HR-9674-119
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsored by Mike Ezell (R-MS)
What it does
This bill would direct the Coast Guard Commandant to establish a pilot program — called the Corrosion Control Assistance Team Pilot Program — within 180 days of enactment. The program would send teams of certified corrosion specialists to Coast Guard field units on request to assess equipment, provide technical advice, and train personnel in corrosion prevention. The pilot would run for three years (with a possible two-year extension), require interim and final reports to Congress, and coordinate with the Navy and Department of Defense corrosion programs.
Who benefits
Active-duty Coast Guard personnel who operate and maintain vessels and equipment that would receive better upkeep. Coast Guard field units whose assets would have extended service lives and improved readiness. Taxpayers who could see reduced long-term maintenance and replacement costs if the program proves effective. Private corrosion control firms and AMPP-certified contractors who may be hired for technical services. Communities that depend on Coast Guard operations — including maritime search and rescue, port security, and fisheries enforcement — that could benefit from improved fleet readiness. The Navy and DoD, which may gain a feedback loop of lessons learned from the Coast Guard's adaptation of their programs.
Who is hurt
Corrosion control contractors or vendors not holding AMPP accreditation (QP 5), who would be disadvantaged in competing for program contracts. Coast Guard units not selected for the initial pilot phase, which would not receive assistance during the program's early years. Taxpayers who bear the cost of standing up the program if it proves ineffective or duplicative of existing maintenance programs. DoD personnel who may be detailed to the Coast Guard under memoranda of understanding, temporarily reducing their availability to their home branches.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that corrosion is one of the costliest maintenance challenges facing military maritime assets — the DoD estimates corrosion costs the department over $20 billion annually — and that the Coast Guard, operating in harsh saltwater environments with an aging fleet, is particularly vulnerable. They contend that the Navy's existing Corrosion Control Assistance Team program has demonstrated measurable improvements in asset readiness and service life, and that adapting this proven model to the Coast Guard is a low-risk, high-return approach to extending the life of expensive cutters and vessels rather than funding premature replacements.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Coast Guard already has maintenance and engineering programs, and that creating a new pilot bureaucracy — with dedicated teams, data systems, reporting requirements, and interagency coordination mechanisms — may duplicate existing capabilities without clear evidence of a gap. They contend that the bill does not include an explicit appropriation, leaving funding uncertain, and that without dedicated resources the program may impose unfunded mandates on the Coast Guard at a time when the service faces broader budget pressures and personnel shortfalls.