PROCEEDINGS: In your recent change- of-command address, you stated, “In the future, we must recognize that all of the Coast Guard’s operational missions are equally important. ‘Balance’ will be our watchword.” This seems to indicate that you believe that such a balance has been lacking. Is this true?
KIME: In the field there is a perception that perhaps we have overemphasized our drug-interdiction and our military readiness effort—in the minds of some—to the detriment of our other missions. To the extent that such a perception exists, we certainly want to correct it. To the extent that that’s a fact, we want to correct it. All of our missions are equally important. The public, the Congress, the President as well as the Coast Guard are concerned about the enforcement of drug and fisheries laws. But we’re also concerned about the protection of the marine environment. I especially want to emphasize search and rescue, aids to navigation, our boating safety, and our icebreaking programs.
We want to make certain that our people know that we recognize the importance of our support people, whether they be enlisted storekeepers, yeomen, cooks, technicians, or whether they be officers who are lawyers, engineers, personnel specialists, finance specialists, or health care providers. The support they provide is equally important, because without it we would not have been able to maintain our high level of performance.
We’ve been tested by many events in the last few months—the Exxon Valdez oil spill and all the oil spills that have followed, Hurricane Hugo in the Caribbean and South Carolina, and also the earthquake out in the San Francisco Bay area. One reason we’ve been able to respond so well is that we’ve had a balanced operating capability and support system. We need to make sure we maintain that, both in fact and in perception.
PROCEEDINGS: Does this mean you’re going to have to pull some assets away from the drug war?
KIME: I want to get a firm handle on exactly what resources we are devoting to our various missions. We obviously are going to be making an increased effort in the area of environmental protection, and both Admiral [Paul] Yost, my predecessor, and I have told the Congress on numerous occasions that if the new Comprehensive Oil Spill Bill, in fact, gives new duties to the Coast Guard, we will be more than happy to undertake these new duties. We think that the Coast Guard is the organization where these duties ought to reside. But with these new responsibilities must come additional resources— equipment, money, people.
PROCEEDINGS: The maritime drug war has been a huge part of the Coast Guard’s identity for the past decade. Recently, however, the level of interdiction has dropped significantly, and DoD has taken a larger role in the effort. What do you see as a proper balance of DoD and Coast Guard efforts in the drug war?
KIME: First, as you indicate, the results of the interdiction efforts have been less in terms of vessels seized, people arrested, and contraband seized. I think that is a positive indicator of the effectiveness that we’re having, at least in the maritime mode. We have to be careful that as we go after the other areas the smugglers are moving into, specifically the air movement of cocaine, that we don’t reopen these other, easier avenues and let the smugglers bring in marijuana and other drugs by sea. We’ve got to maintain a presence in the choke points in the Caribbean, in the traditional areas where we have operated.
We welcome the massive entrance of DoD into the drug-interdiction effort. However, many people don’t realize DoD has been actively involved in the drug-interdiction effort since the mid- 1980s, supplying thousands of ship days and thousands of aircraft hours to the effort. The effort we see now is more concerted.
The biggest change that I see with DoD coming aboard in the way we have seen since September of 1989 is the need for closer coordination between the Coast Guard and DoD. We’re facing a well-equipped, well-financed enemy, if you can put it in those terms, trying to bring drugs into this country. We do need to bring to bear a great number of resources on this enemy, and neither DoD nor the Coast Guard has limitless resources.
I have had numerous discussions and one fairly lengthy meeting with General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, about how we can coordinate our efforts. I have also talked to Admiral Bud Edney, who is the new CinCLant [Commander-in-Chief Atlantic], about this effort, and we are moving to make sure that we coordinate our efforts in determining what threat we’re faced with; agreeing on the intelligence that we’re able to receive; and working from the bottom up in building operating plans jointly, so that when it’s time to implement them, they’re effective and efficient.
PROCEEDINGS: Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) recently suggested that DoD also ought to get involved in environmental protection, another traditional Coast Guard mission. Where would it be helpful to have DoD involved in this area, and where would it be inappropriate?
