long Range Commanding
Navigation Officer
(LORAN)
Transmitting
Station,
Lampang,
Thailand
1975 1977 U.S. Coast Guard Cutter GALLATIN, Operations
Governors Officer
Island, NY
1977 1979 U.S. Coast Guard DEA/INS El Paso Intelligence
Intelligence Watch Officer
Center (EPIC),
El Paso, TX
1979 1982 U.S. Coast Guard USCG Group, Group
Atlantic City, Commander
NJ
1982 1984 U.S. Coast Guard Cutter CITRUS, Commanding
Coos Bay, OR Officer
1984 1986 U.S. Coast Guard The George Graduate
Washington Student,
University, Public
Washington, DC Administratio
n
1986 1987 U.S. Coast Guard Third Coast District
Guard District, Planning
Governors Officer
Island, NY
1987 1989 U.S. Coast Guard Massachusetts Sloan Fellow,
Institute of Sloan School
Technology, of Management
Boston, MA
1989 1991 U.S. Coast Guard USCG Deputy Project
Headquarters, Manager
Office of
Acquisition,
Washington, DC.
1991 1993 U.S. Coast Guard USCG Assistant
Headquarters, Chief,
Office of the Programs
Chief of Staff, Division
Washington, DC
1993 1996 U.S. Coast Guard USCG Group, Long Group
Island Sound, Commander &
New Haven, CT Captain of
the Port
1996 1999 U.S. Coast Guard USCG Resource
Headquarters, Director
Office of the
Chief of Staff,
Washington, DC
1999 2001 U.S. Coast Guard Seventh Coast District
Guard District, Commander
Miami, FL
2001 2002 U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Coast Area Commander
Guard Atlantic
Area, Norfolk,
VA
2002 2006 U.S. Coast Guard USCG Chief of Staff
Headquarters,
Office of the
Chief of Staff,
Washington, DC
2005 2006 Department of Joint Field Principal
Homeland Office, Baton Federal
Security Rouge, LA Official,
Hurricanes
Katrina and
Rita (LA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last five years: None.
10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational or other institution within the last five years.
Advisory Board Member, Department of Public Administration,
School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George
Washington University, Washington, DC.
Advisory Board Member, Center for Innovation in Public Service,
The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Member, Board of Directors and Executive Committee, National
Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC.
Member, Local Federal Coordinating Committee, Combine Federal
Campaign, National Capitol Area.
11. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age or handicap.
U.S. Coast Guard Academy Alumni Association, 1971-Present.
U.S. Naval Institute, 1974-Present.
American Society of Military Comptrollers, 1996-Present.
American Society, of Public Administration, 1986-Present.
Executive Board, Washington DC Area Coast Guard Officers
Association, 1991-1992.
Vice Chairman, Policy Committee, S. Florida Federal Executive
Board, 1999-2001.
Board of Trustees, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 1996-1999.
Board of Governors, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, 1999-
2001.
Board of Advisors, Center for Sustainable Fisheries, University
of Miami, 2000-2001.
Board of Advisors, Public Administration Department and Center
for Innovation in Public Service, George Washington University,
2000-Present.
Chairman, Combined Federal Campaign, Miami-Dade County, 2000.
Chairman, Combined Federal Campaign, Department of Homeland
Security, 2003.
12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? If so,
indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and
whether you are personally liable for that debt: No.
13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years: None.
14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
Scholarships: Coast Guard Academy, 1967-1971.
George Washington University, 1984-1986.
Fellowships:
MIT Sloan Fellow, 1988-1989.
Coast Guard Nominee to Chief of Naval Operations Strategic
Study Group, 1996. (Did not attend due to promotion to Rear
Admiral).
Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration.
Honorary Degrees: None.
Academic Recognition:
Distinguished Graduate, School of Business and Public
Administration, George Washington University, 2001.
Distinguished Graduate, George Washington University, to be
awarded May 2006.
Honorary Society Memberships:
Pi Alpha Alpha (National Public Administration Honor Society).
Society of MIT Sloan Fellows.
Personal Military Awards:
Two Distinguished Service Medals.
One Legion of Merit.
Three Meritorious Service Medals.
Three Coast Guard Commendation Medals.
Two Coast Guard Achievement Medals.
Other Military Recognition:
1981 Nominee for the CAPT David Jarvis Award (Annual U.S. Navy
League Award for Leadership).
1981 Officer of the Year, New Jersey, Reserve Officers
Association.
Other Governmental Recognition:
Two Drug Enforcement Administration Certificates of
Appreciation for Outstanding Contributions in the Field of Drug
Law Enforcement (1978-1979).
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force National Award,
Operation Panama Express, 2001.
2005 President's Award of Excellence, Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities.
15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have
given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Publisher/Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel Identification Guide U.S. Drug Administration, El Paso
Intelligence Center (EPIC);
Reference Document 04-78, 1978
Realignment of Support and Management U.S. Coast Guard, 1987
Functions of The United States Coast
Guard (Contributing writer)
The Evolution of Federal Drug Master's Thesis, Alfred P. Sloan
Enforcement and the United States School of Management,
Coast Guard's Interdiction Mission: Massachusetts Institute of
A Case Study Technology, Boston, MA
Getting Results: A Guide for Federal The Government Performance
Leaders and Managers (Contributed Coalition Management Concepts,
Chapter entitled, ``A Career 2005
Leader's View'')
Housing Must be Tailored To Each New Orleans The Times-Picayune OP-
Family (PFO Commentary on Hurricane ED column 18 October 2005
Katrina evacuee housing issues)
Interactive Academic Town Hall The George Washington University,
meeting, carried live by CSPAN-2 School of Public Policy and
(Participation via VTC from Joint Public Administration, December
Field Office in Baton Rouge, LA) 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous interviews with media during Hurricane Katrina response
and throughout my career in conjunction with my official
responsibilities.
16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and
specify the subject matter of each testimony: None.
B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers: None.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? None.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated: None.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 5 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: None.
5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
While assigned to offices list below I participated in the
formation, presentation, and defense of annual Coast Guard
appropriation requests and authorizing legislation. This activity
included, but was not limited to, development of budget estimates,
preparations for Congressional hearings, submission of materials to
Congressional staffs, discussion with Congressional staffs and members,
and attendance at or testimony provided for hearings.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
I would obtain advice from the Department DAEO or his designee as
appropriate and take appropriate action to resolve the conflict.
C. LEGAL MATTERS
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain.
1970: Arrested by Amsterdam, Netherlands police following an
altercation in a bar involving Coast Guard Academy Cadets.
Restricted to ship for remainder of the port call.
1972: Arrested by Winter Park, FL police following a vehicle
accident and held in custody overnight. Subsequently fined and
license suspended for 90 days for driving while under the
influence.
Note: Information regarding both of these incidents has been
provided during required background investigations for security
clearances and in prior confirmation questionnaires throughout
my career of 35 years.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere ) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain.
See Question 2 above. I do not know whether this violation was
considered a criminal violation or traffic offense.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination: None.
6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any
other basis? No.
D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Admiral, I've received word that Senator Allen wants to
introduce Mr. McDowell. Will you mind just staying there and
permit us to do that?
Senator Allen. I'll wait. I don't want to upset--we'll
wait. Let's go forward with the----
The Chairman. You're all right? OK, fine. Let me just ask a
couple of questions, then, Admiral.
What do you think about the direction we're going, as far
as the Deepwater projects that we believe we should be
pursuing? We seem to be upgrading the projects, the existing
legacy assets, rather than going into Deepwater. Have you
looked over that situation to see what we should do?
Admiral Allen. I have, sir, and it's a delicate balance. We
need that new inventory of assets absolutely as soon as we can
get them. But the current operation tempo demands that we meet
our mission requirements out there. And it requires us to
sustain those legacy assets until the new ones can be replaced.
It's going to require a clutch-and-gas type of approach. I am
committed to doing that and making sure those legacy assets get
the job done, but getting those new assets online as quickly as
we can, sir.
The Chairman. You and I have had some conversations about
the problem of the icebreakers. I've just returned this week. I
was in my State last weekend. Our inlet was almost iced in.
What is going to be the policy about the access to the
icebreakers for our state and the Pacific Northwest?
Admiral Allen. Well, sir, I think there's been a dramatic
change in the landscape of icebreaking capability and
requirements in the last couple of years. As you know, there
was an accommodation made last year to shift funding in the
National Science Foundation, to actually bring the money back
to the Coast Guard to support our operations. I think, with the
growing concern over the shrinking of the Arctic icecap, the
continuing issues with resupply of McMurdo Sound and the South
Pole, and the condition of the icebreakers, I think a national
public policy discussion is in order to take a more holistic
view of where we need to go, and where we need to go with all
three of the icebreakers, not just the two Polar Class and the
Healy, sir.
The Chairman. Well, I can't ask you for comment, but I
intend to try and reverse that decision that was made last
year. I don't think it makes any sense at all. The National
Science Foundation is also under the jurisdiction of this
Committee, but it doesn't have a constant need for icebreakers.
It does, in terms of its scientific expeditions at the North
and South Poles, but there's still a need for our Nation to
have access to icebreakers, particularly those of us who live
in the area I live in, in Alaska.
What about the basic problems that we have with regard to
the maritime boundaries. I'm particularly concerned with the
maritime boundary in the Bering Sea. Have you looked into that
problem, of how we're going to maintain the security of the
maritime boundaries in the future?
Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. As you know, our commitment right
now is to have one cutter on the major boundary line--maritime
boundary line, and one in the Bering Sea. We continue to meet
that commitment. Our challenge is, as we decommission the older
ships and bring the new ones online, to not break that
commitment and keep that presence up there. That's one reason
why we are intending to relocate one of our high-endurance
cutters to Kodiak, to replace the--Coast Guard Cutter Storrs
will be decommissioned, sir.
The Chairman. We intend to try and authorize another
icebreaker for the Coast Guard. I don't know what the Congress
is going to do about that, but that's one of our intents.
Senator Dorgan, do you have any questions of the Admiral?
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, only to say that I'm pleased
to support his nomination. Vice Admiral Allen has a
distinguished background, and--look forward to supporting the
nomination, look forward to a robust Coast Guard presence in
North Dakota in the future.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Allen. Happy to discuss it, sir.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, between operating that swimming pool in
Phoenix and this thing in North Dakota, if you get around to
it, send another icebreaker up our way, will you?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Allen?
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. I have no question. I look forward to
supporting Admiral Allen. We are not related.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. We can--we, fortunately, don't need
icebreakers that much in Virginia. Once in a while, in the
Potomac, I suppose.
The Chairman. Senator Snowe?
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask----
The Chairman. Pardon me. Senator Bill Nelson, I didn't see
you----
Senator Snowe. Oh, go right ahead. Yes, that's fine.
The Chairman.--over there. Pardon me.
Senator Bill Nelson. Go ahead with the----
The Chairman. All right. Senator Snowe, go ahead. He's
hiding behind his colleague there.
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I ask unanimous
consent to include my entire statement in the record.
I want to applaud Admiral Allen for all that he has done on
behalf of the Coast Guard, and all that he will do in the
future, in his new position as Commandant of the Coast Guard.
He has demonstrated his exemplary performance in righting the
response to Hurricane Katrina, with his critical role that he
played in New Orleans and throughout the Gulf region during
that very difficult and devastating time.
And I look forward to working with you, Admiral Allen, on
so many of the key issues that are confronting the Coast Guard
that demonstrated its superb professionalism and dedication and
heroism in its response to Hurricane Katrina when it saved more
than 33,000 lives. I hope that we will be able to work with you
in providing the resources that the Coast Guard rightly
deserves, with the Deepwater recapitalization--I hope that we
can expedite that timetable--and also to provide you with the
interoperability, the command and control, that one Deepwater
asset that was in the Gulf at the time was able to provide. The
Coast Guard, otherwise, is without it, but made do with what
you didn't have, which, again, shows the remarkable dimension
of the skills and professionalism of the Coast Guard.
So, I'm looking forward to working with you. And,
obviously, I think the issue of port security is one of the
preeminent concerns, and probably will be the most critical
challenge of your tenure.
And I look forward to working through some of these issues
to ensure that you have the resources to do all that's going to
be essential to provide for our homeland defense and security.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this nominations hearing today.
As Chair of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard, and a
representative of a state with a long and proud maritime heritage, I am
pleased to address leadership transition of the United States Coast
Guard. The current Commandant will complete his tour of duty on May
25th, and it is now imperative that the Senate considers and confirms
his successor.
First, let me express my deep appreciation for the outstanding
leadership of Admiral Tom Collins. For the past four years, he has
carried out his duties as Commandant with distinction and remarkable
accomplishment, particularly during the tumultuous aftermath of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The brave men and women of the Coast Guard
performed heroically in saving more than 33,000 lives under disastrous
conditions never before faced in this country, which is a testament to
his outstanding leadership.
Since then, Admiral Collins and his Chief of Staff, Vice Admiral
Thad Allen, have worked tirelessly to ensure the Coast Guard is ready
to respond to any threat. With their sure and steady hands at the helm,
they upheld the Coast Guard's readiness under challenging circumstances
and have been at the forefront in facilitating the Deepwater project--
which is not only urgent and essential for upgrading the Coast Guard's
aging assets but also for shoring up the very foundation of our
Nation's homeland security. As the Coast Guard has increasingly been
called upon to do more with less--with the 40th oldest fleet among the
world's 42 nations with maritime forces--they have navigated these
treacherous waters effectively and with impressive diligence.
Given the threats we face today--whether natural disasters or the
products of discontent societies--it is vital that the new Commandant
of the Coast Guard maintains this course, and I have every confidence
that Vice Admiral Allen is the right person for the job. As the
Chairman noted, the nominee before us today has compiled a long and
distinguished record in the service of our Nation. Serving as Admiral
Collins' Chief of Staff for the past four years, he has been
instrumental in guiding the transition of the Coast Guard to its new
normalcy in the post-9/11 environment.
Looking forward, the challenges facing our Nation, and the Coast
Guard, under Admiral Allen's leadership will only continue to grow. The
Coast Guard must continue to be an integral component of our Nation's
military and a vigilant defender of our homeland security. While we
have seen the Department of Homeland Security rightfully come under
scrutiny during recent national events, including its roles in natural
disasters and port security oversight, the Coast Guard has consistently
demonstrated an outstanding ability to carry out its missions each and
every time, and it must continue to do so. No Coastie better
demonstrated the service's ``get it done attitude'' better than Admiral
Allen, who confidently stepped in to a critical leadership role and
righted the Federal Government's response to Katrina. His ability to
coordinate the efforts of all local, state, and Federal agencies into
one harmonious response should be the model to emulate when the next
disaster strikes.
As our Nation has painfully learned over recent weeks and months,
there is simply no substitute for maintaining a ready posture when it
comes to protecting our homeland. The recent firestorm over the
proposed sale of critical ports terminals to Dubai Ports World has
highlighted the vulnerabilities in our port security. Our nation
requires a Coast Guard that can provide us with secure ports, and,
Admiral Allen, I believe that is going to be the greatest challenge of
your tenure.
Yet beyond these headline-grabbing cases, every single day the
Coast Guard must continue to work tirelessly, outside the spotlight, to
uphold our Nation's safety and security. Through its search and rescue
operations, this service aids people in distress and prevents the
losses of life and property on our waters. The Coast Guard enforces all
Federal laws and treaties related to the high seas and U.S. waters and
prevents illegal narcotics from reaching our shores. This service is
the lead Federal agency for preventing and responding to major
pollution incidents in the coastal zone. At the same time, it makes our
ports and shipping lanes safe for efficient maritime transportation and
commerce. And as one of the armed services, it plays a critical role in
our Nations's defense strategies. Under your watch, Admiral Allen, the
Coast Guard's vital role in each of these missions will undoubtedly
continue to have direct bearing on our Nation's security and welfare.
Mr. Chairman, I am impressed with Vice Admiral Allen's credentials
for the Coast Guard's highest leadership position. The president could
not have chosen a more qualified individual for this critical position.
I look forward to his testimony and to working with him on the safety
and security issues so critical to our Nation, and I again thank you
for scheduling this vital hearing today.
The Chairman. Thank you. All the opening statements will be
printed in the record in full.
Senator Nelson?
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Coast Guard created quite a firestorm in Florida in
January--early January. Fifteen Cuban rafters were clinging to
a bridge in the Florida Keys, thinking that they had reached
land. The Coast Guard rounded them up and sent them back to
Cuba, under the legal reasoning that since this was the old
bridge, the new bridge having been built right beside it, that
the old bridge wasn't actually connected to the land; and,
therefore, they had not reached the land side of America.
A Federal judge has just ruled that that was wrong and
contrary to law. Is the Coast Guard going to appeal that
Federal judge's ruling?
Admiral Allen. Senator, that issue is under review in the
Department right now. We do not have an opinion from the
Department of Justice yet, but I understand it's under review.
Senator Bill Nelson. What was the legal reasoning that you
came to that you would consider, under the wet foot/dry foot
policy, that they had not reached America?
Admiral Allen. Well, first of all, Senator, let me just
state that I was not at Coast Guard Headquarters when that
occurred. I was still involved in my duties regarding the Gulf.
I am a former Seventh District Commander in Miami, and I've
been involved in those missions before. But a legal
determination was made by our legal staff, and communicated
down to the Commander of the Seventh Coast Guard District, who
I believe you've already met with, that assimilated that bridge
to being the same as something that was not connected to land.
And that was a decision that was made on scene at the time that
resulted in the migrants being repatriated, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Had you been Commandant, would you
have corroborated and approved that legal reasoning?
Admiral Allen. Well, sir, I think you need to take each one
of these cases on an individual basis. And the reason I say
that is, there are a lot of structures down there that are not
connected to land, and, notwithstanding that that bridge had
formerly been connected to land, we have migrants that are
deposited on all forms of structures out there, some of which
are very, very unsafe. And, as a general rule down there,
anything that's not connected to land is not considered to be
``dry feet,'' but there's a safety aspect to this, too, in the
precarious position that some of these migrants have been
placed in by smugglers.
