Order Code RS20924
Updated July 11, 2002
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Homeland Security: Coast Guard Legislation
in the 107th Congress
Martin R. Lee
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
House-passed H.R. 1699, House-passed H.R. 3507, and S. 951, as reported, would
authorize the agency’s programs for FY2002. The Senate and House-passed versions
of a port security bill, S. 1214, are in conference. In passing it, the House added the
FY2002 authorization language of H.R. 3507. The Senate Commerce Committee
approved a seaport security bill, S. 2329, on May 17. House-passed H.R. 1099 contains
various personnel, maritime safety, advisory group, and miscellaneous provisions.
Another reported bill, H.R. 2481, the Omnibus Maritime Improvement Act of 2001
contains numerous provisions on Coast Guard operations and activities
P.L. 107-20 (H.R. 2216), the FY2001 emergency supplemental appropriations bill,
increased FY2001 Coast Guard funding by $92 million. A terrorism FY2001
supplemental, P.L. 107-38, included $18 million for the recall of Coast Guard reservists.
For FY2002 funding, Congress approved P.L. 107-87, the DOT appropriations bill
which contains $5.03 billion for the Coast Guard. Congress also included in the
Emergency Terrorism Supplemental, P.L.107-118 ( H.R. 3338, Division B) an
additional $209 million for Coast Guard activities following September 11. Another
FY2002 supplemental, H.R. 4775, now in conference, would also increase current
appropriations, $661 million under the Senate version and $288 million under the
House version.
Among the several bills proposing to move the Coast Guard into a new Department
of Homeland Security are the Administration’s proposal, H.R. 5005, and S. 2452 as
reported (S. Rept. 107-175) by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on June
24, 2002. On July 11, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
recommended that the Coast Guard not be moved but be maintained in the Department
of Transportation.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
Introduction
Congress generally authorizes the programs of the U.S. Coast Guard and
appropriates annually in the Department of Transportation bill.1 FY1999 is the last year
that programs were formally authorized by Congress.
The Coast Guard is a multi-function agency with a mission to protect people, the
environment, and U.S. economic interests in coastal and ocean waters. For a full
description of responsibilities, see [http://www.uscg.mil/services.html]. Increased duties
related to high seas illegal drug trafficking and immigration have added to the agency’s
obligations and increased the complexity of the issues it faces. Congress continues to be
concerned with how the agency is responding operationally to these new demands and
managing plans to replace many of its aging vessels and aircraft.
Coast Guard Authorization Legislation for FY2002
House-passed H.R. 3507 and Senate-reported S. 951 were the main FY2002
reauthorization bills. On June 4, in passing a port security bill, S. 1214, the House added
the authorization language of House-passed H.R. 3507. Table 1 shows the major
differences in their proposed authorization levels.
The House passed an authorization bill, H.R. 1699 June 7, 2001. It would have
authorized a total of $5.3 billion for all Coast Guard programs in six major accounts. The
House later passed, under suspension, H.R. 3507 which would authorize Coast Guard
programs at $5.9 billion for FY2002, the same authorization levels adopted in S. 1214 on
June 4. A similar Senate bill, S. 951, would authorize $5.2 billion, and was reported
October 31 by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (S.Rept.
107-89). Table 1 shows the recommended authorization levels of House-passed H.R.
3507/S. 1214 and S. 951 as reported compared to FY1999, the last year in which
programs were authorized.
Operations and Maintenance. H.R. 3507 and S. 1214 as passed by the House
would authorize Coast Guard operation and maintenance activities at $4.2 billion for
FY2002. $623 million of this is authorized to be available for domestic maritime
homeland security. S. 951 would authorize this account at $3.6 billion and does not
specify an allocation for domestic maritime security.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements. House-passed H.R. 3507 and S.
1214 authorize Coast Guard acquisition activities, construction and capital improvements
at a FY2002 level of $717.8 million. The Senate bill’s level is $669.0 million.
For FY2002, H.R. 3507 and S. 1214 authorize $58.5 million for domestic maritime
homeland security vessels and detection equipment. They also authorize $338 million
from this account for implementing Phase II of the Deepwater Capabilities Replacement
Project. This is a critical year for this $10 billion project since the first contracts for actual
construction were recently awarded. The Senate bill does specify these allocations.
1 For a discussion of FY2002 appropriations, see CRS Report RL31008, Appropriations for
FY2002: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies.

