Article/Column

I have had the honor of serving as Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation for one year. During that time, I have come to learn a great deal both about the tremendous accomplishments and capabilities of the Coast Guard – and about the many challenges the service faces.

 

Similarly, I have learned about many facets of the maritime industry, including the central role that maritime transportation plays in our nation’s economy – according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, 80 percent of the volume of our foreign trade enters our nation through our ports – as well as the challenges this industry faces. 

 

During the course of 2007, I convened 13 hearings of the Subcommittee. The year’s last hearing was a special field hearing convened on November 19, 2007, in San Francisco, California, to consider the circumstances that led to the allision of the M/V COSCO BUSAN with the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge on November 7, 2007.

 

So many of the issues our Subcommittee has examined during the past year are woven into the story of the allision of the COSCO BUSAN and the spill of some 58,000 gallons of oil resulting from the accident.

 

Issues raised by the event include the performance of the pilot and the role that the Coast Guard’s vessel traffic service should play in aiding ships’ navigation. 

 

They also entail examination of the adequacy of the immediate post-incident investigation – which renews questions about the Coast Guard’s ability to fully implement the multiple responsibilities of the marine safety program, itself the subject of a separate hearing in August of last year.

 

Further, they encompass such questions as whether current oil spill response protocols are adequate as well as whether the kinds of construction standards now imposed on oil tankers should be applied to cargo ships, which continue to increase in size.

 

Our hearing also examined the significant concerns that surround the Coast Guard’s management of the response to the oil spill, including the accuracy of the service’s assessment of the spill’s size and the adequacy of the notification provided to other authorities participating in the area response plan.

 

Important information on the allision and oil spill response were provided during the hearing by our witnesses, including the Coast Guard, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Mayor of San Francisco, California state agencies, and a number of local entities, including Save the Bay, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and the San Francisco Bar Pilots Association.

 

However, coming just 12 days after the allision and while active clean-up efforts were still on-going, the hearing uncovered important details about the incident but did not necessarily fit all of the pieces together to create a complete timeline of events or to allow a thorough assessment to be made of the adequacy of current maritime operating and incident response protocols.

 

For example, the Coast Guard witness, Rear Admiral Craig Bone, Commander of the Coast Guard’s Eleventh District, testified that something went terribly wrong on the ship – but no witness could clearly identify specifically what had gone wrong. 

 

For that reason, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and I have asked the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General (DHS IG) to launch an investigation of the circumstances surrounding both the COSCO BUSAN accident and the response to the oil spill.

 

This review is not meant to duplicate the many investigations underway – including the Coast Guard’s own review of its performance, the National Transportation Safety Board’s review of the incident, and any criminal investigations that may be undertaken.

 

Rather, the DHS IG’s review is meant to be a practical review of the incident to quickly identify the lessons that can be learned from the incident and inform the development of possible new legislation and operating practices needed to apply these lessons to improve the safety of the maritime industry.

 

As Subcommittee Chairman, I am convinced that simply holding a hearing to discuss a matter is not an adequate step to truly address the matter. Hearings must be followed by vigilant oversight of promised actions and by on-going investigation of continuing developments. 

 

For that reason, when government or industry has promised to take action on matters before the Subcommittee – or when future significant developments have been anticipated – I have scheduled follow-up hearings to assess the progress made on the issues and to hold all parties accountable for fulfilling the promises they have made.

 

It is in that same spirit of commitment to results that Speaker Pelosi and I have asked for the DHS IG investigation.

 

In the coming year, our Subcommittee will continue to explore issues that will shed light on the ability of the Coast Guard to balance its traditional missions with its critical homeland security missions. 

 

We will also explore the issues that are of paramount concern to day-to-day maritime operations, such as the issuance of the TWIC card, the conduct of the Coast Guard’s Administrative Law System, and the completion of some 85 pending rulemaking projects awaited by industry (including the long-overdue marine salvage and firefighting regulations).

 

Additionally, we will continue to look at emerging trends in the industry, such as the development of new maritime education programs to attract people to the industry and to create a meaningful career path for new entrants.

 

Most importantly, however, we will seek to produce results that will strengthen our Coast Guard and our maritime industry and begin to restore what should be a sense of shared commitment between them to our common national goals.