Senator Bill Nelson. I understand. But now--you know, the
Coast Guard took them back--now a judge says something else.
But they're under the control of Fidel Castro now. And so, it's
entirely--if the law is as stated by this Federal judge, that
they were illegally sent back to Cuba--in other words, that
they were legally in the United States--they don't have much
recourse now. It's all up to Fidel.
Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. As I said, if there is a different
policy guidance that comes out from the current adjudication
that's underway, we will take our cue from that. We try not to
make policy at the deck plates, but we will respond to whatever
outcome of the judicial process that occurs.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, let me ask you, are you familiar
with the process, when you pick up a rafter at sea and you do
an investigation on the Coast Guard boat to determine if there
is the fear of political persecution if returned, and you make
that determination--you, the Coast Guard, make that
determination--before you would bring them to the immigration
authorities in the United States? Are you familiar with that
process?
Admiral Allen. Sir, that's not the process we use when we
have migrants offshore. They're interviewed by an asylum
prescreening officer that's provided to us by USCIS, and the
determination on their status is made as a result of those
interviews and interagency consultation. That is not a decision
the Coast Guard makes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. So, in the case of a fellow named de
Valle, who was picked up in 2002 and was repatriated to Cuba
and promptly thrown into jail, that was a determination made by
the immigration department, not by the Coast Guard?
Admiral Allen. No, sir. What happens is, there is an
interview completed. There's a standard information package
that's taken on all migrants. That information is sent up to
Washington. There is an interagency discussion between all the
respective Departments that have play in that, from a policy
standpoint. Guidance then is provided back down to the
operational commanders on scene, on whether or not the
individual will be repatriated or possibly placed to Guantanamo
Bay to potentially go to a third country. But the Coast Guard
does not make that decision, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. And all of that is while the rafter is
on the Coast Guard vehicle?
Admiral Allen. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Vessel.
Admiral Allen. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. And was that the case with the 15?
Admiral Allen. I would have to check on it. I was aware
that there was an inquiry made today, and I believe we're still
looking for information with USCIS on that. I don't have any
current information, but we'd be glad to give you that
information after the hearing, sir, once it's developed.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, since you're going to be the
Commandant, these are going to be very poignant and pointed
issues that are going to have to be addressed----
Admiral Allen. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson.--so that we don't get into this kind
of situation, where someone is thrown back into the jaws of a
dictator--that, in fact, has reason to believe that they are
going to be politically persecuted.
Admiral Allen. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. You're going to be in a direct
position to make that happen.
Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. I'm well aware of the
responsibility, having been the District Commander down there.
This is a very, very tough mission for the Coast Guard. It's
gut-wrenching at times. And my commitment to you is, we'll do
it with transparency in the light of the day with the people we
serve, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Admiral.
The Chairman. Does anybody----
Senator Allen. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman.--Senator Allen, do you have an additional
comment?
Senator Allen. Yes. Listening to the questioning from
Senator Nelson, the Coast Guard, these days, Mr. Chairman,
has--it's probably more important than in its entire history of
so many centuries in this country. We're in a war on terror.
You have to be worrying about shipments, containers coming in.
Additionally, you have to worry about stowaways and figuring
out--you find out that some ship that's just leaving someplace
hundreds of miles away has a stowaway, and you're positioning
all that. I've visited the Coast Guard Headquarters in Norfolk,
and it's amazing what you all have to do. And so diverse, so
multifaceted--of course, worrying about hurricanes and storms
and rescues, and then the refugee issue, as well. I think it is
a bit unfair--I share Senator Nelson's concern. And I think our
policy, insofar as those who are escaping for freedom from
Castro's regime, is a policy that doesn't make a great deal of
sense. It is not, though, in my view, the role of Admiral Allen
to change that policy or ignore the policy or not follow the
law. It is incumbent on us, as Members of Congress, and, in
fact, the President and the Administration.
And so, I don't know if we'd have enough votes to do it,
but I think that that policy needs to be reviewed, as far as
our standing strong for freedom, justice, and not ask an
admiral to look the other way, ignore the laws. He has a duty,
an oath he'll need to uphold. I'm confident in Admiral Allen,
seeing his work in Katrina. You've brought the most credibility
and discipline and structure and analysis to that chaos, from
those of us watching all around the world.
But I think--I just think it's a bit unfair to ask him to
do that, when we ought to try to do it. Maybe we can work
together. I know our colleague, Senator Martinez, is well aware
of this, and has a very personal interest. And also, maybe get
the Administration to use some common sense in this approach.
But thank you for bringing the issue, but I don't--I think
you've put him in an untenable position to say, ``Well, that's
the law, but try to find a way of administering it
differently.''
Senator Bill Nelson. Would the Senator yield?
Senator Allen. Sure.
Senator Bill Nelson. If the Senator would notice, the
Admiral has answered the question with regard to the Coast
Guard decision of the repatriating of the 15 rafters in early
January. He has stated that was a Coast Guard decision, after
consultation with their legal counsel. Now that that issue has
been brought to full fruition in a Federal court, where the
court has said that the law was not followed, it's certainly
worth bringing up that issue, on those kind of interpretations
within the Coast Guard itself.
Senator Allen. Admiral Allen, I don't--you can just watch
as a referee.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Admiral.
Anyone have any further questions of the Admiral?
[No response.]
The Chairman. We appreciate your courtesy, Admiral. We will
have an executive session on Thursday, March 16th. We'll do our
best to see if we can get your nomination before that executive
session. Thank you very much.
Admiral Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Our next nominee is Robert McDowell, nominee
to be a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission,
to be introduced by Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you. Rob, if you'd have a seat there.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues on the Committee, it is my
pleasure this afternoon to introduce to our committee Robert M.
McDowell. Rob, and his bride, Jennifer, are longtime friends of
mine and my wife, Susan. Rob is a native of Virginia. He and
his bride, Jennifer, are raising their two children, Griffin
and Mary-Shea, who are here with us, well-behaved little pups.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. And they're raising them on what's left of
the farm that--in Northern Virginia where Rob grew up.
I'm delighted that President Bush has nominated Rob to
serve as Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
I am confident he'll do an outstanding job there. I'm going to
put a whole statement in record.
But let me highlight why I think he's extraordinarily
qualified to serve on the FCC.
Rob brings with him approximately 16 years of private
sector experience in the communications industry. I think that
experience alone makes him a tremendous asset to the
Commission, from the perspective that he has had. He has long
been a passionate individual about public service. When I was
serving as Governor of Virginia, I actually appointed Rob to
not one, but two different boards and commissions, one dealing
with combating drugs in Virginia, and the other as a consumer
perspective on the Board of Contractors. And he served on both
of these boards with great distinction and integrity.
And he spent, really, the last three decades serving his
Commonwealth, his community, in a variety of different civic
and charitable ways. Currently, he's chairman of the McLean
Project for the Arts.
He does have a stellar academic and professional
background. He went to Duke University in undergraduate school,
went to law school at the College of William and Mary, where
Mr. Jefferson--Thomas Jefferson studied law. Seems to have a
similar philosophy as Mr. Jefferson. After law school, he began
practicing telecommunications law. He has served as outside
counsel to numerous technology and telecom companies and trade
associations.
He is admitted to the Virginia State Bar. He's admitted to
practice before the Supreme Court of the United States of
America, the Supreme Court of Virginia, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the First
Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Fifth Circuit, and the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia--a very
competent lawyer.
I can personally attest to his high exemplary character.
And I think he's going to execute his duties as Commissioner
with great ethics, with objectivity, and the utmost of
professionalism. And I think he'll be striving in these--and
you'll read his statement, and you'll hear it--but I think
he'll be striving to make sure that all people in this country
have the opportunity to benefit from the digital revolution. I
think he'll be a devoted and a very pragmatic commissioner in
the finest and fairest caliber with his knowledge and his
experience.
And I'm speaking for myself, but I know I'm also speaking
on behalf of my colleague from Virginia, Senator John Warner,
Congressman Tom Davis, Congressman Wolf, and other members of
the Virginia delegation, in enthusiastically supporting the
confirmation of President Bush's nomination of Rob McDowell on
the Federal Communications Commission.
And I'd like to put this as part of the record.
And, if I could, may I ask the first question of the
witness, Mr. Chairman, because I'm supposed to have left 10
minutes ago? But if I could ask a question, the first question,
if you would--leave of court, if it please the court----
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen.--ask the first question of the witness.
The Chairman. If we say no, will you stay?
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. No, I'd have to go.
The Chairman. OK. Go ahead.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Rob, this is something I think needs to be addressed. I
didn't--my statement--all the experience you've had in the last
16 years, you have been an advocate for telecom entrepreneurs,
for technology entrepreneurs. And you have substantive
experience in the private sector. And I think that's going to
be extremely valuable to the FCC, to have that perspective. And
you may have more experience than any other of the
commissioners, as well, in these areas. But I do think it's
fair to ask you how you think you'll be able to adjudicate
matters objectively and fairly, given your background. And I
think it's very important that you address this point.
Mr. McDowell. Thank you, Senator Allen. And--thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you, Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Then you're going to have to give your
statement. This, I know, fouls everything up. But----
Mr. McDowell. Should I answer the question first or----
Senator Allen. Yes.
Mr. McDowell. OK, excellent.
It is a very sobering experience to have the President of
the United States extend his hand and ask you to serve your
country. The President is asking me to be a fair, judicious,
impartial, thorough, and thoughtful adjudicator, arbiter, and
policymaker. And, if confirmed, that is what I would strive,
with every fiber, to be.
The role of an FCC Commissioner, of course, is very
different from the role I've had throughout my career, except
for when I worked in the Virginia House of Delegates for your
colleague Bob Andrews. I have been an advocate. And I have been
an advocate on behalf of clients. And I like to think I've been
an effective advocate. And perhaps some of my former opponents
should be quizzed as to how effective I may have been at times.
But many of the major issues I've worked on have been
resolved. And, more importantly, it would be my duty as a
commissioner to wipe the slate clean, to start from scratch and
examine each issue de novo. I will prejudge nothing. And I ask
that my ability to be impartial not be prejudged.
At the same time, on top of all of that, the FCC has a
system in place that governs conflicts and recusals. Throughout
this nomination process, I have been in consultation with the
White House Counsel's Office, the Office of Government Ethics,
and, of course, the FCC's General Counsel's Office. And there
are standards in place. This is nothing new. This is not a case
of first impression. In fact, we recently had a commissioner
serve on the Commission who came straight from a regulated
company, a specific company, not just representing an industry,
in general, who served with great distinction. And I believe
that Commissioner, when all was said and done, was only recused
from two different proceedings.
So, throughout my tenure at the FCC, if confirmed, I will
rely on the advice and counsel and opinions of the FCC's Office
of General Counsel, and we will use the system and the process
that's already in place.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Allen, U.S. Senator from Virginia
Mr. Chairman, Co-Chairman Inouye and my fellow Members of the
Committee, good afternoon.
It is a great pleasure for me to introduce to the Committee Robert
M. McDowell. Rob and his bride, Jennifer, are longtime friends of mine
and Susan's. Rob is a native Virginian and he and Jennifer are raising
their two children, Griffin and Mary-Shea, on what's left of the
Virginia farm where he grew up. I am delighted that President Bush has
nominated Rob to serve as a Commissioner of the Federal Communications
Commission. I am confident that he will do an outstanding job there.
Rob is extraordinarily qualified to serve on the FCC. Rob brings
with him nearly sixteen years of private sector experience in the
communications industry. In fact, I believe he will have more private
sector experience in communications than any other Commissioner now
serving. That experience alone will make him a tremendous asset to the
Commission.
Rob has long been passionate about public service as well. In fact,
when I was Governor of Virginia, I thought so highly of Rob's abilities
that I appointed him to two state boards: the Governor's Advisory Board
for a Safe and Drug-Free Virginia where he worked on substance abuse
prevention, and the Virginia Board for Contractors where he looked out
for consumers' interests. He served on both boards with great
distinction. Rob has spent most of the past three decades serving his
Commonwealth and community on numerous civic and charitable boards and
commissions, and is currently Chairman of the Board of the McLean
Project for the Arts.
Rob comes before us today with a stellar academic and professional
background that is perfectly suited for the FCC. In 1985, he was
graduated cum laude from Duke University--but I have forgiven him for
that. He made up for his youthful indiscretion of choosing a college
outside of the Commonwealth by wisely earning his law degree from the
same school where Thomas Jefferson studied law: the College of William
and Mary's Marshall-Wythe School of Law. There, he was elected to the
Order of the Barristers.
In between Duke and William and Mary, Rob served as the chief
legislative aide for a colleague of mine in the Virginia House of
Delegates, Robert T. Andrews, for three legislative sessions. That's
where Rob and I first met.
Immediately after law school, Rob began practicing
telecommunications law. Over the years, Rob has served as outside
counsel to numerous technology and telecom companies and trade
associations. He also served as Executive Vice President and General
Counsel to America's Carriers Telecommunications Association (ACTA),
before it merged with the Competitive Telecommunications Association
(CompTel) in 1999, where he currently serves as Senior Vice President
and Assistant General Counsel. There, he has led CompTel's advocacy
efforts before the legislative and executive branches. During his years
in the private sector, he served as a representative to the North
American Numbering Council and served on the Board of Directors of the
North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection, Inc.--both of
which are at the heart of the management of our Nation's telephone
numbers.
Needless to say, Rob is a member of the Virginia State Bar, and is
also admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States
of America; the Supreme Court of Virginia; the United States Courts of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, First Circuit, Fourth
Circuit and Fifth Circuit; and United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.
Having known Rob for so long, I can personally attest that he is of
the highest moral character and will execute his duties as a
Commissioner ethically, objectively and with the utmost
professionalism. He will not pre-judge any matter brought before him.
Rob will also bring with him our shared common-sense Jeffersonian
conservatism. Rob will work tirelessly to ensure that communications
entrepreneurs are unfettered by needless government regulations while
also striving to ensure that all American consumers can benefit from
the Digital Revolution. In short, he will be a devoted and pragmatic
de-regulator of the finest and fairest caliber.
Accordingly, I hope you will join me, Senator Warner, Congressman
Davis, Congressman Wolf, and other Members of the Virginia
Congressional delegation, in enthusiastically supporting a speedy
confirmation of President Bush's nomination of Rob McDowell to the
Federal Communications Commission.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Have a nice weekend.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Mr. McDowell, we'd be pleased if you'd
proceed with your statement. We'll print it in full in the
record, but if you wish to summarize it, you may.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. McDOWELL, NOMINEE TO BE
A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Mr. McDowell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. And it is a great privilege to be able to appear
before you here today.
I would, if I could indulge the Chairman, like to introduce
some family members.
The Chairman. Oh, pardon me. I thought the Senator did
that. Please do, though.
Mr. McDowell. Absolutely.
First, the wind in my sails, my beautiful bride, Jennifer.
And I could not get to this point without her love and support
and--appreciate everything she's done. Next to her is my
beautiful daughter, who wants you to know that today she is 4
years and 5 months old, today----
[Laughter.]
Mr. McDowell.--Mary-Shea Virginia McDowell. Next to her is
Griffin Malcolm McDowell, who is 6 years and 8 months, almost.
Next to him is my beautiful sister, Tina, who does not want me
to reveal her age, because she's a brown belt in karate.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McDowell. My father, Bart McDowell, whose age I will
also not reveal, who, by the way, was raised on a ranch on the
Tex-Mex border, I'd like to note, without phone service, and
went on to be a naval officer in World War II, and then on to a
distinguished career as a senior editor of National Geographic
magazine.
We are without my mom today, who just passed away last July
and, of course, is unable to witness this day, at least from an
earthly perspective.
I have two brothers. My oldest brother, Kelly McDowell, is
the mayor of El Segundo, California. And if you've ever flown
into Los Angeles Airport, you've flown into my brother's town,
and my other brother, Josh, who's on the staff of Texas A&M on
their Corpus Christi campus.
I'd also like to thank Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein for
appearing today. And it's terrific to have you here. I got to
know him a bit when he was with Senator Daschle. And I
appreciate the bipartisan support, and hopefully we can
reciprocate.
I'm deeply honored by President Bush's decision to nominate
me to serve as a Commissioner of the Federal Communications
Commission. And over the past few weeks, I've had the pleasure
of meeting with many Members of the Committee. And I thank all
of you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to share
your thoughts about communications policy and the FCC with me.
And, if confirmed, I look forward to continuing our dialogue.
But this coming October 19th, in Virginia, we will
commemorate the 225th anniversary of the Americans' victory
over the British at Yorktown. And this battle effectively ended
the war, where a ragtag band of freedom fighters defeated the
largest superpower in the world. On that crisp autumn day, as
the vanquished British troops withdrew from the battlefield,
they marched to the tune of ``The World Turned Upside Down.''
And, for the British, the old world had been turned upside
down. But for freedom and democracy, the new world had been
turned rightside up.
George Washington and his fellow patriots won, largely
because of their belief that the dissemination of self-evident
truths could shatter the walls of tyranny. They lay the
foundation of a new nation built upon the twin cornerstones of
free markets and free ideas for all. At the heart of the ideals
of the fledgling United States was a profound commitment to the
freedom of speech, the freedom to communicate.
No agency has more of an effect on the preservation and
promotion of this freedom than the Federal Communications
Commission. If confirmed, I solemnly pledge to be true to those
founding principles, to work tirelessly to promote free markets
and the free expression of ideas.
With the advent of new technologies, the old world of
communications has been turned upside down. But these advances
have turned the new world rightside up for freedom, democracy,
and capitalism.
Long ago, Thomas Jefferson envisioned the benefits brought
forth by the free flow of information when he wrote,
``Enlighten the people, and tyranny and oppressions of body and
mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.''
Jefferson's words were nearly prophetic in predicting the
digital revolution.