KIME: We really haven’t addressed in any kind of detail the statement that Senator Nunn made. DoD has already been involved extensively in the environmental-protection effort. It dispatched large numbers of people and equipment to respond to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Navy salvage units routinely provide skimmers and booms in response to oil spills. Should we have another spill, we could use DoD’s command, control, and communications facilities, such as the berthing ships the Navy provided in Alaska and ships with helicopter decks on which we could land large equipment. There was a call at the time of the Exxon Valdez to put thousands and thousands of troops on the beach to clean up oil. That’s not necessarily the most environmentally sound or effective way, to get up oil, and I’m certain that that’s not what Senator Nunn meant. I don’t know to what extent Senator Nunn is aware of what DoD has done in the environmental area, but it is rather significant and DoD forces are always there for us to call on should we need them.
We haven’t given any thought to a DoD role in this area, and I don’t think it would be proper to speculate on that unless I had a chance to discuss with key people in DoD just what they might have in mind here.
PROCEEDINGS: After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, what was the command relationship between the Coast Guard and the Navy?
KIME: It was very clear that the federal on-scene coordinator was a Coast Guard flag officer. The President called Admiral Yost to the White House, told him to go to Alaska, that he was in charge. He went there, indicated clearly to everyone there that he was in charge, and that Admiral [Clyde E.] Robbins [Commander Pacific Area] was his federal on-scene coordinator. I spent three weeks up there in that capacity, also.
There’s no question that the Coast Guard was in charge of the federal effort. DoD, working out of Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, provided command-and-control assistance to us. The Navy provided the berthing ships and some logistics aircraft. Navy salvage units provided numerous skimmers and people. The Army Corps of Engineers provided dredges. That all worked well.
PROCEEDINGS: Do you see any potential problems in overlapping DoD/Coast Guard missions?
KIME: No. In fact, I think that we have taken great steps—myself, General Powell, and Admiral Edney—to make sure that we don’t have overlapping—only coordinated efforts.
PROCEEDINGS: The Coast Guard has major defense responsibilities with the creation of the Maritime Defense Zones. In the wake of the recent changes in the world and based on what you have said thus far, what is your forecast for the future of the MDZs?
KIME: The Maritime Defense Zone is as valid today as it was when it was created. I certainly expect the Maritime Defense Zone concept and command structure to continue. If anything, I think the pullback of U.S. forces from Europe will place a greater demand on our ability to be able to deploy and redeploy, not just resupply. That’s going to create requirements for more ports of embarkation, and an increased safe area for our maritime commerce. I’ve had some preliminary discussions with Admiral [Frank] Kelso, the new Chief of Naval Operations. He generally agrees, also, that the Maritime Defense Zone concept is a valid one and will remain, and we both support it.
PROCEEDINGS: In the past few years, the Coast Guard has played an increasing role in training Third World naval forces, particularly in the Caribbean. Will this level of activity continue?
KIME: Yes, it certainly will. By the very nature of our technical and operational expertise, we have a great deal to offer the many navies and coast guards of the world that are similar in size and responsibility to the U.S. Coast Guard. If anything, I would think that this effort in the future might increase.
PROCEEDINGS: Will the Coast Guard continue to put Harpoon missiles and close-in weapon systems on the 378-foot high-endurar.ee cutters?
KIME: This is something that we’ll have to look at with DoD as it examines its force mix in light of the changing threat and the changing budget climate. No decision has been made one way or the other, but we are working on it with DoD through the Navy-Coast Guard Board.
PROCEEDINGS: You are well known internationally and domestically as an expert in maritime safety and protection of the marine environment. Do you have an explanation for the recent series of major oil spills? And do you have a plan to address this problem?
KIME: We have to recognize that the United States has 5% of the population and uses 30% of the world’s energy. A great deal of that is oil, and most of it is brought into this country by tankers. As long as we continue to demand petroleum at the levels that we do, we are going to continue to have accidents. Traditionally these have come in bunches. In 1977-78, we had a rash of accidents that led to domestic legislation and an increase in Coast Guard resources being applied to the clean-up, and in international treaties.
We’ve had the same thing begin with the Exxon Valdez back in March 1989; a series of three spills occurred in June of 1989 in Narragansett Bay, Philadelphia, and down in the Galveston area. We’ve had the American Trader off the coast of California and, of course, the Mega Borg fire in the Gulf of Mexico and the incidents in Buzzard’s Bay.
As a result of these incidents, probably mostly because of the Exxon Valdez, there is a heightened sense of awareness by the public and especially by the media of oil pollution incidents. There is a need to do more, both in prevention and response. The key to this will be the comprehensive oil spill legislation that’s in conference right now between the House and the Senate, both houses of the Congress having passed similar but differing versions of the bill. It will give the Coast Guard increased legal authority that we very much need, and it will give us added responsibilities that I mentioned before. We hope that resources will be forthcoming in the appropriations process so that we can do what Congress is asking us— and the people are demanding—we do.
