Washington Report
Contest for House Panel Chair May Affect Coast Guard Support
The man who adamantly fought against making the House Homeland Security
Committee permanent is now touting his experience and expertise on security
issues in an effort to assume it’s helm.
Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, is one of a handful of House Republicans vying for the job,
which at press time was slated to become vacant if and when the Senate
confirms current chairman California Rep. Christopher Cox as the new
head of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Young, the most senior member of the Homeland Security panel, would
oversee roughly $50 billion in homeland security funding in fiscal 2006
if appointed to the committee’s top post. The committee was created
as a temporary panel after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but House leaders
gave it permanent status earlier this year.
Some members of the panel are leery of a Young chairmanship, noting
his role on the committee has often been combative and in conflict with
his Transportation Committee chairmanship. Last year, Young vowed to
limit the Homeland Security Committee’s jurisdiction, threatening
to pit the Transportation panel against it. He also opposed giving the
committee permanent status because its jurisdiction could impinge on
that of the Transportation Committee.
And if Young’s line of questioning at a Homeland Security subcommittee
hearing last month is any indication, the Coast Guard’s role in
safeguarding U.S. ports and waterways might not be as high a priority
with him as it is with others.
During the June 8 hearing, Young touted his long-held belief that the
need to secure ports of origin is as critical to protecting shipments
entering the United States as ensuring security at U.S. homeports. “We
have to keep our commerce flowing and, yes, have security,” Young
told Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thomas H. Collins. “But the way
you gain that is making sure those countries that import to us” ensure
cargo is secure before it leaves their ports for the United States.
Later, during a question-and-answer period, his queries turned parochial.
Young suggested Collins communicate with him closely on the Coast Guard’s
revision of its existing Merchant Marine licensing and documentation
process to ensure the rights of mariners are preserved. And at one point,
Young asked Collins to state for the record that ships and personnel
in his home state of Alaska would not be diminished.
“I’m worried, commandant,” Young said, asserting that
Collins’ testimony before the Homeland Security sub-panel “seems
to be focused only on security” and less on the Coast Guard’s
other missions, including oil spill remediation and search and rescue.
Although Young is seen as a leading candidate for the gavel, observers
say his opposition to the Homeland Security panel is an obvious strike
against him. Further complicating his bid is the fact that if he takes
over the panel, Young would become the first three-time chairman since
the House leadership imposed committee term limits. Young is currently
serving in his second six-year term as a committee chairman — he
previously chaired the House Resources Committee — and his tenure
as the Transportation and Infrastructure chairman expires at the end
of the 109th Congress.
Also in the offing to fill Cox’s post is New York Republican Peter
King, who observers said could give Young a run for his money. Many,
including House Democrats, said a King chairmanship would be more politically
moderate than one assumed by Young. And, unlike Young, King favored creation
of the select Homeland Security Committee after 9/11. He also lobbied
to make the panel permanent last year.
However, congressional staff members said some Republicans could balk
at giving the chairmanship to a member of the New York delegation, fearing
the state’s needs could dominate the committee’s agenda.
One of King’s top priorities on the committee has been to push
for change in the homeland security funding formula to ensure areas more
vulnerable to attack — such as New York — get a bigger slice
of federal grants. And earlier this year, King fought to give the Homeland
Security Committee jurisdiction over relevant aspects of the Coast Guard.
A third GOP lawmaker considering a bid for the position is Pennsylvania’s
Curt Weldon. Elected to the House in 1986, Weldon has run up against
White House opposition to his foreign policy views, including efforts
to lead congressional delegations to hotspots such as North Korea and
Libya.
Observers said he would be a strong chairman who would closely scrutinize
the Homeland Security Department, an agency that continues to struggle
with organizational issues two years after its creation.
Port security would likely be one of Weldon’s top priorities,
given his concern that U.S. borders and ports are vulnerable to an influx
of hazardous materials and other potential threats. The formulation of
a unified plan of action from the Homeland Security Department and the
Coast Guard would likely be high on his agenda.
But others assert Weldon’s demanding leadership style might hinder
the sort of cooperative spirit needed to enact meaningful legislation.
Weldon’s zeal would likely focus on removing bureaucratic obstacles
to the homeland security and intelligence arenas, though some observers
emphasize the need for the new chair to work with the intelligence community — not
run roughshod over it — in order to effect change.
It is unclear whether Weldon will pursue the Homeland Security Committee
chair or hold out to lead the House Armed Services Committee, where he
is currently the No. 2 Republican.
Congressional sources said Georgia Rep. John Linder is also weighing
whether to compete for the Homeland Security chair. As low man on the
seniority list, Linder would likely have a tougher row to hoe than the
other contenders. Although Linder was once seen as a candidate for the
House Rules Committee chairmanship, he is no longer a member of the panel
and is currently focused on his work on the House Ways and Means Committee.
During the June 9 hearing, Linder used the opportunity to educate himself
on all things Coast Guard. He posed numerous queries as to the size and
organization of the service.
All four lawmakers would have to make their case to GOP leaders and
the Steering Committee after Cox resigns his post and House seat, a move
that depends on how quickly, and if, the Senate moves to vote on his
nomination.
