The US Naval Institute news service reports the House has passed the Department of Homeland Security budget including,

“The FY 2020 total is $49.8 million less than what the service received a year ago but is $846.7 million more than what was initially proposed in President Donald Trump’s FY 2020 budget request, according to a statement from the House Appropriations Committee.”

The 2020 budget request was discussed here. The FY2019 budget as enacted is discussed here.

It is worth noting that this bill has already been coordinated with the Senate, so it should advance without significant changes.

“The funding was part of a $1.4 trillion spending bill Senate and House negotiators created that avoids a possible federal government shutdown at the end of this week. The spending bill still needs Senate approval and Trump’s signature before becoming law.”

The Good News:

As expected the Congress bumped up the purchase of Webber class patrol craft from two units to four. ($140M requested, $260M in the bill, the FY 2019 budget provided six units for $360M). Congress has been pretty consistent in increasing the number purchased annually. This will fund FRCs #57-60. That leaves only four more units to complete the expected 64 total units anticipated for the class (58 in the program of record and six for PATFORSWA).

An additional $100M for long lead time items for the second Polar Security Cutter was added.

Congress also added another $105M for the HC-130J program. Congress also has a history of doing this as well. A similar amount was in the FY2019 budget.

The Bad News: 

The total amount in the budget is less than FY2019, and that was less than FY2018. That trend is not good.

Since the requested amount for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements (PC&I) was $1.2B, it seems likely that even with these additions, the total Budget may be well under both the $2M the Coast Guard has been saying they need annually and last year’s $2,248.26M total, but we will not know for sure until we get more detail.

There is no provision for a much talked about National Security Cutter #12, even though money was included in the FY2019 budget for long lead time items for #12.

The Not Unexpected: 

The requested amount for the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) program, $457 million for the construction of OPC #3 as well as long lead time materials for OPCs #4 and #5, was cut by $14M. That may represent nothing more than deletion of long lead time materials for OPC #5. Construction of #5 is now in the distant future, since the decision to grant Eastern Contract Relief and re-compete the contract for OPCs #5-15. This does seem to indicate Congress will allow DHS and the Coast Guard to continue with contract relief and that Eastern will construct the first four OPCs as previously announced.

Defense News has a story about the Congress authorizing sale of Coast Defense and Anti-Ship missiles to the Ukraine.

A surprising comment was that these might be fitted on the 110 foot WPBs that have been transferred to Ukraine

Speaking at the German Marshall Fund on Friday, Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister on European and Euro-Atlantic Integration, indicated that the weapons would be ideal fits for a pair of Island-class patrol boats Ukraine has received from Washington.

Those boats were “supplied without anything on them,” said Kuleba, the first member of the current Ukrainian government to visit Washington. “So we will continue working on obtaining more boats of that class, and hopefully with some of the equipment you mentioned.”

This might refer to Harpoon, but I think it is more likely that this is in reference to the Naval Strike Missile which has already been used in land based coast defense batteries.

Frankly, I think Ukraine would be better off truck mounting the missiles, in that they would be harder to target, but since many nations will be receiving retired Island class WPBs, a standard conversion might be desired by a number of nations.

The Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star cuts through Antarctic ice in the Ross Sea near a large group of seals as the ship’s crew creates a navigation channel for supply ships, January 16, 2017. The resupply channel is an essential part of the yearly delivery of essential supplies to the National Science Foundation’s McMurdo Station.US Coast Guard photo by Chief Petty Officer David Mosley

A news release. Dec. 20 is a very short deadline.

The Coast Guard released a request for information (RFI) Nov. 27 seeking industry input and feedback on the draft solicitation for the Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star service life extension project (SLEP) as part of the In-Service Vessel Sustainment program (ISVS). The SLEP effort will recapitalize a number of major systems and extend the service life of the cutter by approximately four years. This future contract will include SLEP work items and recurring maintenance in a five-year phased production schedule between 2021 and 2025.

The RFI is available here. The deadline to submit responses is Dec. 20 at 4 p.m. EST.

