Given the complexity of our port system, and given the fact that trade is going to triple on the high seas in the next 15, 20 years, do you see the federal role creating some national standards for our U.S. ports; and if the trade is going to triple, and the number of ships is going to increase, will there have to be an increase in manpower in the Coast Guard in order to stay up with inspecting each one of those ships? And it's my understanding, in some ports or maybe it's a Coast Guard policy-that you board every ship that comes into the U.S. ports at least once a year. Admiral KRAMEK. And cruise ships, once a quarter. Do we need more? Not necessarily. What we need is a coordinated effort. I've put together a waterways management plan. I presented it to the Secretary of Transportation. This is intermodalism in its best sense, because these ports and these cargoes have to be properly linked to railheads, to highway hubs, to airports. This is part of intermodal surface transportation, and when we talk about reauthorization of such things as ISTEA, I'm always struck by how little it says about the water, when 95 percent of our imports and exports are connected to that. It pretty much focuses on our land systems and our aviation systems-but land systems rath er. I've made a proposal to the secretary, and he has accepted it; that the Department of Transportation take the lead in coordinating a number of Federal agencies. The Corps of Engineers for example, receives funds through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in order to do the dredging. NOAA does all the charting. The Coast Guard does all the aids to navigation and inspecting. And then we work together with all the municipalities. So there's about a dozen different groups involved. The Coast Guard now chairs the Interagency Working Group on Waterways Management. Next month we will provide an implementation plan to the Secretary, where the Secretary of Transportation will take the lead in developing a world class waterways management system to prepare us for the 21st century, Mr. Chairman. That's on track. It's something we need to coordinate and provide leadership for before we throw money at it. In my view, right now we have to manage a little bit differently In the case of ship inspection, I asked for more funds to receive more inspectors. I didn't get them, so I've taken a different tact. We've adopted a Port State Control regime here in the United States, which means we've put together a matrix on who the least safe ships, least safe operators, least safe countries are. We target our inspections on those. There are 14 foreign flag vessels for every U.S. flag vessel that sails in U.S. ports. I'm only inspecting the foreign flag vessels and only those that have poor safety records or poor ownership records. It had been our norm to detain about 50 to 70 vessels a year that were unsafe. This last year, we detained over 550 vessels but the safety in our ports has increased as a result of that. On July 1st the International Maritime Organization and 153 nations decided to adopt an International Safety Management Code. And on July 1st, foreign flag vessels not adhering to the International Safety Management Code or not having adopted that amount of money now for the next 10 years. And in fact, when you put inflation and cost of living expenses, all that on it, you have decreased buying power. Mr. GILCHREST. So, I guess what I'm Admiral KRAMEK. But that's because the Congress and the Administration signed a balanced budget agreement, and so we're all living with those caps. And when you're flatlined like that, why you can't get there from here. So the Strategy points this out, and it says that each year in order to meet the targets there's going to have to be budget decisions that will allow us to meet the target. Last year I could meet the target. Can I meet it this year? Not quite. Mr. GILCHREST. I think we as people, if we're going to take this seriously, have to sit down and set goals for ourselves, and we have to be flexible. We want to balance the budget, and we understand all those ramifications, but out of a 1.7 trillion federal budget annually, I'm sure we can set goals that prioritize the most important things, and we as members can help you achieve what we all collectively want, and that's to reduce drug use by American citizens. Admiral KRAMEK. It doesn't take that much more, Mr. Chairman. As I showed you in some of the charts in the classified briefing, we're not far off the mark, and it doesn't take that much more to do a better job. Mr. GILCHREST. Then we'll work with you to ensure that small extra amount. You said something, Admiral, about-moving away from drug interdiction, and we take it seriously. We want to work very aggressively to pursue that goal during the rest of this session, and the sessions to come. You said something that caught my imagination as far as maritime trade tripling in-how many years? Admiral KRAMEK. The next 15 to 20 years. Mr. GILCHREST. The next 15 to 20 years. The source of that. Admiral KRAMEK. There are various commerce reports put together by the Department of Commerce. The United States is still considered an island nation with respect to trade. Ninety-five percent of our imports and exports, quantity-wise, go