PROCEEDINGS: Have there been initiatives, special studies, or investigations?
KIME: Yes. Of course, we’ve been active in trying to prevent and respond to pollution over the years, and we’ve been a world leader in this regard. Much of the domestic legislation and most of the international treaties in this area have resulted from our efforts. Since the Exxon Valdez, we’ve initiated quite a few things within our means and legal authority. We updated all our contingency plans for pollution response, and are proud of how we have responded to the incidents that have occurred since the Exxon Valdez.
I had overall responsibility in the American Trader incident on the West Coast, off of Huntington Beach. We had just revised our plan, incorporating lessons learned from the Exxon Valdez about a week before that, and were able to exercise the new procedures.
We have studies ongoing through the National Academy of Sciences on the issue of double bottoms and hulls, on the question of crew size and crew responsibility aboard ship. We’ve initiated an effort within the federal government—in which the Coast Guard has assumed leadership —on research and development to try to focus on what we need to do to be able to prevent and respond to oil spills in a better way. That will culminate in a diplomatic conference in London in November of this year on the question of preparedness and response, and will also contain a provision for international cooperation in research and development.
PROCEEDINGS: What is your position on requiring ships to have double hulls?
KIME: I’ve been involved in this issue for at least for 12 or 13 years now. On 9 May, Secretary of Transportation Sam Skinner sent a letter to the congressional conferees in which he put forward the administration’s position on this issue. As the Commandant-designate, I had the opportunity to put my fingerprints on that policy, and I support what came forward.
Our position is that new vessels, oceangoing barges, and ships, should have double hulls—not just double bottoms or double sides. In addition, there ought to be a phase-out mechanism for existing ships that takes into account the economic realities of the capital invested and also the fact that we don’t have a limitless supply of shipyards that can build replacement ships. We’ve got to keep the oil flowing or the country will shut down.
That proposal is after the year 2000, any ship older than 25 years would have to be retired from service unless it had double bottoms. River barges, which normally last longer, would not have to have double hulls until after the year 2015. The only exemption from that would be vessels that would visit the deep-water Louisiana Offshore Port; they would be allowed to continue to the year 2015 with single hulls, in the absence of an international agreement to the contrary in the interim. I support that decision. It’s being considered right now by the congressional conferees. I think the doublehull issue is probably the last big issue they have to resolve before coming to closure on a bill.
PROCEEDINGS: What are our views on unlimited liability for shipping companies?
KIME: I believe that there should be a very high, but not an unlimited, level of liability. It should be backed by mandatory insurance, whereby any person affected adversely by a spill can proceed directly against the insurer of the vessel. All companies should contribute to a fund to provide a second tier for those incidents where the shipowner’s liability is not sufficient to cover it.
Theoretically, unlimited liability sounds very good. But unlimited liability does you no good if you aren’t able to get jurisdiction over someone, or if when you do get jurisdiction, that person has no assets. Even when you can get jurisdiction and the person has assets, you have to go through the courts, and nobody necessarily gets any money. The most outstanding example is the Amoco Cadiz off of the coast of Brittany in 1978. It’s been 12 years. We have a preliminary judgment of $115 million, of which more than half is interest, and no one but lawyers have received any compensation yet.
In the practical world, we need high limits of liability backed up by insurance, with few defenses so people can get the money backed up by a large fund.
The fact of unlimited liability in the United States is going to result in more single-ship companies coming into this country. In 1980, 30% of the ships coming to the United States were single-ship companies. This is to protect the corporation from unlimited liability suits. It’s a case of economic reality. Corporations don’t want to put all of their assets at risk. They’re willing to assume a very high level of risk, but not absolute risk. As of right now, June of 1990, 45% of those ships are single-ship companies. Singleship companies are not the best operators in the world, and their ships are substandard by world standards.
We are disappointed that the protocols are not going to be part of the legislation that is going to be passed by the Congress. Certainly we will live with and support the legislation as passed, but we think that opens up another area, whereby our ports and shores will be endangered by ships in innocent passage. If the oil from the Mega Borg had come ashore and the shipowner said, “I’m not going to do anything,” then we would have had to establish jurisdiction in a Norwegian court, which is very difficult. The French had to come to Chicago in the case of the Amoco Cadiz to establish jurisdiction.