Today, American consumers are more empowered with
information than ever before, thanks to brave and brilliant
entrepreneurs, increased competition, and less government
regulation. But there is more to do.
If confirmed, I will commit myself to promoting competition
and investment in all markets, clearing the cumbersome
underbrush of unnecessary government regulation, encouraging
private sector solutions to many of the challenges facing the
communications industry, and removing barriers to entry. All
Americans should be able to benefit from the digital
revolution, and the FCC should strive to help American
consumers realize that goal.
If confirmed, as Senator Allen pointed out, I will bring to
the Commission nearly 16 years of private sector experience in
the communications industry, and, with your approval, I will
also bring with me a strong passion for bipartisan public
service.
In my career, in addition to counseling technology
entrepreneurs, I have served as a legislative aide to a member
of the Virginia General Assembly, actively worked on bipartisan
statutory boards as appointed by two Virginia Governors, and
led efforts to make my community a better place to live, work,
and raise a family.
If confirmed, I will use this experience to help me
approach each issue that comes before the Commission with
energy, impartiality, and thoughtfulness. I will endeavor to
keep the spirit of Yorktown alive by working every day toward
enhancing the lives and liberty of all Americans.
And let me just take a quick second to state my opinion
about the four current Commissioners of the FCC.
The Chairman. Mr. McDowell, I think that the Senator has to
leave. If you wouldn't mind, he wants to ask you a question.
You can continue----
Mr. McDowell. Fire away, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. I'd be content for him to finish. I did
want to--I didn't want to have to leave at 4 o'clock without
saying that I support Robert McDowell's nomination.
I think the President has sent us a nomination that is a
solid nomination of someone well qualified. But I wanted to
say, I had a chance to meet with Mr. McDowell. Mr. Chairman, I
think this Commission now, with a full complement of
commissioners, will be making decisions that will have a
profound impact on what the American people see, hear, and read
in the coming years, because they're going to be confronted
with this issue of ownership limits. And there's not much more
important, in my judgment, in our government than getting this
right. The Commission has sunk its teeth into it before, been
thwarted by the courts, and thwarted by the Congress. And many
of us have a profound concern about what might or might not
happen here.
I'm not going to ask you specific questions about it,
because we had a long talk in my office about that. But
concentration in ownership of the media, including television,
radio, and the proposals for cross-ownership with newspapers,
it's a very serious issue, because it will have a significant
impact on what people in this democracy can see, hear, and
read, what information they get. And the foundation for
democratic self-government is basic information of the American
people.
So, I did come because I wanted to say that I had a long
conversation with Mr. McDowell. I think the President has made
a good choice. And I'm really especially pleased we're finally
going to have an FCC with all five members seated, present, and
willing to debate and vote on issues. That's very important for
this country.
So, Mr. McDowell, thank you. I wish you well, look forward
to working with you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. McDowell. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. If you'd finish your statement, it will
appear in the record as though you completed it without
interruption.
Mr. McDowell. Yes, sir. We're almost done.
But I just want to say that the four current Commissioners,
as led by Chairman Martin, are, in my opinion, among the most
talented and thoughtful people to ever have served on the FCC.
And, if confirmed, I would be honored and humbled to join them.
And that concludes my brief statement. I'm looking forward
to any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
McDowell follow:]
Prepared Statement of Robert M. McDowell, Nominee to be a Member of the
Federal Communications Commission
Mr. Chairman, Co-Chairman Inouye and Members of the Committee, it
is a privilege to be able to appear before you today.
Please allow me to thank my mentors and friends from the Virginia
delegation, Senator Allen, and Congressman Davis, for their generous
remarks. I also thank Senator Warner and Congressman Wolf for their
kind statements submitted for the record. I would not be here today
were it not for my family seated behind me: my bride, Jennifer; my son,
Griffin Malcolm; my daughter, Mary-Shea Virginia, as well as my father
and sister. Thank you for your love and support. Poignantly, our
thoughts are with my mom, Martha Shea McDowell, who passed away just
last July and is unable to witness this day, at least from an earthly
perspective.
I am deeply honored by President Bush's decision to nominate me to
serve as a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. Over
the past few weeks, I have had the pleasure of meeting with many
Members of the Committee, and I thank all of you for taking time out of
your busy schedules to share your thoughts about communications policy
and the FCC with me. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing our
dialogue.
This coming October 19, in Virginia, we will commemorate the 225th
anniversary of the Americans' victory over the British at Yorktown.
This battle effectively ended the war where a rag-tag band of freedom
fighters defeated the largest superpower in the world. On that crisp
autumn day, as the vanquished British troops withdrew from the
battlefield, they marched to the tune of ``The World Turned Upside
Down.'' For the British, the Old World had been turned upside down. But
for freedom and democracy, the New World had been turned right side up.
George Washington and his fellow patriots won largely because of their
belief that the dissemination of self-evident truths could shatter the
walls of tyranny. They had laid the foundation of a new nation built
upon the twin cornerstones of free markets and free ideas--for all.
At the heart of the ideals of the fledgling United States was a
profound commitment to the freedom of speech--the freedom to
communicate. No agency has more of an effect on the preservation and
promotion of this freedom than the Federal Communications Commission.
If confirmed, I solemnly pledge to be true to those founding
principles--to work tirelessly to promote free markets and the free
expression of ideas.
With the advent of new technologies, the old world of
communications has been ``turned upside down.'' But these advances have
turned the new world right side up for freedom, democracy and
capitalism. Long ago, Thomas Jefferson envisioned the benefits brought
forth by the free flow of information when he wrote, ``Enlighten the
people . . . and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish
like evil spirits at the dawn of day.'' \1\ Jefferson's words were
nearly prophetic in predicting the Digital Revolution. Today, American
consumers are more empowered with information than ever before, thanks
to brave and brilliant entrepreneurs, increased competition and less
government regulation. But there is more to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If confirmed, I will commit myself to:
<bullet> promoting competition and investment in all markets;
<bullet> clearing the cumbersome underbrush of unnecessary government
regulation;
<bullet> encouraging private sector solutions to many of the
challenges facing the communications industry; and
<bullet> removing barriers to entry.
All Americans should be able to benefit from the Digital
Revolution, and the FCC should strive to help American consumers
realize that goal.
If confirmed, I will bring to the Commission nearly sixteen years
of private sector experience in the communications industry. And, with
your approval, I will also bring with me a strong passion for
bipartisan public service. In my career, in addition to counseling
technology entrepreneurs, I have served as a legislative aide to a
Member of the Virginia General Assembly, actively worked on bipartisan
statutory boards as appointed by two Virginia governors, and led
efforts to make my community a better place to live, work and raise a
family. If confirmed, I will use this experience to help me approach
each issue that comes before the Commission with energy, impartiality
and thoughtfulness. I will endeavor to keep the spirit of Yorktown
alive by working every day toward enhancing the lives and liberty of
all Americans.
In my opinion, the four current Commissioners, as led by Chairman
Martin, are among the most talented and thoughtful people ever to have
served on the FCC. And, if confirmed, I would be honored and humbled to
join them.
Mr. Chairman and Co-Chairman Inouye, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today. That concludes my brief statement and I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
______
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Robert
Malcolm McDowell. No other names used.
2. Position to which nominated: Commissioner, Federal
Communications Commission.
3. Date of Nomination: February 6, 2006.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: COMPTEL, 1900 M Street, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC.
5. Date and Place of Birth: June 13, 1963, Washington, DC.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Spouse: Jennifer Griffin McDowell, homemaker, part-time
employment--The Dandelion Patch stationery store, Vienna, VA;
children: Griffin Malcolm McDowell (6), Mary-Shea Virginia
McDowell (4).
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
Duke University, B.A., 1985.
College of William and Mary, Marshall-Wythe School of Law,
J.D., 1990.
8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs
that relate to the position for which you are nominated.
1999-present, Competitive Telecommunications Association
(CompTel), Washington, D.C. Senior Vice President and Assistant
General Counsel.
1998-1999, America's Carriers Telecommunications Association
(ACTA), McLean, Virginia. Executive Vice President and General
Counsel.
1993-1998, Helein & Associates, P.C., Washington. D.C., McLean,
Virginia. Senior Attorney.
1990-1993, Arter & Hadden, Washington. D.C. Associate Attorney.
1985-1987, Virginia House of Delegates, Richmond, VA. Chief
Legislative Aide to a Member of the House of Delegates.
9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last five years.
1999-2000, North American Numbering Council.
1999-2000, Board of Directors, North American Numbering Plan
Billing and Collection, Inc.
1996-2004, Virginia Board for Contractors, Appointed by
Governor George Allen (1996); reappointed by Governor Jim
Gilmore (2000).
1994-1995, Governor's Advisory Board for a Safe and Drug-Free
Virginia, Appointee of Governor George Allen.
1994-present, McLean Project for the Arts, McLean, VA.
Chairman, Board of Directors (2005-present), Director and Pro
Bono Counsel (1994-2005).
10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational or other institution within the last five years.
2005-present, Co-Trustee (with spouse) of McDowell Family Trust
(estate planning vehicle for myself, my spouse and our
children).
2005-present, Successor Trustee, Martha Louise Shea McDowell
Revocable Trust.
1999-present, Senior Vice President & Assistant General
Counsel, Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel).
2005-2006, CompTel Political Action Committee (CompTel-PAC),
Treasurer.
1994-present, Chairman of the Board, McLean Project for the
Arts (501(c)(3)), McLean, Virginia (2005-present); Vice
President (2002-2005); Director (1994-present).
1996-2004, Member, Virginia Board for Contractors (statutory
board--gubernatorial appointee).
2004, Volunteer Advance Team Member, Bush-Cheney 2004.
11. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age or handicap.
1999-2000, North American Numbering Council.
1999-2000, Board of Directors, North American Numbering Plan
Billing and Collection, Inc.
1999-2005, Republican Majority Fund, Republican National
Committee, National Finance Committee.
1996-2004, Virginia Board for Contractors, Gubernatorial
Appointee.
1994-1995, Governor's Advisory Board for a Safe and Drug-Free
Virginia, Appointee of Governor George Allen.
1997-1999, Friends of the Red Cross, National Capital Chapter.
Washington, D.C. Corporate Donations Committee.
1996-2004, Virginia Board for Contractors, Appointed by
Governor George Allen (1996); reappointed by Governor Jim
Gilmore (2000).
1995-present, Northern Virginia Republican Business Forum.
1994-present, McLean Project for the Arts, McLean, VA.
Chairman, Board of Directors (2005-present), Director and Pro
Bono Counsel (1994-2005).
1991-present, Federal Communications Bar Association.
1990-present, Virginia State Bar.
1990-2005, Fairfax County Republican Committee.
1990-1996, Republican Club of Greater Reston.
Periodically, Duke University Club of Washington.
Nearly life-long, Our Lady of Good Counsel Catholic Church,
Vienna, Virginia.
Nearly life-long, Cardinal Hill Swim and Racquet Club, Vienna,
Virginia.
No organization I have belonged to discriminates in any way of
which I am aware.
12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? If so,
indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and
whether you are personally liable for that debt.
I have been a candidate for public office twice. The first
candidacy was for the Virginia Senate (32nd District) in 1995. The
second candidacy was for the Virginia House of Delegates (35th
District) in 2003. Neither campaign has any debt.
13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years.
To the best of my ability and knowledge, my research reveals the
following:
Virginians for Jerry Kilgore (Governor--2005), $700.
Jim Hyland for Delegate (2005), $500.
George W. Bush for President, Inc., (1999), $950.
Gilmore for Governor (1997), $1,500 (in-kind and cash).
14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
Order of the Barristers, College of William and Mary, Marshall-
Wythe School of Law.
Cum Laude, Duke University.
Dean's List, Duke University.
Virginia Board for Contractors, Resolution honoring
distinguished service (June, 2005).
Named ``Top Telecom Lobbyist'' by Telecom Policy Report, March,
2004.
15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have
given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
I have not authored any books or articles other than the following
articles for telecommunications trade publications:
``It's Time to Regulate LEC Billing,'' Phone+ Magazine,
February, 1999 ``Apocalypse 1998: RBOC `Political Pressure' in
Washington,'' Phone+ Magazine, April, 1998; ``Protecting
Consumers or Slamming the Door On Competition? How Smaller
Carriers Will Fare Under Proposed Anti-Slamming Rules.'' Phone+
Magazine, October, 1997; ``Are the LECs Choking-Off Casual
Calling?'' Phone+ Magazine, May, 1997.
As a political candidate for the Virginia General Assembly in 1995
and 2003, I gave literally scores, if not hundreds, of political
speeches. I do not have a record of the exact date or text of any
speech. The topics of those speeches included, but were not always
limited to: taxes, transportation, education, environment, criminal
justice and other social issues.
In my professional career, I have spoken several times on panels at
trade shows on telecommunications issues. After an extensive search, I
have found many of the most recent records of the following speeches
and panels I have moderated at conventions over the past seven years.
No other records of additional speeches can be found; however, I'm sure
that I have appeared on other panels and have given talks at continuing
legal education seminars as well as investment banking analysts'
meetings about telecommunications regulatory issues and related
legislative matters. To the best of my ability, here is a summary of
what I have found:
October, 1999, at a CompTel convention: ``Wiring the Summit:
RBOC Long Distance Entry and the Future of UNEs''
The Telecommunications Act is well over three years old, but
the industry is still waiting for a regional Bell operating
company to win approval of its application to provide in-region
long-distance services. Why is it taking so long? What are the
technical and policy issues facing the RBOCs and their
potential competitors, and what progress is being made to
resolve some of these long-standing problems? Don't miss this
informative session.
June, 2000, at a CompTel legislative conference: ``Fact vs.
Fiction: Discussion of `Broadband' Legislation''
Industry experts will discuss the status of the deployment of
broadband services, the effect of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 on advanced services rollout and their views on pending
legislation that would dramatically change the ground rules.
Don't miss this discussion of the hottest telecom policy issue
in years!
February, 2001, at a CompTel convention: ``On-line Privacy: The
Next Great Debate''
Consumer groups and Congress are beginning to take a close,
careful look at how the Internet revolution is affecting users'
privacy. What are the rules? And how are they likely to change?
Find out how privacy concerns and policies will affect your
business by attending this informative panel discussion.
April, 2001, at a CompTel legislative conference: ``Fact vs.
Fiction: Discussion of `Broadband' Legislation''
Industry experts will discuss the status of the deployment of
broadband services, the effect of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 on advanced services rollout and their views on pending
legislation that would dramatically change the ground rules.
Don't miss this discussion of the hottest telecom policy issue
in years!
April, 2002, at a CompTel legislative conference: ``Fact vs.
Fiction: Discussion of `Broadband' Legislation''
Learn the latest about the status of the deployment of
broadband services, the effect of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 on advanced services rollout and pending legislation that
would dramatically change the ground rules. Don't miss this
discussion of the hottest telecom policy issue in years!
April, 2003, at a CompTel legislative conference: ``The Past as
Prologue: The History of the Telecom Policy Wars and Their
Relevance To Today''
Why are current telecom policy battles so controversial? How
did we get here? What are those TV ads all about anyway? Learn
the answers to these and other important questions during this
eye-opening presentation.
February, 2003, at a CompTel convention: ``General Session: the
Impact of Public Policy Changes on Your Business''
Actions taken by legislators and regulators in Washington, D.C.
and the states can have a significant impact on how competitive
services providers can execute their business plans. Find out
from this esteemed panel how recent FCC decisions, pending
proceedings and action on Capitol Hill and in the states could
impact your bottom line.
February, 2004, at a CompTel convention: ``General Session: The
Battle in Washington to Preserve Competition''
The ILECs and their allies have stepped up their lobbying blitz
in Washington to eliminate competition. Learn more about their
plans and hear how the CompTel/ASCENT Alliance and its members
are responding to this latest threat to competition.
April, 2004, at a CompTel legislative conference: ``The Past as
Prologue: The History of the Telecom Policy Wars and Their
Relevance To Today''
Why are current telecom policy battles so controversial? How
did we get here? What are those TV ads all about anyway? Learn
the answers to these and other important questions during this
eye-opening presentation.
February, 2005, at a CompTel Convention: ``Rewriting the
Telecom Act of 1996: The Battleground for Broadband''
From measures to reform universal service funding and
intercarrier compensation to defining VoIP services. Congress
is teeing up issues that will impact the future of broadband
networks and IP-enabled services. Political and industry
pundits will share their perspectives on the battle to rewrite
the 1996 Telecom Act.
April, 2005, at a CompTel legislative conference:
``Chokepoints: The History of Telecom's Future''
To understand today's debates it is essential to know the
history of the telecom industry. This eye-opening session will
give you the background you need to be able to determine myths
from fact in ongoing policy struggles.
16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and
specify the subject matter of each testimony.
The only time I have testified before Congress was before the House
Telecommunications Subcommittee in June of 1998 to testify on behalf of
my client, America's Carriers Telecommunications Association (ACTA), on
the issue of long-distance slamming (the unauthorized switching of long
distance carriers).
B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers.
To the best of my understanding, the only financial arrangement
will be the continuation of my COMPTEL 401(k) account, which is
invested entirely in the Northern Trust Select Equity Fund. That fund
can be rolled over to another account, if necessary.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain.
I plan to retain my position on the Board of Directors of the
McLean Project for the Arts, a nonprofit, charitable 501(c)(3)
organization. The Office of White House Counsel and the FCC's Office of
General Counsel have both reviewed this affiliation and have concurred
in my remaining on the board should my nomination to the FCC be
confirmed by the Senate.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
In my position as Senior Vice President and Assistant General
Counsel of CompTel, I may have conflicts concerning matters before the
FCC to which CompTel was a party.
The Martha Louise Shea McDowell Revocable Trust (``Trust'') was
created on January 26, 2005, as an estate management vehicle. Martha
McDowell, my mother, died on July 6, 2005. The Trust designated Robert
McDowell to be successor trustee upon her death. The purpose of the
Trust is to distribute the Trust's assets to Trust beneficiaries. All
assets will be distributed as soon as practicable, after IRS approval,
and the Trust will be subsequently dissolved.