---

CRS-3
Table 1. Major Coast Guard Activities Authorized
(in billions of dollars)
FY1999
FY2002
FY2002
(last year
House-passed
S. 951, as
Account
authorized)
H.R. 3507 & S.
reported
1214
Operation and Maintenance
2.854
4.204
3.633
Acquisition and Construction
0.510
0.717
0.669
Research, Development, Test,
0.018
0.022
0.022
Evaluation
Retired Pay
0.692
0.876
0.876
Alteration of Bridges
0.026
0.016
0.016
Environmental Compliance
0.026
0.017
0.017
TOTAL Authorization
4.126
5.854
5.223
* Totals may not add due to rounding. Senate-passed S. 1214 does not contain authorization provisions.
Other Portions of the Authorization. H.R. 3507 and S. 1214 would authorize
Coast Guard research, testing, development and related activities at a $21.7 million for
FY2002; S. 951, at $22 million. For mandatory retirement benefits, the authorized amount
is $876 million under both House and Senate bills for FY2002. Under both bills,
alteration of bridges would be authorized at $16 million; for complying with
environmental laws and performing environmental restoration activities the levels are
$17.0 million FY2002.
Military Strength and Training. The House bill would increase the authorized
number of active-duty personnel from 38,038 previously to 44,000 in FY2002. The
Senate bill would set the level at 40,000.
Coast Guard Funding
The Coast Guard appropriation is constrained, and its management challenged, by
increased responsibilities for drug and illegal immigrant interdiction on the high seas as
well as by its aging water craft and aircraft. Enhanced responsibilities in the wake of
September 11th have greatly added to Coast Guard duties.
FY2002. The Administration requested $5.056 billion for Coast Guard funding in
FY2002. The House approved $5.03 billion (H.R. 2299; H.Rept. 107-108), $60 million
less than requested. The Senate approved $5.102 billion (H.R. 2299; H.Rept. 107-108,
amended by S. 1178, in the nature of a substitute). P.L. 107-87 (H.Rept. 107-308)
included $5.03 billion.
P.L. 107-20 (H.R. 2216), the FY2001 emergency supplemental bill, increased
FY2001 Coast Guard funding by $92 million. A terrorism FY2001 supplemental of
September 21, 2001, P.L. 107-38, included $18 million in additional FY2001 funds for
the recall of Coast Guard reservists. House-passed H.R. 3338, the Defense Appropriations

---

CRS-4
bill in Division B, the FY2002 Supplemental, would have increased the Coast Guard’s
operating appropriation by $144.9 million, funds directly in support of September 11-
related activities ; the Senate-reported substitute (S.Rept. 107-109) included $273 million.
On December 7, the Senate Committee substitute was ruled out of order by the Chair. The
same day the Senate passed the Byrd /Stevens/Inouye amendment to H.R. 3338, which
included $285.35 million for the Coast Guard in Division B, Transfers from the
Emergency Response Fund Pursuant to P.L. 107-38. The final version, P.L. 107-118,
included $209 million for Coast Guard terrorism-related activities.
The requested $3.38 billion ($197.8 million, or 6% more than FY2001) would have
been allocated to operation and maintenance of a wide range of ships, boats, aircraft,
shore units, and aids to navigation. The House approved $3.38 billion; the Senate
approved $3.43 billion; and the conferees $3.38 billion. For acquisition, construction, and
improvement; the Administration sought $659.3 million; the House approved $600
million; the Senate approved $669.3 billion; and, the conferees $636.4 million. For
complying with environmental regulations and cleaning up contaminated sites, conferees
approved $16.9 million. $15.5 million was requested and approved for altering bridges
The $21.7 million approved by the House and Senate for research and development was
the same as the amount requested, and slightly more than the $20.2 million approved by
the conferees. The allocation approved for retirement pay will be $876.3 million, the
same as requested. The Administration requested, and conferees approved, $83.2 million
to train, support, and sustain a ready military Selected Reserve Force of 8,000 members
For FY2002 deepwater replacement, $338 million was requested; the final version
included $320 million. Actual purchases of nearly $10 billion are anticipated over a
20-year period beginning in FY2002. In approving the bill, Congress included legislative
language requiring a capital investment plan for the Coast Guard.
FY2003. The Administration requests budget authority of $7.275 billion for Coast
Guard funding in FY2003. Compared to the $5.702 billion appropriated in FY2002, the
FY2003 request would be $1.573 billion, or 28%, more. Planned increases of $733
million for Coast Guard operating expenses, $92 million for acquisitions, and a new $736
retirement fund payment account for most of the proposed increase. Coast Guard
programs are usually authorized every 2 years; see also CRS Report RS21125, Homeland
Security: Coast Guard Operations–Background and Issues for Congress and CRS Report
RS21079, Maritime Security: Overview of Issues, for discussions of related issues.
The FY2003 budget request is intended to allow the Coast Guard to continue its
activities against drug smuggling and to recapitalize aircraft and vessel fleets while it
conducts accelerated Homeland Security activities. A requested $4.635 billion ($733.0
million, or 19%, more than FY2002) is for operation and maintenance of a wide range of
ships, boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids to navigation. This includes $340.0 million in
defense-related funding. Another major component of the request is allocated to
acquisition, construction, and improvement. The Administration seeks $735.8 million,
$92. 0 million, or 14%, more than current year funding. For complying with
environmental regulations and cleaning up contaminated Coast Guard sites, the budget
seeks $17.3 million. No funds are requested for altering bridges; $15.5 million was
appropriated for the current year. The $23.1. million for research and development would
be slightly more than current year funding. Other Coast Guard requested funding