In the meantime, the people who would be affected don’t get compensated. And if they do, now they’ll have to be compensated by a federal fund, which requires monies to be appropriated. In days when we’re trying to reduce spending, every dollar we have to appropriate to reimburse someone for damages counts against the budget.
I’m concerned about the impact that will have on the Coast Guard’s budget, and on many budgets in this country. We are not going to take advantage of up to $260 million per incident. Therefore, we will have to rely on appropriated funds which, in a zero-sum game, will be to the detriment of many federal initiatives.
PROCEEDINGS: Can you share with us your position on vessel traffic systems and their future?
KIME: We have an ongoing study on vessel traffic systems. We’re doing a port-need study in 23 of the major ports in this country, some of which already have vessel traffic systems, to see if, in fact, there is a need for either an enhanced vessel traffic system or a new one. Those results ought to be available to us in the spring.
In many cases, vessel traffic systems do provide a great return for a rather small investment, but the type of system does have to be state of the art. Its design and operation must have the confidence of the maritime public using it. We’ve increased the capability of the system in Prince William Sound. We’re increasing the capabilities of the one in Puget Sound and reestablishing the vessel traffic system in New York. This is obviously one of the areas that we are going to look at very, very carefully.
PROCEEDINGS: How do you see the Coast Guard’s icebreaker mission and the priority of acquiring another polar icebreaker?
KIME: Right now the Coast Guard has all the polar icebreaking responsibilities for the United States. We have only two vessels, the Polar Sea [WAGB-11] and the Polar Star [WAGB-10], It appears now that money is available through DoD sources to build a third icebreaker—not to completely outfit it, but to build one. It is extremely important that we get this third icebreaker, not only to manage the icebreaking resources we have in a cost- effective way, but to satisfy both the scientific and the national security needs of the country.
Several studies have been done over the years, and they all indicate that this country requires at least four polar icebreakers. As a bare minimum, we have to have three.
PROCEEDINGS: Do you see that staying a Coast Guard mission?
KIME: I do. We have traditionally handled it and we’ve had the sole responsibility for a good number of years. We feel we can do it very well. We are trying to work more closely with the scientific community to satisfy their concerns about the type of support we are able to provide their scientific missions.
PROCEEDINGS: What is the future of the buoy-tender fleet and privatization in the area of aids to navigation?
KIME: Our number-one priority for building new vessels is in the area of buoy tenders, especially our 26 WLBs, our seagoing buoy tenders. Their average age is 45 years old. Before we can get replacements, even continuing along with the plan we have right now, they will be about 50 years old. Upgrading these older vessels is very important. We are also putting an oil-skimming capability into the vessels, consistent with the multimission approach that the Coast Guard has always maintained for its vessels.
We also feel very strongly that we need replacements for our medium-size buoy tenders, the WLMs. We’ve got 12 of those. They’re almost as old as the WLBs, and we’ve got an active program to replace them. I endorse both of these programs very strongly.
Large aids to navigation are inherently a federal mission. If we were to privatize that mission, we would be the only industrialized country in the world to have done so.
Congress passed legislation back in 1982 for us to investigate the privatization of certain aids to navigation functions. We have let three contracts to do that. Two have been completed. One is ongoing. The Transportation Systems Center is now conducting a study to give an unbiased view of whether or not some of our aids-to-navigation functions could be privatized. They’re looking at things such as whether in the past, in evaluating the contracts, we accounted properly for the level of performance the contractors had, the relative costing between the private sector and the public sector, other issues like that. Five issues are being studied as part of this and soon will be completed. The go-ahead has just been given to do the study. But we don’t think that in any way should affect the procurement of the replacement WLBs and WLMs, nor the much-needed barges that we need to keep our river systems open, nor the smaller tenders in the Great Lakes.
PROCEEDINGS: There has been a perception that those people who work in maritime safety are rather disenfranchised from the rest of the Coast Guard. How are you going to bring them back to the fold?
KIME: Letting people know that all of our missions are equally important is one good way. The fact that I have assumed this position coming from a maritime safety background ought to dispel some people’s concern that I came from a disenfranchised part. A lot of this is perception.
We also have to look at the resources that we’ve put into this effort. One of the parts of the comprehensive oil spill legislation pending before the Congress now is for us to look at greater resources for the so-called M programs, the marine inspection and the licensing, which have taken some budget cuts in the past decade. There is a need to increase the level of resources that can be applied to this mission. The safety of life and property is paramount in everyone’s mind, and certainly failure to protect them results in oil spills, fires aboard ship—things that we don’t want to see.