Polar Star, the Coast Guard’s only active heavy icebreaker, is scheduled to conduct ice breaking operations to create an ice channel for which cargo vessels will be escorted to resupply the National Science Foundation’s McMurdo Station in Antarctica. This marks the seventh time the cutter has been at the center of Operation Deep Freeze since the cutter was reactivated in 2013.

The 399-foot cutter – commissioned in 1976 – supports nine of the 11 Coast Guard statutory missions.

For more information: In-Service Vessel Sustainment program page

I am just passing this along. I confess I have not read beyond the executive summary and I will not be commenting on it. Comments are still welcome, but I have been too long out of the service to comment meaningfully.

Thanks to Brymar Consulting for bringing this to my attention.

This is a 2011 photo showing the Coast Guard Aids to Navigation Team Kodiak 38-foot Special Purpose Craft – Training Boat that collided with a Navy boat in Womens Bay on Wednesday. (Coast Guard)

Navy Times is reporting a collision between a Coast Guard ANT team in a 38 foot boat and a Navy 41 foot boat that left nine injured, including six Coast Guard and three Navy. One Navy crew member was reported in serious, but stable condition.

It would have been well after sunset when the collision occurred (7:30 PM).

Combatant Craft Medium. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Timothy M. Black/Released

USS Zephyr (PC 8) and U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment Pacific personnel, conducting operations in support of JIATF-S Operation Martillo. U.S. Navy photo by MC3 Casey J. Hopkins

Passing this along:

NSC 5 James on builders trials in the Gulf of Mexico March 30, 2015.

Passing this along:

R 060959 DEC 19
FM COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC//CG-7//
TO ALCOAST
UNCLAS //N01650//
ALCOAST 377/19
COMDTNOTE 1650
SUBJ:  WINNER ANNOUNCEMENT – 2019 HOPLEY YEATON CUTTER EXCELLENCE AND SUPERIOR
CUTTERMAN AWARDS
1. The Douglas Munro Chapter of the Surface Navy Association is honored to announce
and congratulate the recipients of the 2019 Hopley Yeaton Cutter Excellence and
Superior Cutterman Awards. The winners were selected from amongst a highly
competitive pool of nominees. This year’s winners are:
    a. Cutter Excellence Award (Large Cutter): TIE CGC JAMES (WMSL 754)/CGC STRATTON (WMSL 752)
    b. Cutter Excellence Award (Small Cutter): CGC ORCAS (WPB-1327)
    c. Superior Cutterman Award (Officer): CWO Brad Jopling – CGC POLAR STAR (WAGB 10)
    d. Superior Cutterman Award (Enlisted): YN2 Samantha Tober – USCGC HOLLYHOCK (WLB 214)
2. Hopley Yeaton Cutter Excellence Award (Large) – TIE CGC JAMES (WMSL 754)/
CGC STRATTON (WMSL 752):
    a. JAMES was the first U.S. asset on scene in the Bahamas following Hurricane
DORIAN, where the cutter acted as Commander, Task Group (CTG) Bahamas. JAMES
exercised Tactical Control (TACON) over two surface action groups, each comprised
of a medium endurance cutter and four fast response cutters, while providing air
traffic control for 32 aircraft conducting 198 sorties, answering 1388 search and
rescue calls, and saving 457 people. JAMES’ ship’s force completed three JIATF-S
patrols, seized 12,055 kgs of cocaine and delivered 64 suspected traffickers for
U.S. prosecution. JAMES also expended significant effort to achieve outstanding
engineering readiness, including $4M in maintenance contracts and an innovative
35-day post-patrol MDE repair. JAMES was the first Legend-class cutter to receive
the permanent Scan Eagle drone technology install, and achieved a 1,060 kg drug
bust during its first use.
    b. STRATTON completed a 165-day Western Pacific (WESTPAC) deployment immediately
following achievement of the Overall Operational Readiness Excellence (“E”) award.
STRATTON’s WESTPAC deployment included exercising the US-Fiji bi-lateral agreement
and acting under the TACON of Amphibious Group Seven for Exercise Talisman Sabre (TS19),
a three week Indo-Pacific Command Exercise against a fictional opposing force in the
Pacific theater. Thereafter, STRATTON shifted TACON to Combined Task Force (CTF) 73 for
exercises in the first island chain surrounding China, including Cooperation Afloat
Readiness and Training (CARAT). For numerous exercises, STRATTON was the lead planner
for divisional tactics, SAR, MDA, VBSS/MLE gunnery, cross-deck flight operations, and
fueling at sea. STRATTON conducted Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS), often
in close proximity to politically sensitive areas such as the Paracel Islands,
Senkaku Islands, Scarborough Reef, and the Korean Peninsula supporting U.N. Security
Council Resolutions (UNSCR).
    c. Honorable Mentions for the Large Cutter Award are:
       CGC BERTHOLF (WMSL 750)
       CGC POLAR STAR (WAGB 10)
       CGC RESOLUTE (WMEC 620)
3. Hopley Yeaton Cutter Excellence Award (Small) – CGC ORCAS (WPB-1327):
    a. Despite its remote location, turbulent Pacific Northwest weather conditions
and challenges with the Government Shutdown, ORCAS completed the most Living
Marine Resource (LMR) boardings of any USCG unit for FY19. These boardings
resulted in 61 safety violations, four major fisheries violations, and three
vessel terminations. ORCAS played a pivotal role during the largest meth drug
seizure in D13 history; ORCAS towed the interdicted vessel with 1,595 kgs of
methamphetamine 120NM in 10 ft seas, and stood an eight-day custody watch over
the vessel until turnover to the DEA. Managing five safe-to-sail casualties
including underway engine room flooding due to a leaking shaft and loss of both
SSDGs underway due to bad fuel, ORCAS performed flawlessly in meeting all
operational tasking. Committed to its crew and community, ORCAS hosted an
“Eight Bells” sunset cruise for 75+ family members & various local state &
federal partners, in addition to 300 hours of volunteer work for the Marshfield
Cemetery, City of North Bend, Habitat for Humanity, and Operation Rebuild Hope.
    b. Honorable Mentions for the Small Cutter Award are:
       CGC ISAAC MAYO (WPC 1112)
       CGC BAILEY BARCO (WPC 1122)
       CGC KATHERINE WALKER (WLM 552)
4. Hopley Yeaton Superior Cutterman Award (Officer) – CWO Brad Jopling:
    a. A permanent cutterman with ten years of sea time, CWO Jopling serves as Main
Propulsion Assistant (MPA) in CGC POLAR STAR (WAGB 10). In this capacity, CWO
Jopling was absolutely pivotal in ensuring POLAR STAR sailed for Operation DEEP
FREEZE 2019 in support of resupplying McMurdo station, Antarctica, and Presidential
mandates. Through his efforts, POLAR STAR completed a new $4.4M electrical
propulsion control & monitoring system upgrade to correct major system flaws and
greatly improved electrical plant reliability. CWO Jopling led the cutter through
a $10M dry dock availability, working to secure $1.3M of crucial parts and the
early discovery of correctable gaps. CWO Jopling’s inspirationally developed his
subordinates by leading drills, training, and managing crew personnel tempo
(PERSTEMPO). As a direct result of his dedication, the crew was ready to respond
to numerous fire and flooding casualties, including an out of control incinerator
fire and an electrical fire on the ship’s Westinghouse propulsion control system.
Lastly, while on deployment, hove to in Antarctic ice, CWO Jopling demonstrated
exceptional valor by entering a compartment flooded to chest level with 28 degree
water and executed an innovative repair to replace the centerline shaft seal and
enable icebreaking operations to resume.
    b. Honorable Mentions for the Superior Cutterman Award (Officer) are:
       CDR Charles Novak – CGC HARRIET LANE (WMEC 903)
       CAPT Roy Brubaker – CGC RESOLUTE (WMEC 620)
       LCDR Nicholas Zieser – CGC HAMILTON (WMSL 753)
5. Hopley Yeaton Superior Cutterman Award (Enlisted) – YN2 Samantha Tober:
    a. YN2 Samantha Tober is a temporary cutterman serving as independent duty
Yeoman in CGC HOLLYHOCK (WLB 214). Embracing the “can-do” cutterman mentality,
YN2 Tober exceled in all aspects and went the extra mile to get the job done. As
a qualified Master Helmsman, YN2 Tober completed 68 moorings, 85 Aids to Navigation
evolutions, 30 restricted waters transits, and helmed through 188 hours of
icebreaking operations. YN2 Tober revamped the cutter’s Master Helmsman JQR,
including developing ice navigation and close quarters maneuvering sections.
Through YN2’s efforts, the cutter excelled in executing CG policy and taking care
of its 50 person crew, including 100% compliance during the Finance & Administration
inspection, work-day schedule revisions, inport watch duty rotation management, crew
pay and transfers, sailor of the quarter program, and public affairs program
(personally leading over 70 tour groups). Lastly, when HOLLYHOCK was selected to
prototype a commercial Short Range UAS, YN2 volunteered to become a remote pilot,
completed 40 hours of training and instruction, passed the FAA licensing exam, and
logged 16 flight hours.
    b. Honorable Mentions for the Superior Cutterman Award (Enlisted) are:
       BM1 Luke Berghuis – CGC KIMBALL (WMSL 756)
       BM2 Donald Abey – CGC WAESCHE (WMSL 751)
       SN Matthew Sevy – CGC MOHAWK (WMEC 913)
6. The SNA will coordinate with OPCONs to recognize this year’s winners.
7. Bravo Zulu and great work to this year’s Hopley Yeaton Award recipients
and nominees. This year’s nominees were selected by panels consisted of 48
Active Duty and Retired Permanent cuttermen from the ranks of O9 to E5 who
collectively amassed 496 years of sea time. The sheer volume of praiseworthy
nominees, as well as the high quality award write-ups continues to impress.
Thank you to all commands for submitting and reviewing nominations.
8. RDML Matthew W. Sibley, Assistant Commandant for Capability, sends.
9. Internet release is authorized.