---

CRS-5
includes $62.1 million for spill clean-up and initial damage assessment, available without
further appropriation from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
The chief current issue is how the Coast Guard is handling heightened security
responsibilities with its many other responsibilities such as search and rescue, and
enforcement of laws and treaties. About half of the planned $733 million increase for
operating activities is to be allocated among Homeland Security and these traditional
activities. Another prominent issue has been the Coast Guard’s management of a major
planned replacement of aging and outmoded high seas vessels and aircraft, with a special
emphasis on improving the Coast Guard’s capabilities on the high seas or in deep waters.
Only planning and analysis funds were included for FY1998 through FY2001. Key dates
include July 2001, when industry teams submitted their design and construction
proposals; and the second quarter of FY2002, when the Coast Guard will award the
contracts to begin the replacement program. For FY2003, $500 million is requested, a
$200 million or 63% increase over current year funding. Actual purchases of nearly $10
billion are anticipated over a 20-year period beginning in FY2002. CRS Report 98-830,
Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater System: Background and Issues for Congress,
discusses the issues associated with the program.
Transferring the Coast Guard to a Department of Homeland
Security
Senate Governmental Affairs-reported S. 2452 (S. Rept. 107-175) section 102 and
the Administration’s proposal, H.R. 5005 section 402, would transfer the agency to the
new department and place it under a new border and transportation security
undersecretary or directorate. Both bills state that the Coast Guard would be maintained
as a distinct entity in the new department. (See also CRS Report RS21125, Homeland
Security: Coast Guard Operations–Background and Issues for Congress.)
Some Members of Congress and others are concerned that certain non-security
functions such as boating safety, search and rescue, and fishing regulation may receive
a low priority under the proposed arrangement. On this, the Senate report on S. 2452
stated: “The Coast Guard and Customs would be maintained as distinct entities, however,
and all of the transferred programs and agencies would retain and be required to continue
their non-security missions. For instance, the Coast Guard’s search and rescue operations
would not be diminished.”2 In making its July 11 legislative recommendations on H.R.
5005, the House Transportation and Infrastructure recommended that the Coast Guard
remain in DOT, a new Coast Guard Vice Commandant for Homeland Security be
created, and all core missions be performed at adequate levels.
Other Legislation
Coast Guard Personnel and Maritime Safety Act. On March 22, 2001, the
House passed H.R. 1099, the Coast Guard Personnel and Maritime Safety Act of 2001.
It includes several personnel provisions in title I, five provisions on maritime safety in
title II, provisions renewing six advisory groups in title III, and twelve miscellaneous
provisions. Noteworthy among the miscellaneous provisions is section 420 requiring
2 S.Rept. 107-175, p. 12.

---

CRS-6
vessels to notify the Coast Guard before entering the territorial sea, whereas they are
currently required to notify before approaching a port. S. 1214 has some of these
provisions.
Omnibus Maritime Improvement Act.. H.R. 2481 was reported (amended)
October 16, 2001 by the Committee on Transportation (H.Rept. 107-243) and
sequentially referred to the Committee on Armed Services. It includes certain housing
and various safety provisions.
Port Security. House- and Senate-passed S. 1214, now in conference, would
amend the 1936 Merchant Marine Act amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, to
establish a program to ensure greater port security for United States, including a grant
program. The Senate Commerce Committee approved a seaport security bill, S. 2329,
on May 17. (See CRS Report RS21079, Maritime Security: Overview of Issues, for
further discussion)
Key Policy Issues: New Pressures and the Coast Guard’s
Response
At the same time that the Coast Guard has assumed significantly increased
responsibilities for high seas enforcement, its deepwater-capable cutters and aircraft are
aging and increasingly inadequate. To address this, the Coast Guard launched a major
acquisition program called the Integrated Deepwater System which would require an
estimated $9.6 billion acquisition program over 20 years beginning in FY2002. CRS
Report 98-830, Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater System: Background and Issues for
Congress, describes the state of the Coast Guard fleet, Coast Guard’s plans and some of
the issues associated with the deepwater program.
Everyday operations appear to challenge the agency now. To support current
operational demands, the Coast Guard has had to shift funds from other priorities. At a
December 6th House Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Navigation hearings, Members, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Commandant
of the Coast Guard expressed concern over the Coast Guard’s ability to balance all its
responsibilities. Long-term strategic planning and budgeting appears necessary in light
of what the Commandant calls the “new normalcy.” Key to the Coast Guard’s enhanced
role in national security will be how its functions, and is funded, in the nation’s new
homeland security effort.
The provisions to transfer the Coast Guard to the proposed Department of Homeland
Security have generated a key issue: how some non-security programs, such as search and
rescue will fare in a new department having security as a top mission. The Senate report
language on S. 2452 has expressed the Senate’s intent that traditional Coast Guard
activities be retained and continued. The House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee favors keeping the Coast Guard in the Department of Transportation and
continuing support for non-security functions.

---