Canada’s Defense Chief Doubts Need for ‘Maritime NORAD’
The United States and Canada are discussing ways to increase cooperation
on maritime surveillance, though Canada’s defense chief said in
June there is no indication that the two countries are considering the
creation of a so-called “Maritime NORAD” to conduct such
operations.
During a news conference in Washington, Army Gen. Rick Hillier, who
became Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff in February, acknowledged
such discussions with U.S. officials. However, the key to ensuring seamless
operations with regard to maritime approaches to the U.S. and Canadian
coasts is in building a linked system between the two allies — not
in building new organizational structures, he said. While in Washington,
Hillier met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss Canada’s
new defense policy and ongoing commitment to the war on terrorism.
“There is much discussion of how we build a linked system as opposed
to how we build a Maritime NORAD,” he said, referring to the North
American Aerospace Defense Command. The discussions include, “What
part of it do we … do bi-nationally in one headquarters,” Hillier
said. NORAD might take on some elements of improved maritime surveillance,
or Canada and the United States possibly could … build something
else, he said.
Hillier said it is imperative that information regarding any threat
to a North American maritime approach be shared without barriers between
the two countries.
Little Hope for Limits On Navy Ship Leasing
As House and Senate authorizers negotiate the 2006 National Defense
Authorization bill this summer, Virginia Republican Rep. Jo Ann Davis
is holding out little hope a measure that would limit the Navy’s
leasing of foreign ships to 24 months will be included in the final bill.
Under current law, the Navy can lease foreign vessels for up to five
years, though the service often circumvents the law by limiting such
leases to 59 months — one month shy of five years — and then
renewing each lease for an additional 59 months once the initial terms
have expired. Critics of this approach say it violates a law stipulating
that U.S. military vessels must be built in the United States, though
the Navy insists it could not afford to acquire the same American-made
ships. The effort to curb the Navy’s reliance on leasing began
last year when Davis introduced an amendment to the fiscal 2005 bill
that would have reduced the leases to only one year.
The amendment passed on the House floor, but was defeated in conference
by the Senate. This year’s amendment takes a step toward a compromise
position, and could gain some traction among Senate Armed Services Committee
members, including Maine Republican Susan Collins and Florida Democrat
Bill Nelson. The two lawmakers signed an April 20 letter to the committee
from Mississippi Republican Sen. Trent Lott asking it to limit the Pentagon’s
leasing ability.
But other, more senior committee members, including Chairman John Warner,
R-Va., and Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, are staunch free-trade
advocates who are likely to oppose the measure in conference, according
to congressional aides.
House Mandates Joint Vehicle Program
House authorizers are requiring the Army to join the Marines in developing
a new class of medium-to-heavy trucks, according to the House version
of the fiscal 2006 defense budget proposal.
The Army is currently considering a range of options for its trucks,
including the development of an entirely new vehicle, and House lawmakers
argue a joint program would make sense in terms of potential savings.
“The committee believes it’s imperative for the Department
to take advantage of economies of scale in production of particular platforms
that provide essentially the same function for ground force combat service
support and logistic missions,” the House bill states.
However, Army sources note that the two services’ requirements
for medium and heavy trucks differ widely — particularly the Marine
Corps, whose vehicles must withstand harsh salt-water conditions during
transport on Navy ships. Such differences could strain any joint effort,
the sources said.
The Army won’t decide on its new truck investment plan until next
spring, giving both services time to address the issue in next year’s
authorizing legislation. And the House version of the bill will need
to be reconciled with the Senate later this year.
Marine Recruit Depot May Join BRAC List
The chairman of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission said
last month the panel may add the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego
to the Pentagon’s list of closure recommendations. During a June
8 news conference, BRAC Commission Chairman Anthony Principi said the
panel will consider whether training at the base could be moved to nearby
Camp Pendleton in an effort to save money, though the depot was not included
on the Pentagon’s BRAC list released in May.
“Every dollar wasted in excess capacity is a dollar we can’t
spend on bullets and training,” Principi said. Seven of the BRAC
commission’s nine members must approve the addition of a base to
the closure list.
The commission is slated to present its own list of recommendations
to President Bush by Sept. 8. The president can either accept or reject
the list in its entirety before sending it to Congress for an up or down
vote. Principi noted that the Navy and Air Force have only one recruit
training facility each, while the Marine Corps has training camps in
San Diego and Parris Island, S.C.
House Cuts $1 Billion From DD(X) Program
House appropriators last month dealt another blow to the Navy’s
troubled DD(X) destroyer, cutting $1 billion from the program, including
$716 million in advance procurement requested in the president’s
fiscal year 2006 budget and rescinding more than $300 million in fiscal
2005 advance procurement money. In addition, House appropriators cut
the ship’s roughly $1 billion in fiscal 2006 research and development
funds to $670 million.
At press time, Senate appropriators had yet to begin work on their version
of the roughly $400 billion defense spending bill for the coming fiscal
year, though supporters of DD(X), including Maine Republican Susan Collins,
were gearing up for a fight with their House counterparts.
Collins was particularly incensed by the House proposal to rescind $84
million in funds earmarked for Bath Iron Works in her home state to conduct
detailed design work on the DD(X) — money Collins secured in last
year’s bill. As the Senate proceeds with its authorization and
appropriations bills, the two chambers will meet this summer to work
out differences in conference. n
Reporting by Seapower Correspondent Amy Klamper.