The current assets held by the Trust that could create a potential
conflict of interest are: roughly $24,000 held in a General Electric
debenture, and approximately $10,000 in a Southwestern Bell bond. Both
instruments are to be distributed to the Trust beneficiaries pursuant
to the instructions of the Trust.
To the best of my knowledge, no other potential conflicts are
apparent.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 5 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
Other than the relationships with CompTel and the Martha McDowell
Trust as described above, to the best of my ability I do not know of
another existing potential conflict.
5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
As a government affairs professional for CompTel, I have been
engaged in advocacy regarding several pieces of legislation, appellate
cases and other matters involving telecommunications policy.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
Regarding the Trust's assets, I will be distributing the Trust's
assets pursuant to the Trust's instructions, thus alleviating any
potential conflict. Regarding my possible CompTel conflicts, as
Commissioner, if confirmed, I would, of course, work closely with the
FCC's Office of General Counsel to ensure strict adherence to all laws,
rules, guidelines and policies governing such conflicts, including, but
not limited to: recusal for one year from all particular matters
involving specific matters to which CompTel has been a party or
representative of other parties before the Commission; recusal from any
matter before the Commission in which I may have been involved while
employed by CompTel; and recusal from any other matter where an
appearance of conflict may exist.
C. LEGAL MATTERS
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain.
I have not been a party to any litigation or administrative
proceeding in my personal capacity. However, in my professional
capacity as an attorney in private practice and as in-house counsel, I
have been an attorney of record in numerous cases before both courts
and administrative agencies.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination: None of which I am aware.
6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race. religion or any
other basis? No.
D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
And I was going to note the presence of Commissioner
Adelstein. He does attend these hearings, and we welcome his
participation--silently, however.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We held some hearings, Mr. McDowell, that
were targeted at universal service and we've been working on
general rural telecommunications issues. Do you have any
statement you'd like to make about your vision concerning how
the FCC can keep rural America connected to this digital
revolution?
Mr. McDowell. Senator Stevens, that will be a major
priority for me. My father, as I mentioned before, was raised
on a ranch on the Tex-Mex border, and he used to tell stories,
and still does, about how my grandfather would take the car
battery out of the car every night, because not only did they
not have phone service, they did not have electricity, which
was not unusual in that time. And to stay connected to the rest
of the world, they would hook the car battery up to the radio
inside the house. Despite that, he went on to become a senior
editor of National Geographic. But other folks didn't have the
same opportunities, perhaps, that he had. So, keeping rural
America connected is very real, very front and center for the
McDowells.
What we have to, of course, focus on is the shrinking pool
for the contribution mechanism, and work on shoring that up,
and moving forward to strengthen that system, and making sure
that folks who live on tribal lands or in rural America or in
high-cost areas, poor inner-cities, et cetera, have the same
opportunity to access the information enjoyed by others in more
fortunate areas.
So, as the Commission examines universal service, I will be
making that a priority.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Smith was not able to be here, but he sent a
question and asked me to put it to you.
His question is this, ``For those of us in Oregon who have
been trying to attract a baseball team for years, we're envious
of the fans in cities that actually have a team. I am, however,
becoming more concerned about a tactic that cable companies are
using to limit viewership of local sports programming. First,
Cablevision stopped broadcast of Yankee games until they got a
deal they wanted. Then Comcast did the same thing in
Philadelphia with the Phillies, and in Washington, D.C. with
the Nationals.''
This is Senator Smith's question. ``I understand that
business negotiations can be tough, but blocking game
broadcasts has raised real concerns. How would you address
situations like this from your position on the FCC?''
Mr. McDowell. Well, Senator, that's an important issue, and
it's a personal one to us. We would like to see some Nationals
games here locally. We're certainly supporters of our local
team.
Coming from the private sector, I will first look to
private sector solutions to resolve issues such as that. And I
would prefer to see voluntary agreements between the parties at
hand. There may be ongoing proceedings, or future proceedings,
at the Commission that could examine this. I'm not exactly sure
of the Commission's authority in those areas, under Title 6,
Section 628, for instance. I'd have to take a closer look at
that. But the first line of defense, I think, should be a
private sector solution. If the Commission can encourage a
private sector solution, I would look for such an avenue.
The Chairman. As I mentioned, we welcome Commissioner
Adelstein to be with us today. But if you were already
confirmed, you both couldn't be here. Are you familiar with
some of the rules that have been adopted in the past concerning
the activities of the Commission? Are you familiar with that
rule, particularly about how many commissioners can be present
at any one time at a public gathering?
Mr. McDowell. I'm roughly familiar with that. I think the
answer might be two of us. But I can double check that.
The Chairman. Some of us are very disburbed about that,
too. I think we need some opinions from the Commission about
what should be done to modernize your procedures so that you
can function as a modern body. There was a time in the past
when Senator Goldwater and I decided that there were too many
commissioners, and we asked the Congress to remove two. Did you
know that? That was because of the problem we had to get an
agreement among the seven.
You've said you will be bipartisan. Can you tell us a
little bit more about your attitude regarding bipartisanship?
Mr. McDowell. Well, Senator, throughout my career, I have
learned that these issues are not necessarily, for the most
part, partisan issues. I have worked in a bipartisan manner as
an advocate, and would continue to take that spirit to the
Commission with me, if confirmed.
I have served on statutory boards, appointed by two
Governors of Virginia, that were bipartisan. And I worked well
with folks of the other party, again, on issues that
historically have not necessarily been partisan issues, for the
most part.
So, I am looking forward to that. There's not a partisan
gigabyte. There is not a partisan megahertz. So, I don't
anticipate looking at those issues through a partisan lens.
The Chairman. Now, you've had a substantial relationship
with some of the communications interests. And I note in your
statement that you indicate you do intend to very zealously
apply the conflict-of-interest concepts, and will disqualify
yourself in any matter that you've had connection with before,
or at any entity you've had before. Can you elaborate on that a
little bit?
Mr. McDowell. Well, I will certainly rely on the opinion of
the Office of the General Counsel of the FCC, and they do have
a system in place, and rules in place. Conflicts at the FCC are
not necessarily anything new. We had a commissioner recently,
who came from the private sector from a regulated company, who
ended up on only being recused from two particular matters, as
I recall. So, I will consult with the Office of General Counsel
on any matter where CompTel may have been a party, or where
CompTel's members may have been a party, to make sure there's
not even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Chairman. Have you made an appearance before the FCC as
an advocate?
Mr. McDowell. Not in several years, Mr. Chairman. My
primary bailiwick at CompTel for the past 6 or 7 years has been
the legislative and executive branch. We have other folks at
CompTel who worked the FCC, for the most part. And my name has
not appeared on a pleading in several years, nor have I been
formulating or writing pleadings, nor have I been substantially
involved in any pleadings before the Commission in quite some
time.
The Chairman. Very well. Well, I don't know whether other
Members have questions they wish to submit. If they do, I would
urge you to respond to them as rapidly as possible, because we
will also try to get this nomination on the executive session's
agenda for March 16th.
Thank you very much. And we thank your family for coming to
join us.
Mr. McDowell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Ensign to
Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen
Mission and Organizational Culture of FEMA Within the Department of
Homeland Security
Question 1. Since the bill creating the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) was signed into law on November 25, 2002, there have
been concerns raised that the mission of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has been retooled to primarily focus on
responding to terrorist attacks and not natural disasters.
Has FEMA's culture changed since its integration into the
Department of Homeland Security?
Answer. FEMA's culture has not changed since joining the Department
of Homeland Security in March 2003. In fact, FEMA's culture and
capabilities have only been enhanced by the additional support and
resources provided by the Department. FEMA continues to be dedicated to
serving people and communities impacted by natural or man-made
disasters.
Question 2. How has the organization managed the twin mission
responsibility of developing the capability to respond effectively, and
with appropriate timeliness, to both natural disasters and terrorist
attacks?
Answer. FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security have adopted
an ``all-hazards'' approach to disasters and emergencies because many
of the response functions and consequences are the same regardless of
whether the disaster is due to a natural disaster or a terrorist event.
By using this ``all-hazards'' approach, preparation for one type of
emergency can help all levels of government be better prepared for
other kinds of emergencies.
In the post-Cold War world, FEMA recognizes that the U.S. is not
only at risk from natural and technological hazards, but also from new
and emerging terrorism threats, most of which are unconventional and
asymmetric. These threats can take many forms and have the potential to
involve destructive chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear
weapons intended to wreak unprecedented damage on the Nation's
population, economy, and quality of life. The past two years have also
demonstrated the destructiveness of natural disasters.
Since its establishment in March 2003, DHS has the preeminent role
in managing and coordinating the domestic response to all types of
disasters, including terrorism events, and has developed the National
Incident Management System (NIMS) to ensure that responders from
different jurisdictions (Federal, State, local, tribal, international,
non-governmental organizations, and the private sector) and disciplines
(command, operations, planning, logistics, finance and administration,
emergency services, human services, and infrastructure support) can
work together better to respond to natural disasters and emergencies,
including acts of terrorism. The NIMS provides a consistent doctrinal
framework for incident management at all jurisdictional levels,
regardless of the cause, size, or complexity of the incident.
The NIMS benefits include a unified approach to incident
management; standard command and management structures; and emphasis on
preparedness, mutual aid and resource management.
The December 2004 National Response Plan (NRP) provides the
coordinating structures and protocols, either partially or fully, for
responding to specific Incidents of National Significance and provides
the mechanisms for the coordination and implementation of a wide
variety of incident management and emergency assistance activities.
Included in these activities are Federal support to State, local, and
tribal authorities; interaction with nongovernmental, private donor,
and private sector organizations; and the coordinated, direct exercise
of Federal authorities, when appropriate. The NRP itself creates no new
authorities, but it serves to unify and enhance the incident management
capabilities and resources of individual agencies and organizations
acting under their own authorities in response to a wide array of
potential threats and hazards.
FEMA is the DHS component charged with and responsible for leading
and coordinating all-hazards incident management for Incidents of
National Significance and other disasters when and if a Presidential
disaster or emergency is declared under the Stafford Act. FEMA's core
mission is to ensure the timely, efficient, and effective delivery of
goods and services to victims, through FEMA's Federal, State, local,
tribal, and private sector partners; to alleviate the suffering and
damage which result from Incidents of National Significance and
disasters regardless of the cause of the disaster; and to save lives,
protect property and public health and safety, and lessen or avert the
threat of a catastrophe.
FEMA does not differentiate between disasters caused by nature,
such as earthquakes, or disasters such as a terrorist event. In all
cases, FEMA provides response and recovery assistance geared to the
event and in coordination with local, State and Federal officials.
Consequently, the FEMA concept of operations assumes an all-hazard,
risk-based approach to emergency management and encompasses and
integrates the following phases of planning and operations: Awareness,
Protection, Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation. Using
this ``all-hazards'' approach, preparing for one type of emergency can
help all levels of government be prepared for other kinds of
emergencies.
Question 3. Will the current strategy be changed in the future and,
if so, in what way?
Answer. It is not envisioned that the basic all-hazards strategy,
that has proven to be successful in disaster response, will be changed
in the future. FEMA will take necessary measures to continue to improve
its capabilities to respond to all types of disaster and hazards to
preserve life and protect property. Part of this is creating,
fostering, and sustaining a culture of preparedness emphasizing that
the Nation shares common Homeland Security goals and responsibilities.
In addition, at the Federal, State, and local levels, we must increase
our common familiarity with the National Incident Management System and
enhance our response capabilities by developing more effective
organizational structures, implementing more training programs, and
providing the needed disaster response equipment.
We will continue our current strategic direction, focusing on:
<bullet> Preparedness that connects departmental and other Federal
partner capabilities to ensure a continuous cycle of planning,
training, equipping, exercising, evaluating and taking
corrective action;
<bullet> Resource management that ensures a uniform method of
identifying, acquiring, allocating and tracking resources;
<bullet> Disaster response effectiveness based on fully coordinated
and integrated teams and capabilities;
<bullet> Interoperable integrated communications and information
technologies; and
<bullet> Ensuring information sharing capabilities essential to
situation awareness and incident management.
Our goal is to maintain and improve the national framework that
maximizes Federal capabilities and authorities to execute timely,
tailored, and efficient Federal to State support, Federal to Federal
support, and a pro-active response to all types of disasters, including
catastrophic incidents. We are working to ensure that incidents are
handled at the lowest possible organizational level throughout the life
cycle of an incident.
Question 4. Does FEMA's strategic planning and state of
preparedness reflect the reality that there is a much greater
likelihood of natural disasters than a terrorist attack?
Answer. The disastrous hurricane season of 2005 has starkly
illustrated that the risk of a catastrophic natural disaster is not
theoretical. The combined threat posed by a natural disaster or
terrorist event are such that the possibility of a catastrophic event
in this country is a genuine concern regardless of cause.
Despite continuing improvements to the national domestic incident
architecture, planning for a comprehensive and effective response to--
and recovery from--a catastrophic incident remains a daunting task.
As illustrated by the 2005 hurricane season, preparing for such an
event requires planning, coordination and capability building at a
level beyond that which we are accustomed to providing. In FY 2006,
Congress provided $20 million to FEMA to support catastrophic incident
response and recovery planning and exercises. FEMA is committed to
working with Congress, States and local governments, as well as with
other Federal agencies, to develop and implement plans that will
improve our ability to plan for, respond to, and to recover from
catastrophic disasters quickly and effectively.
Historically FEMA has responded to many more natural disasters than
terrorist events. FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security have
adopted an ``all-hazards'' approach to disasters and emergencies
because many of the response functions and consequences are the same
regardless of whether the disaster is due to a natural disaster or
terrorist event. Using this ``all-hazards'' approach, preparing for one
type of emergency can help all levels of government be prepared for
other kinds of emergencies.
Question 5. Is FEMA currently capable of responding effectively to
both natural disasters and terrorist attacks?
Answer. FEMA is capable of responding to both natural disasters and
terrorist attacks, however, improvements are still needed. We are
continuing to implement lessons learned from FEMA's response to the
tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the Agency's response to the
intense 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. A challenge facing FEMA and
the entire emergency management community is retaining sufficient
numbers of trained and dedicated personnel and having adequate funding
for required programs.
Question 6. Do DHS and FEMA measure their readiness to respond
effectively to natural disasters and terrorist attacks? If so, please
describe in detail those metrics; provide me with a copy of each
assessment since DHS was created; and provide documentary evidence to
support the conclusions reached in those assessments.
Answer. FEMA is responsible for coordinating and managing an
integrated Federal response to any Presidentially-declared disaster or
emergency. The interagency operations and activities conducted in
relationship to this responsibility typically revolve around the
collaborative fusion of multiple intergovernmental emergency management
functions, organizations and activities under the general framework of
the National Response Plan. Because many of the response activities are
executed or performed by situational organizations (i.e.,
organizations, such as an Emergency Response Team, that are activated/
assembled when needed, and deactivated at the conclusion of their
assigned mission), there is no residual team capability to monitor and
resolve problems or issues occurring during the response or exercise
that may require the follow-on attention of functional program areas.
The Remedial Action Management Program (RAMP) is designed to address
this gap. RAMP identifies issues, lessons learned and best practices
resulting from the conduct of emergency management operations, for both
actual events and exercises. The RAMP is geared toward allowing FEMA HQ
and regional offices to correct programmatic/systemic problems
encountered during response and recovery activities that occur during
both actual and exercise emergency and disaster response operations.
FEMA measures its readiness to respond effectively to disasters
through the use of strategic goals, objectives and performance measures
set forth each fiscal year. These metrics are designed to enhance
FEMA's existing response capabilities and are tied directly to the
strategic goals, objectives and priorities of the Department of
Homeland Security. Achievement of these goals and objectives is a top
priority for the Agency, and progress toward annual targets is reported
during quarterly performance review briefings for FEMA leadership.
Within the Response Division of FEMA, response readiness is
evaluated using a series of performance measures aimed at assessing the
operational capability of its major response team components, including
the National Disaster Medical System's Disaster Medical Assistance
Teams (DMATs), the Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces, the Mobile
Emergency Response Support (MERS) Detachments, and the Federal Incident
Response Support Teams (FIRSTs). Included in these performance measures
is the assessment of operational readiness for emergency response
teams, evaluation of readiness for teams and operations during
exercises and actual event response, WMD event response capability,
large-scale patient movement and mass casualty event training and
exercise, and casualty treatment, evacuation and transport capability.
Question 7. What method is used by FEMA to make initial
identification of those in need of assistance? How are these persons
tracked through the assistance process? How does FEMA target assistance
to meet individual needs? How does FEMA determine the level, adequacy,
and kind of assistance? How many Katrina victims have requested
assistance; how many received assistance but are no longer receiving
assistance; and how many are still receiving assistance? Does any
method exist to track those persons as they fall off the assistance
rolls?
Answer.
a. After a disaster declaration is received, FEMA utilizes public
outreach to encourage those with disaster-related needs to file an
application for assistance with FEMA. When an individual files an
application with FEMA, we provide them with a Registration ID# for case
tracking purposes, referral information to other assistance programs/
agencies, and details regarding the assistance process. Throughout the
assistance process, we provide applicants with updates regarding their
case, assistance eligibility determinations, etc., via written
correspondence. If applicants wish to ask questions about their case or
wish to update their FEMA records, they can do so using the Disaster
Information Helpline toll-free phone service, or the Internet-Based
Individual Assistance Center. All case processing is performed within
the National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS). NEMIS is
the database in which applicant information is tracked, stored, and
utilized for the purposes of determining applicant eligibility. Within
a given declared disaster, applicant assistance or requests for
assistance are sorted by applicant needs, rather than by geographical
location or other criteria, which allows FEMA to assign properly
trained staff to target specific needs of applicants.
b. How many Katrina victims have requested assistance?