Attack on the Saudi Frigate Al Madinah (702), 30th Jan 2017

AP is reporting,

A Navy warship has seized a “significant cache” of suspected Iranian guided missile parts headed to rebels in Yemen, U.S. officials said Wednesday, marking the first time that such sophisticated components have been taken en route to the war there.

The seizure from a small boat by the U.S. Navy and a U.S. Coast Guard boarding team happened last Wednesday in the northern Arabian Sea, and the weapons have been linked to Iran.

“Convoy WS-12: A Vought SB2U Vindicator scout bomber from USS Ranger (CV-4) flies anti-submarine patrol over the convoy, while it was en route to Cape Town, South Africa, 27 November 1941. The convoy appears to be making a formation turn from column to line abreast. Two-stack transports in the first row are USS West Point (AP-23) — left –; USS Mount Vernon (AP-22) and Coast Guard manned USS Wakefield (AP-21). Heavy cruisers, on the right side of the first row and middle of the second, are USS Vincennes (CA-44) and USS Quincy (CA-39). Single-stack transports in the second row are Coast Guard manned USS Leonard Wood (AP-25) and Coast Guard manned USS Joseph T. Dickman (AP-26).”

A short article in the new US Naval Institute Proceedings makes a case for better understanding of the Coast Guard’s history as a specialized military service.

Although the Coast Guard faces myriad challenges, ranging from an aging fleet to a small budget, there is a bigger problem lurking: The service has trouble defending its place as a fighting force. This may seem trivial, but if we cannot explain how the Coast Guard fits into the national defense constellation, how can we expect politicians and taxpayers to understand the same? How can the Coast Guard expect to secure funding for its military role when even many Coasties cannot describe what makes the service military?

So why do we even want to seen as a military service? Why were we the only military service that was not paid during the last partial government shutdown. Many see the DOD as well funded while the Coast Guard survives on a shoe string (I would argue that that is not the case, but our military missions are another reason the Coast Guard should be kept healthy). If there is a war, particularly if it is a big one, the Coast Guard will be in the fight, ready—or not.

It is a good article and explains why I find the repeated reminders to the public that we only have one medal of honor recipient less than useful.

A LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel) from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned USS Samuel Chase disembarks troops of Company E, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division (the Big Red One) wading onto the Fox Green section of Omaha Beach (Calvados, Basse-Normandie, France) on the morning of June 6, 1944. American soldiers encountered the newly formed German 352nd Division when landing. During the initial landing two-thirds of Company E became casualties.