by sea. This amount of trade is going to triple in the next 15 or 20 years, and so the Coast Guard has developed a plan for a waterways management system-vessel traffic systems that we do and aids to navigation; they're all part of that. In order for the United States to maintain its global competitiveness in this environment, we have to world class waterways management system, such as they do in other nations; Singapore, the Netherlands. Mr. GILCHREST. Admiral, based on what you just said Mr. GILCHREST. our free capitalistic market economy is based on competition, but that competition extends also from one port to the next, and the ports all have various rules, somewhat different regulations. One port dredges to 40 feet; the next port wants to dredge to 50 feet; somebody else wants to dredge at 60 feet. Given the complexity of our port system, and given the fact that trade is going to triple on the high seas in the next 15, 20 years, do you see the federal role creating some national standards for our U.S. ports; and if the trade is going to triple, and the number of ships is going to increase, will there have to be an increase in manpower in the Coast Guard in order to stay up with inspecting each one of those ships? And it's my understanding, in some ports-or maybe it's a Coast Guard policy-that you board every ship that comes into the U.S. ports at least once a year. Admiral KRAMEK. And cruise ships, once a quarter. Do we need more? Not necessarily. What we need is a coordinated effort. I've put together a waterways management plan. I presented it to the Secretary of Transportation. This is intermodalism in its best sense, because these ports and these cargoes have to be properly linked to railheads, to highway hubs, to airports. This is part of intermodal surface transportation, and when we talk about reauthorization of such things as ISTEA, I'm always struck by how little it says about the water, when 95 percent of our imports and exports are connected to that. It pretty much focuses on our land systems and our aviation systems-but land systems rath er. I've made a proposal to the secretary, and he has accepted it; that the Department of Transportation take the lead in coordinating a number of Federal agencies. The Corps of Engineers for example, receives funds through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in order to do the dredging. NOAA does all the charting. The Coast Guard does all the aids to navigation and inspecting. And then we work together with all the municipalities. So there's about a dozen different groups involved. The Coast Guard now chairs the Interagency Working Group on Waterways Management. Next month we will provide an implementation plan to the Secretary, where the Secretary of Transportation will take the lead in developing a world class waterways management system to prepare us for the 21st century, Mr. Chairman. That's on track. It's something we need to coordinate and provide leadership for before we throw money at it. In my view, right now we have to manage a little bit differently In the case of ship inspection, I asked for more funds to receive more inspectors. I didn't get them, so I've taken a different tact. We've adopted a Port State Control regime here in the United States, which means we've put together a matrix on who the least safe ships, least safe operators, least safe countries are. We target our inspections on those. There are 14 foreign flag vessels for every U.S. flag vessel that sails in U.S. ports. I'm only inspecting the foreign flag vessels and only those that have poor safety records or poor ownership records. It had been our norm to detain about 50 to 70 vessels a year that were unsafe. This last year, we detained over 550 vessels but the safety in our ports has increased as a result of that. On July 1st the International Maritime Organization and 153 nations decided to adopt an International Safety Management Code. And on July 1st, foreign flag vessels not adhering to the International Safety Management Code or not having adopted that code will not be allowed into U.S. ports. We will enforce this with Port State Control inspections. So a great deal has been done. I want to compliment the shipping industry, because we couldn't have done it without them. For U.S. flag vessels, I've delegated responsibility to the American Bureau of Shipping to inspect these ships for us through their Alternate Compliance Program, authorized by legislation that this committee passed a couple of years ago. And last year you gave me authorization to extend that inspection power to other classification societies, and now I have just delegated authority to help us in inspections to Norske Veritas, and we're talking to the Germans as well. We're going to international standards. Our goal is that our ports, our waterways, our ships, our safety, all meet international standards. We represent the United States at the International Maritime Organization, and I feel that international standards will be better for our shippers, better for our shipyards, better for our safety, better for our mariners. Those international standards are very high indeed. Where we have a difference within international standards now, it is because our standards are higher. We're trying to work internationally through the IMO to convince them it to raise their standards to meet ours. Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Admiral. I'm going to move along. I had a number of other questions, one of which, since you raised the safety of shipping and international cooperation, was ship scrapping. But we'll hold that for another time. Mr. Clement. Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral Kramek, after the many Supreme Court cases on the differences between a fee and a tax, do your attorneys believe that the Coast Guard has the legal authority to prescribe indirect user fees for aid to navigation services, and if so, then why did the Coast Guard seek legislative authority for these fees during the Reagan Administration? Admiral KRAMEK. It's the way one would describe user fees that's controversial. We've been tasked with coming up with a user fee for people that would directly use the services that we provide. If we're successful in describing the service that way, we believe that the existing user fee authority that the Federal government has and that the Coast Guard has, will be sufficient to collect those fees in the same way that we've withstood court cases for user fees for documentation of vessels, inspection of vessels, mariners licenses, and such. We have just started this month to study and investigate who would pay the fees. Would it just be for cargo vessels? And I can tell you that, we believe it'll just be for cargo vessels. It exempts fishermen, it exempts recreational boaters. It would probably exempt public vessels, Department of Defense, et cetera, police vessels. We're just in the process of describing this. My budget for the construction of the new ships that I referenced in my opening statement said that we needed, to do the job we have to do today and for the 21st century, is dependent on those fees. The way the budget is presented, I need $35 million in this 1999 budget, so I have great incentive to try to describe a user fee system that Congress will find acceptable. It needs to be in my appropriation language and in the record for me to be able to collect those fees, and have them go to my acquisition, construction and improvements account to pay for my shipbuilding costs. Those fees increase to $165 million in collections I'm to make in the year 2000, which includes icebreaking user fees for the Great Lakes. So I'm very carefully looking at how to properly assess those fees within the existing user fees statutes, and present it to Congress so that you'd find it acceptable. If not, I go at great risk of being able to have the ships, and boats, and planes, that I need to do the job for the American public. It's clear that the $440 million that the Administration asks for in this budget for my acquisition program is desperately needed by the Coast Guard. My target is $650 to $700 million a year, that I ask for. I've not been able to achieve that, either with the Administration or Congress. This is bare bones. And so if the user fees are found to be illegal or you don't approve them, then I'm at risk for the assets that I need to do my job. Mr. CLEMENT. Admiral, based on the Coast Guard's projected workload data in Fiscal Year 1998, you've reduced cutter and aircraft drug interdiction hours about 25 percent. Based on your interdiction projections, you should have seized approximately 72,000 pounds on marijuana and cocaine at this point in the fiscal year. Have you interdicted the 72,000 pounds you projected? Admiral KRAMEK. Well, we've just started this fiscal year. Just this last week alone we interdicted 15,000 pounds of cocaine. And our projection is that we'll be able to meet our target. Part of the reason that there's less operating hours, is that there was some supplemental budget activity the year past that gave more assets. As you recall, there was a supplemental appropriation of $250 million that the Administration asked for to conduct counternarcotics efforts. Rather than task that supplemental, the Congress at the last minute asked their committees to divide up those funds to the agencies they were responsible for. As a result, the Coast Guard received money through ONDCP, that stood up Operation Frontier Shield around Puerto Rico, and made the operation so successful. Those funds haven't been sustained. I mean, they haven't been continued on, because of the Balanced Budget Agreement. So while we had a great impetus-and this was right before the presidential election, as you'll recall, because we had a lot of hearings on thisthere's great impetus to plus this up and do something and America was moving together. I think this has settled down a little bit. On the other hand, the drug czar's budget this year is more robust than it's ever been before. I'd ask for a billion dollars more distributed over all the things that General McCaffrey has to do. I would just point out that the amount for interdicting is about the same. It's a little bit less than 10 percent. So can you reach the targets from there? My answer is no. Not until either the caps are raised or some more oversight is given to this to determine what the distribution should be. Mr. CLEMENT. Admiral, the Coast Guard is evidently not getting support from other administration offices in getting the resources |