<bullet> 1,709,542 registrations for assistance
<bullet> $5.38 billion in assistance to 1,054,732 approved applicants
under the Individual Housing Program (IHP) for Katrina (as of
3/10).
How many Katrina victims have received assistance but are no longer
receiving assistance?
<bullet> Data is not tracked in such a fashion.
How many Katrina victims are still receiving assistance?
<bullet> Data is not tracked in such a fashion.
c. Applicants are encouraged throughout the assistance process to
continue to contact FEMA if they have unmet needs caused by the
disaster. After disaster assistance is provided, we do not generally
reach out to applicants who do not contact us with additional requests,
unmet disaster-related needs, updated contact information, etc.
Additionally, unmet needs committees are set up by non-governmental
organizations and charitable groups within the disaster area; staff
working in FEMA field offices make referrals to these entities.
Question 8. What will FEMA do with excess supplies and resources?
Does FEMA warehouse these supplies or dispose of them? In cases
involving disposal, how are those assets disposed of?
Answer. Excess supplies and resources not used for a disaster are
warehoused in one of FEMA's logistics facilities that are strategically
located throughout the country. These supplies are used to provide life
saving and life sustaining commodities to support FEMA's all-hazards
mission. Supplies and resources that remained as a result of the four
Florida hurricanes in FY04, including water and emergency meals, were
pre-positioned and used to support Hurricane Katrina victims.
Additionally, as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA's
Logistics Center Fort Worth, TX grew from 236,000 square feet to
approximately 1.5 million square feet to store excess equipment and
supplies. Some excess food is provided to volunteer organizations such
as the American Red Cross. Finally, some supplies and/or resources that
are rendered inadequate for future use are disposed of in accordance
with GSA regulations.
FEMA Organization and Intergovernmental Coordination
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, there have been significant
concerns raised about (1) the organizational structure of FEMA; (2) the
manner in which FEMA interacted with other Federal agencies in the wake
of the disaster; and (3) the inadequacy of Federal, state, and local
governments to implement the emergency response plans.
Question 9. Are the responsibilities of FEMA's sub-units and its
employees derived from the organizational missions?
Answer. The responsibilities of FEMA's sub-units and employees are
derived from its authorizing legislation. A list of FEMA's primary
authorities are as follows:
<bullet> Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)
<bullet> Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.)
<bullet> National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C.
404,405)
<bullet> Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986
(42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.)
<bullet> Title III of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.)
<bullet> National Dam Safety Program Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 467
et seq.)
<bullet> Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act of 2002, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300hh-11)
Question 10. Are the roles of Federal, State, and local governments
in disaster management clearly defined and well understood?
Answer. Coordination with State, local, tribal, and territorial
partners has been and remains among the highest priorities for the
Department of Homeland Security. The Department uses a multitude of
resources to coordinate policy, programmatic, and operational decisions
with State and local officials, but the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination (SLGC) has served as the primary coordination
point for many of these efforts.
SLGC routinely interacts directly with state and local officials
involved in public safety, emergency management, intelligence, law
enforcement, and other areas to ensure a constant flow of information
to/from the Department's state and local stakeholders. Notably, one
week before Hurricane Katrina made its second landfall, SLGC brought
together the Nation's Homeland Security Advisors and Emergency Managers
to speak with the Department's leadership about their priorities and
needs.
The Department continues to emphasize and train to the National
Incident Management System (NIMS) as implemented by the National
Response Plan (NRP). In the NRP the chain of command is a seamless
integration of all levels of government, from the local Incident
Commander through the local Multi-Agency Coordination System (typically
a county Emergency Operations Center) through the State EOC, the
Federal Joint Field Office (JFO) to the Homeland Security Operations
Center (HSOC) which serves the Secretary of Homeland Security
exclusively.
Question 11. Does FEMA's Federal Response Plan specify resources
from other Federal agencies that FEMA can draw upon and how FEMA pays
costs associated with such resources?
Answer. The Federal Response Plan has been superseded by the
National Response Plan. The National Response Plan (NRP), released on
January 6, 2005, uses the comprehensive framework of the National
Incident Management System (NIMS) to provide the structure and
mechanisms to coordinate Federal support to State, local, and tribal
incident managers and to exercise direct Federal authorities and
responsibilities. The NRP is applicable to all Federal departments and
agencies that may be requested to provide assistance or conduct
operations during actual or potential Incidents of National
Significance. * The NRP was signed by 32 Federal departments and
agencies, as well as the American Red Cross, the Corporation for
National and Community Service, and the National Voluntary
Organizations Active in Disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Major disasters and emergencies as defined under the Stafford Act
meet the criteria for Incident of National Significance; however, it is
possible to have an Incident of National Significance that does not
meet Stafford Act criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRP consists of 4 components:
NRP Base Plan--describes the structures and processes to integrate
the efforts and resources of Federal, state, local, tribal, private
sector, and non-governmental organizations. The Base Plan includes
roles and responsibilities, concept of operations, incident management
actions, and plan maintenance instructions.
Emergency Support Function (ESF) Annexes--detail the missions,
policies, structures, and responsibilities of Federal agencies for
coordinating resources and programmatic support during Incidents of
National Significance. The ESFs provide a functional approach to
organize the capabilities of Federal departments and agencies and the
American Red Cross. Through the ESF system, FEMA can call upon any of
the 32 signatories to the NRP to provide resources, equipment or
expertise.
Support Annexes--provide guidance and describe functional processes
to ensure efficient and effective implementation of NRP incident
management objectives. Support annexes address such things as:
financial management, logistics management, private sector
coordination, volunteer and donations management, and worker safety and
health. Federal departments and agencies supporting the NRP are
activated and engaged using either a mission assignment process for
events supported by Stafford Act funding, or through interagency
agreements or other direct funding sources when implemented using other
authorities.
Incident Annexes--address contingency or hazard situations
requiring specialized application of the NRP. The Incident Annexes
describe the missions, policies, responsibilities and coordination
processes for incident management and emergency response operations
across a spectrum of potential hazards. The Incident Annexes address
the following types of incidents: Biological, Catastrophic, Cyber, Food
and Agriculture, Nuclear/Radiological, Oil and HazMat, and Terrorism
Incident Law Enforcement and Investigation. The Incident Annexes are
not necessarily mutually exclusive events. More than one incident annex
may be applied depending on the circumstances of the incident. The
Incident Annexes address generic events; they are not currently tied to
the 15 planning scenarios developed by the White House Homeland
Security Council.
Question 11a. What procedures are in place for FEMA to process
interagency offers of assistance and resources?
Answer. Federal departments and agencies supporting the NRP are
activated and engaged using either a mission assignment process for
events supported by Stafford Act funding, or through interagency
agreements or other direct funding sources when implemented using other
authorities. If the assistance/resources offered are needed, FEMA would
execute a mission assignment, or other direct funding sources when
implemented using other authorities, to accept the assistance/
resources.
FEMA requests and obtains interagency support and assistance under
the Stafford Act through the Mission Assignment process. A Mission
Assignment (MA) is a work order issued by FEMA to a Federal department
or agency (D/A) directing completion of a specific task, and citing
funding (when applicable), other managerial controls, and guidance
given in anticipation of, or response to a Presidential declaration of
a major disaster or emergency.
All assistance and resource actions begin with the identification
of an unmet need. The need may originate in a variety of ways, but
typically the State and/or local emergency management agency, FEMA, and
other responding Federal agencies are the most common sources. Once an
action request has been captured, a staff member of the Operations
Section within an Emergency Response Team (ERT), Regional Response
Coordination Center (RRCC) staff, or Emergency Support Team (EST) at
the National Response Coordination Center coordinates the request
through the Operations Section. The Operations Section Chief or a
designee, who assesses the request, confirms its validity, and
determines which organizational element within the emergency team is
best suited to fulfill the request. The Operations Section Chief also
identifies the relative priority of the action, in terms of criticality
(lifesaving, life-sustaining, high, medium, normal), lead time for
delivery, or timeframe for completion. A request may also be returned
to the originator for additional information, clarification, or
execution under the originator's own authority. In cases where the
fulfillment of the request is already being accomplished under another
action, or is proscribed from being completed by law and/or regulation,
the requests may be returned to the requestor without action. The
Operations Section Chief assigns the action request to an
organizational element within the emergency team for coordination and
completion.
In cases where resources and assistance are offered from the
interagency community, the offer would immediately be processed and
reviewed to determine if it could satisfy any unmet needs or resource
requirements, and if not, it would be passed on to the Emergency
Support Function with responsibility for providing/overseeing the type
of resource or support into which the offer would fall.
Question 11b. How does FEMA request interagency assistance?
Answer. FEMA requests and obtains interagency support and
assistance under the Stafford Act through the Mission Assignment
process. A Mission Assignment (MA) is a work order issued by FEMA to a
Federal department or agency (D/A) directing completion of a specific
task, and citing funding (when applicable), other managerial controls,
and guidance given in anticipation of, or response to a Presidential
declaration of a major disaster or emergency.
There are three types of Mission Assignments: Federal Operations
Support, Technical Assistance for expert advice, Direct Federal
Assistance for goods and services beyond the State's capability to
provide.
Question 11c. Given the obvious deficiencies demonstrated post-
Katrina, how will FEMA and DHS reform communications networks?
Answer. In the Fall of 2005, the Department created an emergency
communications working group to ensure that when the National Response
Plan is activated, communications and IT are an enabler to the mission
of the Principal Federal Officer (PFO) and Federal Coordinating Officer
(FCO). In addition, the working group was tasked with the mission of
ensuring that there is one point of situational awareness and interface
to other Federal communication support agencies for entry and tasking
generation to satisfy Federal, state, and local communication
requirements. The group proposed the creation of PFO/FCO communications
chief that plans for and executes the IT and communications
requirements of the PFO/Joint Field Office staff. In addition, the
group recommended the continued use of the existing Emergency Support
Function (ESF) 2 structure as the single point of communications
situation awareness, and entry and tasking generation for satisfying
communications requirements. To support the effort the group has
completed or in the process of completing the following:
<bullet> Conducted an inventory of communications assets in the
Department
<bullet> Written a draft DHS Concept of Operations of how assets
would be tasked within the Department
<bullet> The National Communications System (NCS) in its ESF-2
(communications) role has completed a draft Concept of
Operations with its primary and support agencies
<bullet> NCS in its ESF-2 role is working out its relationship with
Northcom's head of communications
<bullet> Preparedness is developing an exercise time line for the
Department and States to test this capability. The exercise
will be coordinated with ongoing FEMA activities.
<bullet> Both FEMA and NCS have identified additional people to fill
the critical communication roles identified to work with
regions on the Communications Plan.
<bullet> Identified the National Law Enforcement Center to act as a
radio control center for DHS
In addition, the Department is seeking to test this capability
through multiple exercises in the gulf region and eastern seaboard
prior to next hurricane season.
FEMA Response and Recovery operates the Mobile Emergency Response
System (MERS) trailers, which among other things provides emergency
communication abilities in a disaster event. In a catastrophic event,
such as Katrina, the region's communications infrastructure was
destroyed, and while the MERS performed as designed, they were not
sufficient for the catastrophe. The Federal Government, DOD, private
organizations, local governments, and commercial interests have
communication assets for emergency events; however, there is no
standardized coordination of these assets. NPIP proposes to strengthen
national preparedness by cataloging emergency communication assets,
pre-coordinating their use, and developing communications plans for
catastrophic event scenarios. NPIP leads, coordinates, and synchronizes
Federal preparedness capabilities and assets, and in concert with other
partners, addresses catastrophic scenarios that require the merging of
Federal, State, and local preparedness and response capabilities for
responses equal to the magnitude of a catastrophic event.
Interoperable communications equipment has been an allowable use of
the homeland security grants offered by the Office of Grants and
Training (G&T) since the inception of the Department. Use of these
grant funds is tied to the goals and objectives identified in each
state or urban area homeland security strategy. Interoperable
communications was addressed in 54 of 56 current state homeland
security strategies and in 48 out of 49 urban area homeland security
strategies. From FY 2003 through 2005 more than $2.1 billion in G&T
funding has been applied by States toward interoperable communications
solutions. As part of this process, G&T also established an
interoperable communications technical assistance program (ICTAP) to
ensure that these funds are maximized by the grantees. ICTAP provides
expert assistance to States and urban areas for the identification of
gaps in their existing communications capabilities, for developing
solutions, and for sustainment of the enhanced capacities. This program
was funded at $5 million in FY 2006.
Over $2 billion has been invested in interoperability across first
responder disciplines. The Department is aware of other studies that
predict the total cost of achieving total communications
interoperability to be roughly $18.3 billion. However, new equipment
for jurisdictions will not alone solve the problem of communications
interoperability. Spectrum, standards, incident command training, and
other elements are essential when looking at interoperability
solutions.
Question 12. Do FEMA and its employees have decision-making
authority that matches their roles and responsibilities?
Answer. Yes. Appropriate authorities have been assigned and
delegated to FEMA officials and employees so that they may perform
their essential roles in responding to, recovering from, and mitigating
against natural and man-made disasters.
Question 13. Does FEMA familiarize its partner organizations in
disaster response with all required procedures so that response times
are not unduly delayed? Are those familiarization procedures effective?
Answer. Yes. FEMA routinely meets with its national- and regional-
level partners through the auspices of the Emergency Support Functions
Leadership Group (ESFLG) and the Regional Interagency Steering
Committees (RISCs). These meetings are designed to facilitate a
collaborative planning environment that is conducive to ensuring
interagency coordination and communication.
FEMA also routinely convenes multi-agency video teleconferences and
conference calls involving the ESFLG, FEMA regional staff, and
incident-specific command and operations centers (i.e., the National
Hurricane Center, HSOC) at the Federal and State levels upon receipt of
actionable warnings. At these events, basic incident-specific
preparedness, response, and initial recovery actions are introduced,
coordinated, and synchronized in preparation for possible response.
Action and Resource Tracking and Visibility efforts are initiated to
complement ongoing situational awareness efforts and incident-specific
Incident Collection Plans (ICPs) and Initial Actions Checklists are
distributed to in-theater liaison officers located at the State
Emergency Operations Centers (SEOCs) and advance management teams such
as the Hurricane Liaison Team (HILT).
FEMA's coordinating plans, procedures, protocols, and practices
have been effective in enhancing and focusing Federal, State, and local
situational awareness and in pre-positioning Federal assets to
locations suited to providing a rapid entry into the affected area in
response to local and State requirements.
Question 14. Does FEMA familiarize state and local governments with
all the required procedures to apply for Federal assistance in the case
of natural disasters? Are those familiarization procedures effective?
Answer. Yes, FEMA effectively familiarizes State and local
governments with all the required procedures to apply for Federal
assistance in the case of natural disasters. There are 10 FEMA regional
offices and two area offices (Caribbean and Pacific), each region
serving several states. The regional offices provide training, host
workshops, and brief the states on Title IV of the Stafford Act
Sec. 401, which covers major disaster assistance programs and
procedures for declarations. In addition, regulations are outlined
under 44 CFR 206.36 as well as Title V of the Stafford Act Sec. 501,
which speaks to emergency declarations and implementing regulations at
44 CFR 206.35. Summits are held by the regional offices to update the
states on new guidance, processes, and procedures. FEMA staff work
directly with their respective states and provide assistance as
necessary. Regional offices monitor potential and actual situations in
their respective states, assist with requests for disaster or emergency
assistance, conduct joint Federal, State and local damage assessments,
and provide a host of additional services.
Question 15. Are FEMA's operating procedures routine so that they
do not have to be reinvented in a post-disaster situation?
Answer. Yes. FEMA's operating procedures are standard and routine
but the resources committed, and the command and control structure
established, is scalable depending on the size of the disaster. A joint
field office with a unified command of a Federal and state coordinating
officer is routine for all disasters. An ICS structure with major
components of Operations, Planning, Logistics, and Finance and
Administration is resourced according to the size and complexity of the
disaster. Federal agencies are routinely tasked to staff the Emergency
Support Functions within the Operations Section when appropriate. For
larger disasters, FEMA Regions will activate Regional Response
Coordination Centers and FEMA HQ will activate the National Response
Coordination Center.
FEMA and its Federal, State, local, and tribal sector partners
routinely employ the same authorities and references in emergency
management and disaster response. With the exception of the adoption of
the NIMS and NRP, few changes have occurred in the interagency Federal
planning and operational response paradigm since the introduction of
the Federal Response Plan in 1993 following Hurricane Andrew.
Among the key guiding documents/plans/systems are the following:
1. April 2004, National Incident Management System
2. December 2004, National Response Plan
3. November 2005, Draft National Infrastructure Protection Plan
4. April 2005, Emergency Support Function #5 Emergency
Management Standard Operating Procedures
5. April 2005, Draft Interagency Incident Management Group
(IIMG) Activation and Operations
6. April 2005, National Response Coordination Center (NRCC)
Standard Operating Procedures
7. April 2005, Regional Response Coordination Center/Regional
Support Team Standard Operating Procedures
8. April 2005, Interagency Integrated Standard Operating
Procedure Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC)
9. April 2005, Interagency Integrated Standard Operating
Procedure Joint Field Office (JFO) Activation and Operations
Secondly, all FEMA-developed concepts of operations, operations
plans, and implementation plans are fully coordinated with FEMA's
Federal department and agency partners at the national level through
the Emergency Support Functions Leadership Group. Regional
documentation is similarly coordinated at the regional, State, and if
necessary, local levels through the Regional Interagency Steering
Committees (RISCs).
These documents and others provide an effective structure and
mechanisms for Federal responses and operational coordination efforts
for incident management, response, and recovery.
FEMA Responsiveness and Utilization of Manpower
Recently, reports have surfaced concerning numerous incidents
involving misallocation of resources and unused offers of assistance
from Federal agencies, state and local government, and volunteers. FEMA
has long relied on volunteers to provide relief services.
Question 16. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina how many volunteers
were deployed? How many people submitted applications to volunteer
prior to Hurricane Katrina but were not deployed after the hurricane?