Certainly the growth of the cruise ship industry in the world, where 80% to 85% of the passengers are American citizens— and the Coast Guard does maintain an oversight role of these foreign ships— increases the need for additional resources, also.
PROCEEDINGS: In your change-of- command address, you stated that the men and women of the Coast Guard are the service’s most important asset. But a perception, once again, exists among many Coast Guard professionals that they haven’t been taken care of in recent years. Slow promotion rates, limited housing, and inadequate medical care and family support services are some examples. Is this perception valid? And if so, what do you plan to do to fix it?
KIME: To a certain extent, I think there is some validity to the perception. The Coast Guard right now is operating with fewer people than we had ten years ago, and with fewer people than we’ve been authorized by the Congress to have and have been funded for. That’s because other operational demands have been placed on us, and we had to use these funds elsewhere.
I’m interested, just as quickly as possible, in bringing the Coast Guard up to our full, authorized full-time equivalent strength. We have an effort under way. Obviously we can’t do that overnight, because qualified people aren’t available, and we don’t want to create unnecessary humps in our promotion system where we have large-year groups coming along that create problems for us in the promotion cycle of the future and also the assignment process. Coming up to our full strength will help the promotion system, certainly for the officer corps.
We want to also be certain that we provide adequate housing for our people. We operate in large metropolitan areas—high cost of living. Resort areas—high cost of living. Remote areas—high cost of living. We have a leased housing program, which we are increasing in size. We want to increase the numbers of Coast Guard- owned houses. And in addition to that, we’re working closely with DoD should some of the forecasted base closures come to pass. We want to see if there’s an opportunity here for us to get housing.
But the key is that our people are undercompensated in base salary and allowances, and these are programs meant to compensate for that. So we will be working very closely with DoD to make sure that pay and allowances for our people is adequate and we don’t continue to keep falling further behind the private sector.
We’re doing a study on medical-care delivery to our people. We want to provide it, obviously, in a cost-effective way, but it must be an effective way, to make sure they get the proper level of coverage, both through military doctors. Public Health, DoD, and contract medical facilities.
In addition to that. I’m concerned about the level of family services provided to our people. We ask our people to do a great many things that take them away from home, causes them to work long hours, and we want to be certain that their dependents are taken care of while they’re otherwise occupied on Coast Guard business.
We have the highest rate of suicide of any of the military services. We operate in some very stressful ways in time of peace, and we need to, I think, re-emphasize the program as to where it fits into our organizational structure, the resources we put forward, and the support that it receives from our field commanders. That’s another one of my priorities.
So we do need to continue to take care of the needs of the people of this country and the people of the world, but at the same time, we’ve got to take a little time to take better care of our own people.
PROCEEDINGS: The Secretary of Transportation has issued a National Transportation Plan. What is the Coast Guard’s role in the marine component of that plan?
KIME: Very significant, we feel. The Secretary, in his National Transportation Plan, said it’s vital that we have a safe, efficient transportation system in this country if the economy and our standard of living are going to be maintained. This falls in the Coast Guard’s area of search and rescue, commercial vessel safety, port safety, icebreaking, aids to navigation, all of those areas.
PROCEEDINGS: It was recently reported that the Coast Guard has created a Strategic Planning Staff. How do you plan to use this staff?
KIME: I used this group very extensively during my transition period, working with them to let them know what my ideas for the future were, using them to help me articulate those. My change-of- command address was developed, the specifics of it, working very closely with them, giving them my ideas, and we translated that into terms that we could use to send a message.
I meet with this group at least once a month. I’ve told them, since I’ve been in the job, what my long-range goals are, and some ideas of how I want to implement them. I’ve asked them to take that and to help me, working with our program directors, and translate that into a long-range plan. We are on the third draft of that right now.
A group like this that can stand back from the day-to-day pressures of the job and look at where we’re going in the next 5 years, the next 15 years, the next 25 years, is very important. I’ve been very pleased with the guidance they’ve been able to provide already in the short time I’ve had this job.
PROCEEDINGS: We have covered a great deal of ground. Still, we have skipped many important issues. Are there any specific issues you’d like to address before we end the interview?
KIME: No. You’ve covered most of the points that I like to get across, not only to our own people, but to the public as to where we want to go.
I guess if you had to summarize my vision of the future for the Coast Guard, it’s balance and people.