USCG Monomoy (WPB-1326) and Adak (WPB-1333), elements of PATFORSWA

USCGC Duane on North Atlantic Convoy Duty

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has again updated their report on Cutter Procurement. You can see it here. Actually it was updated twice in rapid succession, on 25 Nov. to reflect the Coast Guard’s action, and on 27 Nov. to reflect the action of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Chair and Ranking Member of that committee’s Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee in the form of what could only be described as a scathing letter to the Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.

First, I will address the changes included in the 25 Nov. update. (Page numbers are where these changes appear in the 27 Nov. update, linked above.)

Second, I will discuss the 27 Nov. update including verbatim the quoted portions of the letter that were included in the CRS report.

There are a number of alternatives to the current plan to continue construction of the first four ships at Eastern and recompete the contract for ships of essentially the same design, but that is a subject for a separate post.

—–

The 25 Nov. Update.

The Coast Guard’s November 22 update and the draft Statement of Work, which we discussed earlier, are covered on pages 14-16.

Growth in the OPC’s estimated displacement, which was also revealed in the Statement of Work, is noted at the bottom of page 4, continuing to page 5, as part of the OPC Program Overview.

OPCs … are to be less expensive and in some respects less capable than NSCs. OPCs are to have a length of 360 feet, which will make them about 86% as long as NSCs, which have a length of 418 feet. OPCs were earlier estimated to have a full load displacement of 3,500 tons to 3,730 tons, which would have made them about 80% as large in terms of full load displacement as NSCs, which have a full load displacement of about 4,500 tons. As the OPC design has matured, however, its estimated displacement has grown to about 4,500 tons, making it essentially as large as the NSC in terms of full load displacement

The decision to recompete has raised a number of “Issues For Congress” beginning on page 19 and continuing through page 23, including consideration of a 12th National Security Cutter in view of the delays in the delivery of Offshore Patrol Cutters.

—–

The 27 Nov. Update

This update reflected the HTIC’s November 25 letter to DHS regarding the program. The November 25 letter is covered on pages 16 (as part of the background information), page 23 (as part of the issues for Congress), and 27-29 (as part of the legislative activity).

November 25, 2019, Letter from House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to DHS Regarding OPC Program

A November 25, 2019, letter to the Acting Secretary of DHS from the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Chair and Ranking Member of that committee’s Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee regarding the OPC program states in part:

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has reviewed your proposal to provide extraordinary relief under Public Law 85-804 as requested by Eastern Shipbuilding Group (ESG) for the construction of the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC). We are skeptical that such truly extraordinary relief is justified given that this “crisis” was foreseeable and mostly avoidable. Further, we are concerned that this relief sets a damaging precedent that any current or future contract with the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard or Service) could be renegotiated outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

As you know, the Coast Guard is in the middle of a rnulti-decade, multi-billion-dollar recapitalization of its cutter fleets. Last fall, the Service entered into a fixed price contract with ESG for the largest single acquisition in its history for the OPC. Shortly after entering into that contract, on October 10, 2018, Hurricane Michael hit the ESG shipyard and devastated the surrounding Panama City, Florida area where much of the shipyard workforce lived. The shipyard claims the impacts of the disaster rendered its facilities and workforce incapable of meeting the terms of the contract. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Service now propose to expand the timeframes for the delivery of each of the first four OPCs, spend up to an additional $659 million to complete those cutters, and then re-compete the contract earlier than previously planned. The decision to proceed with the current contractor raises a number of concerns for the Committee. Foremost among those concerns being the delay in delivering the cutters as well as the use of the Public Law No. 85-804 authority, which ultimately eliminates the Coast Guard’s claim of getting the best value through a firm, fixed-price contract. If that were a priority for the Service, it would make more sense to pivot to a contractor who had competed for the original contract and is positioned to execute on it rather than create continued uncertainty around the OPC.