Answer. Over six thousand people volunteered to work with FEMA in
disaster operations in any capacity following Hurricane Katrina. The
need existed for Community Relations Officers as well as Individual
Assistance Officers. The Community Relations workers underwent a
training program in Atlanta prior to going into the field. The
Individual Assistance Officers went to Orlando, Florida. The volunteers
included Citizen Corps, firefighters, and Native American tribes.
FEMA does not accept applications for volunteer deployment nor does
FEMA deploy volunteers. Organizations such as the American Red Cross
coordinate the services provided by volunteers during disaster response
activities.
Question 17. What training do these volunteers receive to prepare
them for their relief role? What screening do these persons receive
during the application process?
Answer. To prepare for the arduous task of operating in the impact
area, volunteers and additional hires received an initial screening
that covered the requirements of applicable Federal law, including
finger printing, national records checks, and being sworn in as Federal
officials. As a result, they were able to receive temporary Federal
identification allowing them entry into the appropriate FEMA
facilities. Their training was a condensed version that included all
mandatory training required by law. Human Rights, Government Ethics,
payroll procedures and equipment responsibility were among the many
general areas covered. In addition, they received substantial and
condensed training on disaster relief procedures, Stafford Act program
areas, community relations, dealing with traumatized victims, and
trans-cultural communications.
Question 18. What screening process did contractors and other
organizations who received Katrina contracts go through? Does FEMA have
a pre-approved vendor list or contracts that it relies on to deliver
initial services?
Answer.
a) FEMA uses a two step screening process before awarding a
contract. First, in accordance with the criteria stated in the
solicitation, FEMA evaluates offers to identify the company(ies) that
offers the best value to the Federal Government. Second, FEMA
contracting officers make an affirmative ``responsibility''
determination before the contract award to ensure that the prospective
contractor has the resources, experience, etc., to successfully perform
the requirement.
b) FEMA has several contracts in place for anticipated disaster
requirements. However, based on lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina,
FEMA is working on awarding additional, long-term contracts to improve
FEMA's ability to respond more effectively to disasters.
Question 19. What method does DHS/FEMA suggest to provide
supplemental first responder services in the wake of disaster? Is there
a need for these services?
Answer. Generally, Federal departments and agencies supporting the
National Response Plan are activated and engaged using either a mission
assignment process for events supported by Stafford Act funding, or
through interagency agreements or other direct funding sources when
implemented using other authorities. If the assistance/resources
offered are needed, including first responder services, FEMA would
execute a mission assignment, or other direct funding sources when
implemented using other authorities, to accept the assistance/
resources.
All assistance and resource actions, including first responder
services, begin with the identification of an unmet need. The need may
originate in a variety of ways, but typically the State and/or local
emergency management agency, FEMA, and other responding Federal
agencies are the most common sources. Once an action request has been
captured a staff member of the Operations Section within an Emergency
Response Team (ERT), Regional Response Coordination Center (RRCC)
staff, or Emergency Support Team (EST) at the National Response
Coordination Center coordinates the request through the Operations
Section. The Operations Section Chief or a designee, who assesses the
request, confirms its validity, and determines which organizational
element within the emergency team is best suited to fulfill the
request. The Operations Section Chief also identifies the relative
priority of the action, in terms of criticality (lifesaving, life-
sustaining, high, medium, normal), lead time for delivery, or timeframe
for completion. A request may also be returned to the originator for
additional information, clarification, or execution under the
originator's own authority. In cases where the fulfillment of the
request is already being accomplished under another action, or is
proscribed from being completed by law and/or regulation, the requests
may be returned to the requestor without action. The Operations Section
Chief assigns the action request to an organizational element within
the emergency team for coordination and completion.
In cases where resources and assistance are offered from the
interagency community, the offer would immediately be processed and
reviewed to determine if it could satisfy any unmet needs or resource
requirements, and if not, it would be passed on to the Emergency
Support Function with responsibility for providing/overseeing the type
of resource or support into which the offer would fall.
FEMA requests and obtains interagency support and assistance under
the Stafford Act through the Mission Assignment process. A Mission
Assignment (MA) is a work order issued by FEMA to a Federal department
or agency (D/A) directing completion of a specific task, and citing
funding, other managerial controls, and guidance given in anticipation
of, or response to a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or
emergency.
Furthermore, every state in CONUS is a member of the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), which provides robust support to
member states during emergencies and disasters. EMAC resources can be
supplemented with Federal resources through the mission assignment
process.
In light of the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, which
stressed response and recovery resources at every level of government,
DHS/FEMA is reviewing disaster response policy to determine how the
Agency can best respond to disasters of all proportions, with a
particular emphasis on how best to respond during the initial phases of
response, when lifesaving and life-sustaining efforts are of the
highest priority.
Additionally, Citizen Corps, as part of the Office of Community
Preparedness, focuses on engaging the public in organized grass roots
efforts to prepare themselves and their communities and to support the
work of emergency personnel; creating a culture shift in how government
leaders, emergency responders, and the public view the role of the
``citizen'' in preparedness; and providing an integrated approach and a
national voice to promote community preparedness. The key Citizen Corps
programs are Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), Fire Corps,
Medical Reserve Corps, Neighborhood Watch, and Volunteers in Police
Service. DHS also partners with 25 national non-profit groups and more
than 70 associations to promote community preparedness.
From FY 2002 through FY 2006, DHS has distributed approximately 108
million dollars for Citizen Corps activities. These activities include
establishing and enhancing Citizen Corps Councils; establishing and
enhancing citizen volunteer initiatives (Fire Corps, CERT, Medical
Reserve Corps, Neighborhood Watch, etc.); and establishing and
enhancing citizen awareness of emergency preparedness, prevention, and
response measures. The Councils' added value is that it brings to the
first responder table the ``voices'' of the many non governmental
organizations (volunteer, non-profit, faith-based, private sector) that
are the backbone of any successful community level preparedness and
response effort. State, local and tribal Citizen Corps Councils are
formed and work with the State Homeland Security Office and the State
Emergency Management Office to bring together the first responder and
the non-first responder community to address the citizen preparedness
needs of the community. Citizen Corps has 56 state/territory councils
and 1,925 county/local/tribal councils. These councils serve
203,856,618 people, which is 71 percent of the total U.S. population.
During Hurricane Katrina, 14,000 Citizen Corps volunteers from all
50 states and the District of Columbia supported the relief efforts.
The prior training and involvement in the Citizen Corps programs made
them immediately prepared to step in and help the emergency responders.
The most successful of these efforts was the Houston Astrodome where
the Citizen Corps program and Council lead the way for managing the
60,000 volunteers who supported the response effort.
Flood Insurance Program
Since Hurricane Katrina, Congress has had to significantly increase
the statutory borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) from a pre-Katrina authority of $1.5 billion to a
current Congressional proposal of $21.2 billion. Congress has been
advised that there is little hope that the NFIP will ever be able to
repay the taxpayers for this borrowing. Obviously, this program is not
actuarially sound as it has required significant and repeated bailouts
by the taxpayers.
FEMA has advised my staff that, between 1978 and 2004, 14 states'
NFIP claims have significantly exceeded the total premiums paid by
property owners in those states. In 36 states, however, the amount paid
to settle claims is significantly less than the total premiums paid.
For example, property owners in my home state of Nevada have received
$25.8 million to settle claims compared to their total NFIP premiums of
$65.5 million. This would suggest that my constituents are, in part,
subsidizing the risk for repetitive-loss properties, such as those
located in Missouri where claims paid total $418.6 million compared to
premiums of only $141.5 million. This would also suggest that certain
regions of the country, such as the Gulf Coast Region, are heavily
subsidized relative to risk of loss. For example, property owners in
Texas have received $2.7 billion in claims while only paying in $1.8
billion in premiums.
Question 20. What reforms does the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) believe are necessary to make the NFIP actuarially sound so as to
appropriately shift the risk loss away from the taxpayers to owners of
high-risk properties without further shifting risk loss to owners of
lower risk properties?
Answer. The Department is currently assessing the financial
structures and policies of the NFIP, including whether any
modifications to existing authority may be required. We look forward to
working with Congress on any legislative changes which may be needed.
Question 21. Will DHS propose ending the current practice of
grandfathering properties built before enactment of the NFIP? If so,
what specific proposals does DHS have to end this practice?
Answer. DHS does not have any plans at this time to end the
practice of grandfathering properties built before the enactment of the
NFIP.
Accounting of Disaster Relief Dollars
Significant dollars have been spent on rescue, recovery, and relief
efforts in the Gulf Region. The Government Accountability Office has
detailed a series of accounting flaws, waste, fraud, and mismanagement
of $85 billion in Katrina-related spending. FEMA has admitted mistakes
but that there is little recourse to recoup payments.
Question 22. What factors in the FEMA organization contributed to
the poor oversight of this money? Were the financial accounting
measures in place adequate or were they not properly executed? What
obstacles must FEMA overcome to install appropriate oversight measures?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly observed
and stated that Federal, state, and local response capabilities were
overwhelmed by the size and scope of Hurricane Katrina. This event is,
by far, the most monumental natural catastrophe the U.S. has ever faced
with obligations-to-date of over $23 billion by FEMA alone. And, while
FEMA's financial accounting controls were severely strained during the
hurricane, the accounting system does meet the core system
requirements.
In general for disasters, FEMA's critical focus is always centered
upon getting the relief assistance to the disaster victims as soon as
possible. During the Katrina disaster, with its devastating magnitude
and effects on lives and property, some oversight and internal controls
suffered in light of this focus and were also overcome by the magnitude
of events.
Notwithstanding, during an active disaster, FEMA's personnel
continue to focus on the relief effort and rely on addressing lessons
learned and control issues afterwards. To this end, FEMA, along with
DHS, has contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP to study financial
oversight and internal controls, determine gaps in propriety and/or
adequacy, and present comprehensive recommendations for practical
solutions to audit findings, after-action reports, and any other risk
conditions they may find.
Question 23. Please provide a detailed accounting of all
appropriated funds for efforts in the Gulf Region, including all
reprogrammed funds, and a summary for every contract with a cost of
over $10 million.
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides a weekly
status report on the Disaster Relief Fund. This report provides a
detailed accounting of the DRF for the Gulf Region. This report can be
found in the following website
http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/HurricaneKatrinaLink.htm.
Also attached is a list of all contracts awarded by FEMA as of
March 15, 2005 that exceed $10 million.
This list is updated weekly and is also available on the DHS
website at www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0729.xml.
Question 24. It is reported that FEMA purchased nearly 25,000
manufactured homes at a cost of $857 million, and around 1,300 modular
homes at a cost of $40 million. Almost 11,000 of those manufactured
homes are unused and sitting in Arkansas. To the extent that these
11,000 homes are going unused, what will be done with them? What will
be done with respect to any other surplus property?
Answer. It is FEMA's intent to use the existing inventory of
manufactured homes to the extent possible to meet disaster-related
housing needs and we are actively working that end. Among the efforts
to utilize the 11,000 manufactured homes in Arkansas are:
<bullet> Mobile home group sites are being developed in the Katrina
impact area, including over 1,600 units worth in the Lake
Charles, LA, area alone;
<bullet> Mobile home commercial park available sites are being
utilized wherever possible in the parishes facing the greatest
housing needs:
<bullet> When requests for housing assets are received, applicants
are informed that if their site can accommodate a mobile home
that is what they will be provided; and
<bullet> In some restricted areas, we are allowing the use of mobile
homes on private sites as long as appropriate protective
actions are taken including concrete piers and site elevation
actions.
FEMA is also utilizing these assets to meet the transitional
housing needs of the victims of other disasters that have occurred
subsequent to Katrina. While we do not necessarily expect these units
to end up as surplus property, should they do so they would be disposed
of under the appropriate Federal property disposal programs of the GSA.
Question 25. Additionally, the contracts FEMA entered into (such as
with the cruise line) do not appear to have been a wise use of taxpayer
dollars. What oversight measures were in place to ensure that the
appropriate amount of short-term housing was available? What measures
were in place to ensure that housing options were cost effective?
Answer. FEMA traditionally approaches temporary housing with direct
housing resources as the last resort. Our first option is to repair the
damaged home of the victims. This has been done to a large degree
through the tarping program that allows the residents to live in their
homes as repairs are accomplished. But the repair option also is a
reason why homeowners have chosen to use travel trailers on their
property while repairing their homes. The second option is rental
properties in the disaster area. In the case of Katrina, this option
was very depleted. So much rental stock was lost that little remained
available for the renters who had lost their apartments. The third
option is then direct (e.g., manufactured) housing. We have used a
significant number of travel trailers and a much smaller number of
mobile homes to meet this need.
Contrary to press reports, the cruise ships were an appropriate use
of taxpayer dollars. Most of these ships were used in the New Orleans
area where there were no available housing assets so there were no
viable alternative short-term housing options. Using the ships, not
only victims but emergency and safety workers and others assisting in
the recovery of the damaged area could stay in the vicinity immediately
while we worked to increase housing resources in the area. Given the
wide swath of the storm commuting distances were enormous and still
housing opportunities were limited. In fact, during the early weeks
following the disaster, even congregate shelters were overwhelmed and
we needed alternative resources to house families and individuals.
Through the use of the ships we were able to both provide better
sheltering and also have the time to bring in manufactured housing,
restore utilities, and provide suitable housing alternatives for the
affected residents of the area. As to the question of their cost-
effectiveness, these ships were used primarily to house disaster
victims who were also necessary to the restoration of public safety and
economic activity in the area, and the per berth cost of their housing
in the ships was less than the Federal per diem rate for the New
Orleans area. Even if the cost had not been competitive, the lack of
housing alternatives would have made use of the ships appropriate in
order to support the efforts to restore the functioning of public and
private institutions in the impact area.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen
Implementing Non-Security Missions
Question 1. According to a 2004 Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report, resource hours spent by Coast Guard vessels and aircraft
for non-security missions in 2001 to 2003 were down from pre-September
11 levels as follows: Foreign fishing incursions down 16 percent,
search and rescue down 22 percent, living marine resources enforcement
down 32 percent, and interdiction of illegal drugs down 44 percent. In
contrast, the report found that port security resource hours had
increased by 1,200 percent since September 11.
The FY 2007 budget request would allocate 54 percent of the Coast
Guard's operating budget to security missions, significantly increasing
the focus on security and away from other missions. Prior to the events
of September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard invested only 2 percent of its
operating budget into security activities. In FY 2004, this grew to 47
percent and in FY 2005, 48 percent. The Coast Guard's FY 2007 budget
request moves two of its missions defined by the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 as ``security'' missions (law enforcement and drug
interdiction) into the non-security column, which has the effect of
raising (on paper) the percent of funding going to non-security
missions.
As you know, we ask a tremendous amount from the Coast Guard, and
have given it major new responsibilities in the area of maritime
security. However, no one wants this new responsibility to come at the
expense of other core Coast Guard missions, including search and
rescue, marine safety, and enforcement of our fisheries and
environmental laws. I am concerned that the Coast Guard continues to
move away from these core missions. This is apparent in the FY 2007
budget request and even in your written statement here today, which
focuses heavily on the Coast Guard's Homeland Security mission. What
will you do to make sure that the Coast Guard is adequately funding and
fulfilling all of its missions, including its non-security missions?
Answer. First and foremost, the Coast Guard will focus on
performance outcomes for all its assigned missions. Of more interest to
me than the number of resource hours we're expending toward a mission
is whether we're accomplishing our stated performance goals. For
example, our Search and Rescue (SAR) hours and associated budgeted
costs have shown a declining trend in recent years. This is good news,
not bad news. It means the Coast Guard is spending less time conducting
SAR cases as a result of a number of factors (e.g., less people are in
distress, improved planning and asset capabilities are reducing search
times).
Coast Guard operational assets and systems are critical across all
Coast Guard missions; their readiness and capability is a key
foundation of maritime safety and security. For example, a Coast Guard
cutter on patrol in the Caribbean or Eastern Pacific transit zone may
in a single week make a maritime drug seizure, intercept undocumented
migrants at sea, and respond to a vessel in distress. Performance
outcomes will continue to be our primary yardstick for measuring the
effectiveness of Coast Guard operations as well as the adequacy of
resources.
Question 2. The FY 2007 budget proposes only an $8 million increase
to curtail foreign fisheries violations. We have heard concerns that
the Coast Guard has been failing to detect or interdict illegal
incursions of foreign fishing vessels within the Western/Central
Pacific area of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. What are your
thoughts on how the Coast Guard can improve its performance in this
area?
Answer. The Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater System (IDS)
project, augmented by the initiatives outlined in the Coast Guard's
Fisheries Strategic Plan, Ocean Guardian, call for increased capability
and a more robust intelligence analysis of the Western Central Pacific
(WCP) area to deter foreign fishing vessel incursions into our EEZ.
The IDS will provide a flexible and agile system of cutters,
aircraft and command and control systems to increase enforcement
presence, while intelligence analysis will focus enforcement efforts.
The Coast Guard also continues working with the national intelligence
community to obtain data and analysis of the WCP area. Furthermore, the
Coast Guard will foster bilateral and multilateral international
relationships critical to effective enforcement of the WCP. This is
best accomplished through the Western Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission, the regulatory body managing the highly migratory species
in the WCP; and the North Pacific Heads of Coast Guard Agency, whose
many missions include coordinating enforcement efforts aimed at the
conservation of living marine resources in the Pacific Ocean.
Further information can be found in the Coast Guard's Report on
Fisheries Enforcement in the Western Central Pacific Ocean and on the
U.S.-Russian Maritime Boundary Line, submitted to Congress on February
9, 2006.
Deepwater Program
Question 3. The Deepwater program is a $24 billion, 25-year
acquisition program to replace or modernize 93 Coast Guard ships and
207 Coast Guard aircraft. This is the largest and most complex
acquisition effort in Coast Guard history.