For more than a decade, the Committee has tracked the widening capability gap between the existing legacy fleet of Medium Endurance Cutters (MECs)—several built during the Vietnam War—and the commissioning of new OPCs. During that time, the Committee has repeatedly urged the Coast Guard to undertake a ship life extension program (SLEP) for the MECs and advocated for the Service to look at alternative methods to acquire new mission capabilities. Due to limited funding provided for the Coast Guard’s Procurement, Construction and Improvements account, the Service made the decision to defer initiating an MEC SLEP to partially offset the loss of MEC capability as those cutters aged out. Rather than heeding the Committee’s caution, the Service decided to prioritize construction of the OPCs at the earliest possible time to allow the Coast Guard to continue to effectively carry out its law enforcement, drug and migrant interdiction, and search and rescue missions.

The Service then compounded the risks of this “all-or-nothing” strategy by entering into a contract with ESG; a company that has never built a ship for the Federal government and whose bid came in at a per-vessel price far below that of other qualified bidders. This action led many observers to question whether the Coast Guard was taking too great a risk, but the Service believed, nonetheless, that the risk was acceptable.

Regrettably, ESG began lobbying lawmakers for “relief” from the contract barely six months after agreeing to its terms. Within nine months, ESG formally notified the Coast Guard that they could no longer meet the contractual schedule or deliver the OPC at the contract price.

In all, it appears the Coast Guard’s initial failure to adequately examine the risks of using a shipyard with no government shipbuilding experience could be perpetuated by DHS granting this extraordinary relief under Public Law No, 85-804. The Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard, along with DHS, embarked on exploring options to resuscitate ESG and prevent it from defaulting on the OPC contract without first completing a transparent and objective alternatives analysis. Additionally, the veil of secrecy regarding its analysis and the absence of any meaningful consultation by the Coast Guard and DHS with the Committee, provides us scant confidence that any revised OPC contract will not encounter a similar fate as the original contract.

Accordingly, the Committee would like to know: 

• Why did the Coast Guard fail to stop construction on hull #1 as soon as they learned the contractor was informing lawmakers that it would be unable to meet the terms of the contract? 
• What interim measures are available to mitigate the lost mission capabilities while the OPC contract is being delayed and recompeted? 
• Is the Coast Guard considering the use of leased barges to support helicopter operations, the acquisition of additional National Security Cutters or Fast Response Cutters, or other available options? 
• What national security missions will be carried out by each of the four OPCs for which relief is sought? 
• What is the status of the ship life extension program for the 270B MECs?

Regarding a revised OPC contract, the Committee would like to know? 

• Has the Department requested authority from Congress to expedite the re-compete of the OPC contract? 
• How will the Coast Guard ensure that no additional extraordinary relief will be needed beyond the potential upward limit of $659 million and the proposed schedule extensions? 
• Are the federal/non-federal share lines for each of the first four OPCs set in the DHS decision granting limited Public Law No. 85-804 extraordinary relief, and if not, what are these share lines and what is their justification request? 
• In which fiscal years will it be necessary to request funds above the amounts projected for the OPCs in the Coast Guard’s latest Capital Improvement Plan? In what amounts? 
• On what ship design will the re-compete be based? 
• Can you confirm that the Coast Guard owns the OPC design? 
• How many additional construction hours above the amount on which the initial bid was based are now anticipated for each of hulls #1-4? 
• What controls will be instituted to ensure that there is no excessive overage in production hours? 
• What conditions do the Coast Guard intend to include in a revised contract to ensure transparency in all financial transactions; accountability with all performance metrics and timetables for deliverables; certification and notification standards and protocols before the Coast Guard or DHS exercises an option on hulls #2-4? 
• Given the fact that the contractor is unable to perform under the terms of the original contract, will any effort be made to receive the performance bond associated with the contract?

The Committee will continue to investigate these issues and closely monitor this situation. We are concerned about the impacts any further delays of this contract will have on the Service’s ability to carry out its critical mission responsibilities and the overall impact the escalated cost of producing these assets will have on the Coast Guard’s Procurement, Construction and Improvements account for the foreseeable future. As we begin negotiations with the Senate on the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2019, we will examine if further legislation is necessary to protect U.S. taxpayers from profligate, unwise spending, notwithstanding the urgent need to provide the Coast Guard with the modern assets it needs to remain the world’s preeminent Coast Guard.