The FY 2006 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations
Act provided $933.1 million for the Deepwater program. This was reduced
to $923.8 million in post-enactment adjustments, and then increased to
$943.6 million by moving funding for Airborne Use of Force (AUF) and
covert surveillance into the Deepwater program. The President's FY 2007
budget request includes an essentially flat budget request of $934.4
million for the Deepwater program.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has provided reports and
testimony to this Committee on the need to improve Coast Guard
oversight of this complex acquisition.
One major challenge you will face as Commandant is the continued
management of the Deepwater program. The first five-year contract for
this acquisition is coming to an end, costs have run higher than
expected, and the Government Accountability Office has recommended that
the Coast Guard improve its management of the program. I was pleased to
learn that you have been directly involved with oversight of major
procurement decisions within the Department of Homeland Security as the
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Council. Are there additional steps
that need to be taken to improve the Deepwater program to assure its
success?
Answer. There are three steps that I will take to improve the
Deepwater program to assure its success.
The first step is to achieve stability and focus on execution
rather than change management. The original Deepwater proposal was
developed prior to the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001. When
the contract was signed in June of 2002, the Coast Guard knew that the
system to be delivered by that contract was insufficient to meet our
post-9/11 maritime homeland security mission requirements.
In the first five years of the Deepwater contract, its flexibility
has been repeatedly challenged as the Coast Guard endeavored to revise
the Deepwater system to meet new requirements. The Coast Guard engaged
in a performance gap analysis and proposed an increase in the
functional capabilities of the Deepwater assets to ensure that post-9/
11 mission requirements would be achieved by a revised Deepwater
system. In the summer of 2005 this resulted in the acceptance and
funding of a revised Deepwater implementation plan, the details of
which are still being negotiated for delivery by our contractor,
Integrated Coast Guard System (ICGS). This change was necessary but has
been demanding and slowed the design and delivery of assets. I plan to
stabilize requirements and focus on ruthless execution of those new
post-9/11 requirements. It was necessary to change Deepwater so that it
buys the tools the Coast Guard needs to meet its new mission
requirements. Now we have to set about acquiring that revised system so
the tools get into Coasties' hands as quickly as possible.
The second step is to discipline the Coast Guard to ensure that the
Deepwater acquisition remains within its cost, schedule, and
performance baselines. The revised Deepwater plan will complete the
recapitalization of the Coast Guard with a post-9/11 system-of-systems
in 25 years for an acquisition cost of $24 billion. Part of baseline
discipline will be achieved by requirements stability. But it will also
be achieved by cost control and persistent oversight of ICGS and its
subcontractors. The Deepwater contract is at a turning point as it
faces its impending next award term. The Coast Guard will negotiate
favorable terms and conditions that allow for:
<bullet> A greater focus on cost control by using:
--More appropriate contract type selections.
--Performance incentives within each order.
--Using award fee to support the award term criteria.
<bullet> A more realistic pricing philosophy understanding the
flexibility required due to appropriation fluctuations.
<bullet> A greater focus on requirements stability so that baselines
are more easily established and can be better monitored.
<bullet> Greater ICGS accountability by ensuring the government
members of the Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) exercise their
customer oversight and feedback roles. This will ensure that
the Contractor maintains responsibility for decisions it makes.
Finally, I will oversee the introduction of new Deepwater assets
into the Coast Guard. This third step is to ensure that the people of
the Coast Guard welcome these new assets into their tool bag, are
trained to use these new tools, and are supported assuring their peak
operational performance in the future.
Delay in Rescue 21 Launch
Question 4. The Coast Guard is modernizing its outdated national
distress communications systems. The new system, called Rescue 21, will
be the Nation's primary maritime emergency system and will greatly
improve the Coast Guard's ability to detect mayday calls from boaters,
pinpoint the location of the source of the call, and coordinate rescue
operations along the 95,000 mile U.S. coastline and interior waterways.
The Rescue 21 project, launched in 2002 with General Dynamics as
the prime contractor, is behind schedule. Two prototype versions of the
search and rescue system were launched in December 2005, in Atlantic
City, New Jersey, and on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Full nationwide
system rollout to 44 additional regions, originally slated for 2006, is
now slated for completion in 2011.
I am concerned that the completion dates for the rollout of the
Rescue 21 emergency communications system are slipping. Full rollout
was originally scheduled for 2006 and is now projected for 2011.
What will be done to ensure that project completion stays on the
current schedule?
Answer. The Coast Guard has worked extensively with the contractor
to establish a credible and realistic Rescue 21 project schedule,
considering time lines for compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act, the significant number of outstanding real property
acquisitions and new tower construction required, and the contractor's
production capabilities. Several management and oversight actions have
been initiated to ensure project completion stays on schedule, to
include:
<bullet> Establishing a Coast Guard Project Resident Office co-
located at the contractor's manufacturing facility to increase
government oversight, awareness, and involvement.
<bullet> Initiating use of the Defense Contract Management Agency and
Defense Contract Audit Agency to assist in validating the
contractor's technical proposals and cost reasonableness.
<bullet> Scheduling a Program level Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)
in 2006 to verify the contractor's proposed cost, schedule, and
performance efforts in the first 15 Full Rate Production
regions. Subsequent IBRs will be conducted thereafter for the
remaining regions.
<bullet> Initiating monthly Integrated Project Schedule reviews
between Coast Guard and the contractor.
<bullet> Conducting quarterly Coast Guard Flag-level/General Dynamics
Vice President-level program reviews to resolve outstanding
issues and increase senior level oversight.
<bullet> Conducting monthly Risk Management and Earned Value
Management (EVM) cost performance reviews to increase program
management oversight for improved risk mitigation and taking
actions based on the EVM data.
<bullet> Incrementally re-pricing expired Contract Line Items for
Full Rate Production regions. Leveraging actual cost data and
instilling program level lessons learned during the Initial
Operating Capability regions, resulting in more reasonable cost
targets for future work.
The Coast Guard remains committed to a 2011 program completion
date. It should be noted that the significant technical challenges of
initial system design have been met and the program is in Full Rate
Production (FRP). All remaining regional installation work is expected
to be more standardized and the contractor is starting to realize
production efficiencies and leveraging installation experience and
institutionalizing lessons learned from each regional deployment. No
further technical schedule delays are envisioned.
Question 5. The budget for the Rescue 21 emergency communications
system has significantly decreased over the past year. The FY 2006
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act funded the program
at $41 million instead of the President's FY 2006 requested level of
$101 million, apparently because there was not a clear communication
that the Coast Guard had obligated most of its prior year balances. The
budget request for FY 2007 is flat, at $39.6 million. Could these
funding levels ultimately lead to an increase in total costs for the
program, and possibly to further delays?
Answer. Rescue 21's unobligated balance at the close of FY 2005 was
$16.1 million. The final Full Operational Capability (FOC) date is
still projected in 2011. To meet immediate funding needs in light of FY
2006 enacted funding below the President's $101 million Budget Request
and FY 2007 Budget Request of $39.6 million, the Coast Guard will de-
obligate and then re-obligate Rescue 21 long lead time material funds
obligated in FY 2005 for the final 25 regions. By doing so, the Coast
Guard intends to execute an $80 million implementation plan in FY 2007
to ensure that project completion remains fixed at 2011. The
reapportioned long lead time material funding in 2007 is critical to
enable the contractor to adhere to a planned regional system design,
infrastructure preparation, and system installation schedule to achieve
the 2011 project completion.
Therefore, the 2006 and 2007 funding levels, in and of themselves,
do not lead to either a cost and/or schedule increase. Rather, the
first 14 Full Rate Production (FRP) regions are funded predominantly
with prior year appropriations, including the re-obligations mentioned
above. Eight of those regions are scheduled to achieve FOC (full
operating capability) in 2007 and the other 6 in 2008.
Question 6. What will you do to make sure there is adequate funding
to complete this critical program?
Answer. To remain steadfast to the 2011 project completion given
the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and 2007 funding levels, the Coast Guard
plans to redirect a portion of $76 million obligated in FY 2005 to
procure long lead time materials for the final 25 regional
installations. The reapportioned funding will ensure that project
remains within current approved cost and schedule baselines. The Rescue
21 program planning is in concert with the Coast Guard FY 2007-2011
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) profile.
Adequate funding is critical to the success of the program; thus,
the Coast Guard has implemented the following measures to monitor
performance and ensure costs remain within budget.
<bullet> Reapportion long-lead time material funding obligations from
the final 25 Full Rate Production (FRP) regions to the first 15
FRP regions. This way 8 achieve FOC (full operating capability)
in 2007 and 6 achieve FOC in 2008.
<bullet> Validate the contractor's technical proposals and cost
reasonableness.
<bullet> Establish a milestone for program level Integrated Baseline
Review to verify the contractor's proposed cost, schedule, and
performance efforts.
<bullet> Initiate monthly Integrated Project Schedule reviews between
the Coast Guard and the contractor.
<bullet> Conduct quarterly reviews and monthly Risk Management and
Earned Value Management cost performance reviews to increase
program management oversight and take corrective actions, as
necessary.
<bullet> Re-price expired Contract Line Items for Full Rate
Production regions.
Port Security
Question 7. At a recent hearing before this Committee, the
International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) testified that the
U.S. Coast Guard is limited in its ``landside'' enforcement
capabilities with respect to Maritime Transportation Security Act
(MTSA) facility security plans. This is of grave concern for
dockworkers who live near the ports and who would be in the immediate
impact zone if a weapon of mass destruction were detonated at a port.
What is your perspective on this issue?
Answer. Coast Guard Captains of the Port (COTP) have considerable
landside enforcement authorities and a wide range of robust enforcement
tools they can utilize if a facility security compliance inspection
identifies areas where the facility owner/operator is not maintaining
the standard established in the Coast Guard approved Facility Security
Plan (FSP). These enforcement tools can range from a letter of warning
to a COTP Order to stop all operations at the facility pending
resolution of the noncompliance. The purpose of any enforcement action
is to bring the facility into compliance and the Coast Guard believes
it has ample enforcement authority to address the security areas for
which it is responsible.
Additionally, following 9/11, the Coast Guard regained authorities
to enforce laws on land, which it historically had but had waned
following World War II. 46 U.S.C. Section 70118 (from the Maritime
Transportation Amendments of 2004) authorizes members of the Coast
Guard to carry firearms, and, while at a waterfront facility, make
warrantless arrests for felony offenses that occur in their presence,
and seize property. This allows the Coast Guard to have a stronger,
``cop on the beat'' presence in the ports on a day-to-day basis.
Question 8. Do you agree that currently the U.S. Coast Guard is not
sufficiently staffed to conduct landside enforcement of the MTSA
regulations?
Answer. The Fiscal Year 2005 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Budget provided the Coast Guard with 791 billets on a recurring basis
to address the needs of MTSA. These billets are being used for
continued verification of domestic and facility security requirements,
a robust Port State Control program to ensure compliance with
international security requirements, continuous updates and
improvements to the National and Area Maritime Security plans, and the
assessment of domestic and foreign ports for compliance.
The Coast Guard continues to be proactive in training new personnel
to perform facility security inspections; we are confident that our
current force is capable of adequately executing the landside mission
of facility security oversight in those areas designated under Coast
Guard authorities.
Question 9. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)
testified before the Committee that port facility operators have
repeatedly refused to implement several critical Maritime
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) regulations, such as personnel,
vehicle, and cargo access control; placarding and segregating of
dangerous cargo and hazardous materials; and security training for port
workers to ensure proper response to a security incident.
Labor has raised the concern that while the U.S. Coast Guard
security regulations require port workers to be trained and
knowledgeable about the basic requirements of port facility security
plans to ensure that they know the proper response and evacuation
procedures in the event of a security incident, the port facility
operators currently refuse to share such security plans with
dockworkers claiming ``confidentiality'' as the grounds for refusal.
What is your opinion of this practice?
Answer. We greatly appreciate the dedication to security that has
been evidenced by the ILWU as part of our Nation's effort to protect
our vital maritime infrastructure. The nature of the ordering system
for unionized waterfront labor offers the advantage of providing a
great opportunity for labor to view the larger picture of security in a
port, since the union members accept labor orders at different marine
terminals, oftentimes on a daily basis. Unfortunately, this makes
sharing of Facility Security Plans which are Sensitive Security
Information (SSI), for individual terminals problematic. SSI is shared
strictly on a ``need to know'' basis and this information is only to be
shared with employees or others who have specific security duties under
the plan. If, on the other hand, the plans were available to all
employees, a terrorist posing as an employee could move from terminal
to terminal and quickly establish the security posture of the entire
port and identify the area most vulnerable to attack.
The greatest contribution that unionized labor member can make to
maritime security is as the eyes and ears of the terminal where they
are working. They do not act in the role of responders to incidents but
do have an awareness of what is normal and what is out of the ordinary.
If they report anything suspicious to their supervisor, they have a
contribution to overall security. Otherwise, they should be aware of
the current Maritime Security level at the terminal where they are
working and any security instructions from the terminal operator for
whom they are working on any given day. They can receive this through
signage on the terminal, or during gangway meetings prior to the start
of operations.
Question 10. How do you recommend that dockworkers gain access to
the response and evacuation provisions of the terminal facility
security plans if the facility owners refuse to disclose any aspect of
the security plans to them?
Answer. Dockworkers serve an important role in the security of our
ports, but that does not necessarily include the role of responder in
the event of a Transportation Security Incident (TSI). Nor do they tend
to have any other specific security duties at a marine terminal.
However, any instruction they may need relative to the security
measures in the Coast Guard approved plans (including facility
evacuation procedures) can be accomplished through signage, pamphlets,
or gangway meetings prior to the start of operations. Otherwise, the
Sensitive Security Information (SSI) designation of the FSPs would
prohibit the terminal operators from sharing that information with
anyone who did not have a demonstrable ``need to know'' and a defined
role in the execution of the FSP.
Question 11. How can the U.S. Coast Guard ensure that the
dockworkers get this critical information needed for their safety and
security?
Answer. If dockworkers feel they are not getting the security
information they need from a terminal operator, the ILWU leadership
should contact the local Captain of the Port (COTP). The COTP can
engage the terminal operator, and make sure that appropriate
information needed by labor is being shared correctly. We also strongly
recommend that the leadership of the waterfront labor unions become
involved in their local Area Maritime Security Committees to stay
informed of and provide input on security issues in the local ports.
Competition for GMDSS Services
Question 12. The Global Mobile Distress Safety System, known as
GMDSS, has proven critical to the safety of life at sea and the
protection of seafaring vessels. What steps has the Coast Guard taken
to ensure that there is redundancy and diversity in the provision of
GMDSS services? Realistically speaking, when do you expect that other
providers will be able to provide GMDSS services?
Answer. The GMDSS was designed with redundancy and diversity from
the beginning. For example, in addition to [INMARSAT] satellite
communications services, the GMDSS includes satellite emergency
position-indicating radio beacons (EPIRB) operating capability through
the international COSPAS-SARSAT system, managed in the U.S. by the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In the
U.S., 150 mariners were rescued in 54 incidents in 2005 through this
one GMDSS element alone. The Coast Guard also operates high frequency
and medium frequency distress and safety radio communications systems
under the GMDSS, providing another level of diversity to mariners. The
Rescue 21 system is a further diverse element of the GMDSS providing
both Digital Selective Calling (DSC) Channel 70 and VHF Channel 16 for
distress and rescue coordination.
INMARSAT was originally established as an international
organization to provide mobile satellite telecommunication safety
services to mariners. As a result, INMARSAT possesses a competitive
edge over other mobile satellite systems designed to provide primarily
land-based services. The Coast Guard is committed to continue working
with the U.S. mobile satellite industry to help them gain recognition
in the GMDSS, and we expect to succeed in establishing a reasonable
process within the next couple of years for those mobile satellite
providers who are serious about pursuing such a service for the long
term.
Question 13. The draft regulations developed by COMSAR at their
most recent meeting at the International Maritime Organization still
include insurmountable barriers to entry for other providers. These are
to be considered at the next meeting of the Marine Safety Committee.
What steps is the Coast Guard taking to assure that the final
procedures adopted by IMO reduce these barriers, and provide for real
competition among providers?
Answer. At the recent COMSAR 10 subcommittee meeting, the U.S. took
a formal reservation to the proposed draft revision of Resolution
A.888(21), stating ``that it did not believe that such a procedure
[expeditious incorporation of additional mobile-satellite providers
into the Global Maritime Duties and Safety System (GMDSS)] had yet been
established and was concerned that the path being followed would be
counterproductive to the shared goal. Specifically: ``. . . it
established a process for oversight and approval that would discourage
new systems from offering to provide GMDSS by imposing restrictive
conditions on entry.'' This reservation allows the matter to be
reconsidered at the Maritime Safety Committee (See COMSAR 10/WP.6)
Except for the Russian Federation, other administrations did not
accept our argument, believing that these barriers are not so onerous.
We sought out and encouraged U.S. mobile satellite providers to
participate in the U.S. delegation to the last several sessions of
COMSAR on this topic. Until COMSAR 9, U.S. providers had little
interest in this matter. We also had extensive discussions with mobile
satellite providers and with the International Mobile Satellite
Organization (IMSO), who under this agreement has the responsibility of
bringing other providers into the GMDSS. U.S. Head of Delegation (HOD)
met with IMSO leadership to encourage IMSO and the satellite providers
to work together to reduce these barriers.
It is in IMSO's interest to bring other providers into the GMDSS.
If they fail, the matter will be reconsidered at IMO. It's not in
anyone's interest that other mobile satellite providers not participate
in the GMDSS. If the barriers are proven burdensome, we expect support
in bringing the matter back to IMO.
On a more positive note, COMSAR agreed to allow mobile satellite
providers to participate in Long Range Identification and Tracking in a
matter not at all burdensome to their participation.
Question 14. Are there any new services that are being developed by
the private sector that will improve ship safety and security, and if
so, what is the Coast Guard doing to expedite their implementation?
Answer. The Coast Guard continues to evaluate new technology and
products developed by the maritime industry to improve safety and
security onboard vessels as part of normal Coast Guard plan review
processes. Proposed regulations requiring these new advancements are
closely scrutinized and balance the impact against the existing
regulations.
The Coast Guard recognizes the expertise of the maritime industry
and provides some flexibility when creating regulations where possible.
The existing maritime safety regulations, while prescriptive in nature,
permit the use of new technology and novel equipment as long as the
regulatory intent is met. Similarly, maritime security regulations
promote innovation through outcome-based requirements.
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen
Loran-C
Question 1. The Coast Guard's FY 2007 budget proposal calls for the
elimination of the Loran-C navigation system. As you know, Loran is
used by general aviators, recreational boaters, commercial fisherman
and the military as a backup to the Global Positioning System (GPS). It
is, in fact, the only multi-modal backup to GPS. The Coast Guard's
proposal is troubling given that Congress has appropriated more than
$160 million since 1997 to modernize the Loran system and the
Department of Transportation is currently formulating a new policy on
the long-term continuation of the Loran system. It is unclear that the
Coast Guard coordinated this request with other Federal agencies or
that it thought through the national security implications of
eliminating Loran or its impact on civilian users.
Can you explain how the Coast Guard's proposal was coordinated with
the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration,
the Department of Defense, and any other affected agencies?
Answer. The 2005 Federal Radionavigation Plan, the official source
of radionavigation policy and planning for the Federal Government, was
jointly prepared by the Departments of Defense, Transportation and
Homeland Security. This document was signed by Secretaries Rumsfeld,
Mineta and Chertoff, and was published on February 10, 2006. The 2005
Federal Radionavigation Plan states:
``The Department of Defense has determined that Loran is no longer
needed as a positioning, navigation or timing aid for military users.''
``With respect to aviation, the Federal Aviation Administration has
determined that sufficient alternative navigational aids exist in the
event of a loss of the Global Positioning System based services, and
therefore Loran is not needed as a backup navigation aid for aviation
users.''
``With respect to maritime safety, the Coast Guard has determined
that sufficient back-ups are in place to support safe maritime
navigation in the event of a loss of the Global Positioning System
services, and therefore Loran is not needed as a back-up navigational
aid for maritime safety.''
Having found no government requirement for Loran for positioning
and navigation, a study of critical infrastructure timing applications
was conducted by the Department of Homeland Security. This study
concluded Loran was not used as a backup or a tertiary system for
timing in banking and finance, emergency services, energy,
telecommunications and water critical infrastructure sectors.
Question 2. Did the Coast Guard solicit comments from civilian
organizations such as the National Boating Federation and BOAT-US?
Answer. A 2005 Maritime Administration study found limited use of
Loran in the commercial maritime community. Other non-governmental
organizations were not cited as having been surveyed.
Question 3. Do you agree with the Coast Guard's decision to
terminate Loran-C?
Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard has carefully considered the value of
Loran as a primary source of positioning, navigation and timing, or as
a back-up to the Global Positioning System. The Departments of Defense,
Homeland Security, Commerce, and Transportation have stated they do no
longer have a requirement for Loran. The Federal Aviation
Administration considers Loran a tertiary system. The Federal Railway
Administration and Federal Highway Administration have stated they have
no need for Loran. A 2005 Maritime Administration study found limited
use of Loran in the commercial maritime community. The Coast Guard
believes there are sufficient maritime back-ups and procedures in place
for marine users (commercial and private) in the event of a loss of the
Global Positioning System and, thus, has no requirement for Loran.
Having found no government requirement for Loran for positioning
and navigation, a study of critical infrastructure timing applications
was conducted by the Department of Homeland Security. This study
concluded Loran was not used as a back-up or a tertiary system in
banking and finance, emergency services, energy, telecommunications and
water critical infrastructure sectors. Having determined there is no
national requirement for Loran, I concur with the Coast Guard's
proposal to decommission the system.
Question 4. Has an analysis been conducted to determine how much it
will cost to decommission, dismantle and clean up the Loran sites and
stations to bring them into compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act?
Answer. The Coast Guard is in the process of estimating the cost to
decommission, dismantle and clean up the Loran sites and stations to
bring them into compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The analysis is not yet complete.
Question 5. If so, can you summarize the results of the analysis
and provide a copy to the Commerce Committee?
Answer. The Coast Guard National Environmental Policy Act
compliance process is not yet complete; the analysis is ongoing.
Question 6. Has the Coast Guard decided where it will transfer
personnel working at the various Loran stations? Will any employees
lose their jobs?
Answer. Uniformed personnel will be reassigned to fill vacancies
within the Coast Guard. Civilian employees will be managed through
Federal job placement programs and retirements.
Question 7. Can you tell me, in detail, where personnel would be
transferred and, if any employees lose their jobs, can you provide
information detailing how many cuts will be made and which states/
localities will be affected?
Answer. Military personnel will be transferred to vacancies based
on the needs of the service which are identified each assignment year.
Eighteen civilian positions will be eliminated. The number and
locations of these positions are listed below. Employees in these
positions will be managed through Federal job placement programs and
retirements.
No. of Civilian Positions by State
2--Alaska
2--District of Columbia
1--Florida
2--Maryland
1--Maine
3--Virginia
7--New Jersey
Safety
Question 8. The Coast Guard's Office of Safety and Compliance has
begun work on a web-based risk management system that would link
various occupational health and safety databases and allow Coast Guard
personnel to better determine how to allocate resources to help reduce
accidents and injuries.
Do you support this project and will you commit to seeing that it
is adequately funded and completed?
Answer. I commend the Coast Guard's Office of Safety and
Environmental Health for its pursuit of risk management initiatives and
understand the value of the metrics derived from a well designed,
highly integrated, web-based safety risk management system. I strongly
support our health and safety professionals in their efforts to reduce
both the rate and severity of accidents and their desire for a web-
based risk management system that will enable better protection of
Coast Guard men and women, improving their readiness and the
operational effectiveness of the service.
Ensuring the occupational health and safety of our Coast Guard men
and women through appropriate risk management is and will continue to
be an overarching priority. While our track record regarding on-duty
accidental fatalities is the best among the Armed Forces (1 accidental
on-duty fatality since 2001), preserving the readiness or our workforce
through safety awareness, education and prevention is an ongoing
process that requires continual honing. Development of a web-based risk
management system will be a major step in improving our linkage and
analysis of risk data, ultimately enabling our safety professionals to
proactively identify hazards and engage field commanders in controlling
and mitigating those hazards before mishaps occur. The Coast Guard's
Office of Safety and Environmental Health will continue its efforts to
implement a web-based risk management system while continuing to work
closely with the Department of Homeland Security in establishing
requirements for a Department-wide risk management information system,
as well as implementing CIO and CHCO functional integration
initiatives.
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen
Question 1. In your statement, you mentioned on several occasions
the dynamism of the maritime domain and that new threats are constantly
emerging that will require our future attention. Are there specific
future threats that the Coast Guard is planning for? In your
estimation, in what ways will new threats require adjustment to current
Coast Guard operations?
Answer. The U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence Program has noted
multiple direct, implied, or potential threats to maritime
infrastructure across the Nation; however, no attack operations have
materialized to definitively confirm the reports associated with these
threats or establish the credibility of the sources involved.
Nevertheless, targets identified include oil and chemical
infrastructure, cruise ships and ferries, along with bridges, tunnels
and rail infrastructure. The greatest potential for a maritime threat
to the maritime infrastructure of the United States is the ability to
introduce weapons, explosive devices, people and even weapons of mass
destruction into or through the maritime domain and across the maritime
border via intermodal means with the intent to attack the port or other
targets further inland.
The greatest observed maritime threat remains smuggling, including
Special Interest Aliens (SIAs) and illicit materials. The same factors
that facilitate successful intermodal and other supply chain trade
activity provide multiple points of exploitation for criminal smuggling
activity. The lines separating maritime drug smuggling, illegal migrant
smuggling, criminal enterprises and maritime terrorism have become less
distinct. SIAs can conceal their identities while moving through any
number of existing venues of maritime entry into the United States,
representing an ongoing threat in terms of their ability to carry out
planning, logistics or future terrorist operations in the homeland,
including our ports.
Countering the dynamic nature of the threat and the expansiveness
of the maritime domain, the Coast Guard will continue to employ a suite
of activities aimed at reducing risk, identifying vulnerabilities, and
strengthening partnerships--all with the single purpose of presenting a
unified adaptive approach to securing America's ports and waterways. To
reduce risk we have:
<bullet> Published Maritime Sentinel, the Coast Guard's strategic
plan for combating maritime terrorism.
<bullet> In conjunction with DHS, DOJ and DOD, developed the Maritime
Operational Threat Response (MOTR) Plan, which builds upon and
improves the Presidential Directive 27 process to ensure
nationally coordinated maritime operational response to address
the full spectrum of 21st Century maritime security and defense
threats to, or directed against, the United States and its
interests globally.
<bullet> Conducted Port Threat Assessments (PTAs), which provide the
local Sector Commander or Captain of the Port threat analysis
compiled from foreign, national and local intelligence
reporting and from law enforcement information, incorporating
everything from criminal enterprises to environmental activists
and extremist/terrorist-related activity.
<bullet> Had the U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence Program compile and
analyze information about activities from across the country
and the world to discern patterns of suspicious incidents that
have a maritime nexus.
<bullet> Sustained operation of thirty Field Intelligence Support
Teams (FISTs) in key U.S. ports.
<bullet> Sustained operation of Maritime Intelligence Fusion Centers
(MIFC) under each Area Commander to provide actionable
intelligence to U.S. Coast Guard operational Commanders while
also sharing that analysis with interagency partners and the
broader intelligence community.
<bullet> Developed a joint vessel monitoring effort, titled
``COASTWATCH'', with the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).
<bullet> Developed the Maritime Homeland Threat Analysis Division at
the National Maritime Intelligence Center, in conjunction with
the ONI.
<bullet> Participated on a full-time basis in the FBI National Joint
Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) and select Regional JTTFs that
include a maritime nexus.
<bullet> Executed Operation Drydock, which began in December 2002 as
a joint U.S. Coast Guard and FBI criminal and counterterrorism
investigation into national security threats and document fraud
associated with U.S. merchant mariner credentials. The
Operation Drydock databases are also used by CG Regional
Examination Centers (REC) to vet applicants seeking U.S. Coast
Guard merchant mariner documents and licenses.
<bullet> Implemented Project Scorpion, an archetypal national-level
collaborative partnership with DHS, DOJ, and DOD counterparts
under Coast Guard leadership to identify, track and intercept
special interest aliens with possible terrorist or affiliate
ties before they arrive in the U.S. via maritime means.
Achieving Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) will not involve one
capability, but rather many diverse capabilities working together in a
coordinated and integrated manner. It will require (1) maintaining and
accessing data on vessels, facilities and infrastructure, and (2)
collecting, analyzing and disseminating critical information to
decision makers to facilitate effective understanding of the global
environment, and recognizing our threats and vulnerabilities within
U.S. ports.
Rescue 21
Question 2. As you know, nationwide deployment of Rescue 21, which
was slated for 2006, is not expected until 2011. Last year the program
was funded at $41 million--well below the President's request of $101
million. I understand that this is partially due to the impression of
unobligated funds that were in fact obligated by the end of the fiscal
year. I'm concerned that the President's FY 2007 request of $39.6
million reflects continued misunderstanding and will hamper the
implementation of this important program. How did the Coast Guard
compensate for the low funding level in FY 2006 and what will the
approach be in FY 2007 under your leadership if Rescue 21 is funded at
he President's request level or below $100 million?
Answer. The Coast Guard remains committed to its 2011 project
completion date. To compensate for the funding levels in the FY 2006
enacted budget and the 2007 President's Request, the Coast Guard will
redirect a portion of the $76 million obligated in FY 2005 to procure
long lead time materials for the final 25 regional installations. These
funds will instead be used to execute an $80 million implementation
plan in FY 2007 to ensure the project is complete in 2011 per the
current program installation schedule.
Question 3. What has the Coast Guard done (or can the Coast Guard
do, in your view) to address appropriators' remaining concern, namely
extensive program delays?
Answer. Several management and oversight actions have been
initiated to ensure project completion stays on schedule to include:
<bullet> Establishing a Coast Guard Project Resident Office co-
located at the contractor's manufacturing facility to increase
government oversight.
<bullet> Initiating use of the Defense Contract Management Agency and
Defense Contract Audit Agency to assist in validating the
contractor's technical proposals and cost reasonableness.
<bullet> Scheduling a Program level Integrated Baseline Review in
2006 to verify the contractor's proposed cost, schedule, and
performance efforts in 15 Full Rate Production regions.
<bullet> Initiating monthly Integrated Project Schedule reviews
between Coast Guard and contractor.
<bullet> Conducting quarterly Coast Guard Flag level/General Dynamics
Vice President level program reviews to resolve outstanding
issues and increase senior level oversight.
<bullet> Conducting monthly Risk Management and Earned Value
Management cost performance reviews to increase program
management oversight.
<bullet> Incrementally re-pricing expired Contract Line Items for
Full Rate Production regions. Leveraging actual cost data and
program level lessons learned, resulting in more reasonable
cost targets for future work.
<bullet> Additionally, the schedules for the Vessel Subsystems and
the Ground Subsystems have been separated to avoid delaying the
Ground Subsystem deployment which is in full rate production.
Delays experienced to date during the Development (design and
prototype) Phase were a result of problems with software development,
hardware integration, testing, and associated system refinement. The
time invested to ``get the system right'' for this critical lifesaving
and command and control system was necessary prior to starting the Full
Rate Production (FRP) Phase for the remaining 40 regions.
At the start of FRP for the ground system, the Coast Guard worked
extensively with the contractor to establish a credible and realistic
project schedule, considering time lines for compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act, the significant number of
outstanding real property acquisitions and new tower construction
required, and the contractor's production capabilities.
Icebreakers
Question 4. We appreciate all your help and expertise working
towards a near and long-term plan to maintain the icebreaker fleet. The
interim National Research Council report on polar icebreakers
recommends that management of the polar icebreakers should be managed
by the Coast Guard and funded in the Coast Guard budget. As Commandant,
what will you do to ensure that the Nation's icebreaking capacity is
maintained and well managed through the Coast Guard?
Answer. Along with completing the National Research Council (NRC)
study later this year, we are also seeking a national policy decision
from the Administration to further clarify our Nation's polar
icebreaker requirements. In the short-term, we are working with the
National Science Foundation to properly fund one heavy polar icebreaker
and HEALY in accordance with the NRC interim report. Once we gain a
national policy decision, we can move forward on plans to recapitalize
our heavy polar icebreakers. If budget authority for the polar
icebreakers is returned to the Coast Guard, we would restructure the
reimbursement process to allow the Coast Guard to properly fund the
polar icebreaker fleet with well established base funds and use
reimbursements to insure the fleet is fully funded.
In order to equitably manage the polar icebreaker program used by
several other agencies, the Coast Guard would need to have the
authority to establish day rates for ``in-government'' user agencies.
To remain consistent with 1983 Arctic and Antarctic Research Policy
legislation, which outlined the requirement for polar research users to
only pay ``recurring incremental rates'' for polar icebreakers, this
needed authority would have to specify that any Coast Guard standard
day rates developed for use of polar icebreakers would not include
personnel costs but would allow the Coast Guard to manage differences
between established funding and actual costs on a yearly basis.
Oil Spills and Katrina
Question 5. There has been some confusion about the impact that
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on oil and gas platform infrastructure
in the Gulf and whether or not any spills occurred as a result. Aerial
and satellite photos taken in September 2005, show what appear to be
oil slicks emanating from damaged natural gas drilling platforms that
were in the path of the hurricanes. Is the Coast Guard aware of any
such spills or ecological damage that might have occurred as a result
of oil spills from drilling platforms?
Answer. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita impacted the oil and natural
gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico causing known oil spills and
releases of gas. The exact number of platform oil spills or gas
releases has been difficult to determine. However, as of March 27,
2006, two platforms still have unsecured discharges. Both discharges
are over sixty miles offshore in over 200 feet of water. The rig owners
are responding to close of these wells. Exact numbers are difficult as
manned platforms near the hurricanes paths were evacuated due to safety
considerations and the industry infrastructure (vessels, piers,
equipment) used to assess and make repairs were significantly damaged.
The Mineral Management Service (MMS) is currently surveying offshore
platform owners to determine the amount of oil and hazardous materials
that were lost from their platforms due to these storms. It is unknown
when this survey will be completed. Although the exact number of spills
is not known at present, there have been no reported impacts from these
natural gas and oil spills and no oil is known to have reached the
shoreline.
Traditional v. Non-Traditional Missions
Question 6. We are grateful for the Coast Guard's expertise in
their expanded role in homeland security post-9/11; however, we remain
concerned that the Coast Guard lacks sufficient support to carry out
new missions as well as traditional missions at pre-9/11 levels. In
your view, have the Coast Guard's traditional core missions, such as
fisheries enforcement, SAR, and maritime law enforcement suffered?
Answer. The Coast Guard continues to meet the demands of its
traditional missions while embracing its expanded homeland security
duties. During Fiscal Year 2005, the Coast Guard met the performance
targets for many of its core missions, including search and rescue,
marine safety, aids to navigation, domestic ice breaking, marine
environmental protection, fisheries enforcement and drug interdiction.
The Coast Guard continued to show strong performance levels even in
missions where performance targets were not reached. For instance, in
enforcing domestic compliance with Federal fisheries regulations, the
Coast Guard missed its performance goal by less than one percent--
mostly due to a variety of economic conditions beyond the Coast Guard's
control such as hurricane damage, lower catch allocations and higher
seafood prices, which have created greater incentives for fishermen to
violate the law.
The Coast Guard firmly believes that its inherent multi-mission
capabilities which, when coupled with a risk-based approach to resource
allocation, has allowed for improved efficiencies and effectiveness in
both its homeland and non-homeland security roles.
<all>