Tweet
[Confusion at its best.]
Column: Navy lease rules put major snag in sub base plan
By RAY HACKETT
Norwich Bulletin
On the surface, it looks as if it was a pretty good week for the Submarine Capital of the World.
The House Appropriations Committee approved a 2008 Defense budget that included the extra money to begin construction of two submarines per year, maybe as early as fall 2009.
And Thursday, the governor had her first discussion with U.S. Navy officials regarding ways in which the state can help make the Groton submarine base more secure -- and less likely to be targeted in future base closing rounds.
But these are submarines we're talking about, ships that don't spend a lot of time "on the surface." And when one looks below the surface, the picture isn't as bright as it might appear.
Let's take a closer look at the two-subs-per-year issue.
Getting the funding included in the House Appropriations Committee bill was a major milestone. Kudos to everyone who played a part in making that happen. It was a job well done. But this is far from a done deal, and there are still plenty of land mines that have to be navigated in the coming months before it is a done deal.
The full House is expected to vote on the measure this week. And it is expected a number of amendments will be offered.
According to Government Executive magazine, Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman Jack Murtha, D-Pa., plans to introduce an amendment requiring a reduction in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq within 60 days of the bill being signed. If that bill gets to the president's desk with that amendment attached, I have a feeling it's not going to get signed.
Murtha also wants to include provisions requiring all deploying troops to be fully trained and equipped. That provision could delay many deployments, and it's doubtful the administration would agree to that either.
There's also suggestions Democrats in the House plan to offer another amendment to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within 180 days. Anyone want to take a wild guess on how the administration will react to that one?
And that's just the House. The Senate still has to act. The Senate Appropriations Committee isn't scheduled to begin its work on a Defense bill until September. Who knows how many amendments related to the Iraq War will be added to its version?
A committee will have to iron out the differences and come up with a spending plan to send to the president. Then we'll see if it gets signed or vetoed. And then we'll know for sure if we're building two subs in 2009 or not.
In the meantime, we have this other issue -- enhancing the military value of the Groton submarine base.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations & Facilities Wayne Arny had a "frank and constructive" 45-minute video conference call about what the state can do. According to the governor's office, they agreed infrastructure improvements would be the best way to achieve the goal of enhancing the base's military value.
But there's a problem. The Navy claims it can't sign a lease agreement with the state without special federal legislation allowing for it.
No one asked?
Is it just me, or did we miss a step in the process?
This plan to have the state borrow the money to construct a new pier at the sub base, and have the Navy lease it from the state, has been discussed for more than a year. How is it we are only now learning about this little wrinkle?
I thought the state had a consulting group in Washington that is suppose to be looking out for opportunities where the state could take a pro-active role with the Department of Defense in securing the future of the sub base. One might have thought the consultants would have said something about this sooner.
This idea first surfaced more than a year ago during the agonizing, yearlong series of meetings of the Governor's Commission on the Diversification of the Southeastern Connecticut Economy. And let's be honest, it was a never an idea anyone really embraced except for those who fought to have it included in the commission's final report that was delivered to the governor in December.
The legislation authorizing the state to borrow $50 million for this idea was introduced in January. It was the subject of numerous legislative hearings, and ultimately approved by both chambers -- unanimously, no less.
Didn't anyone think to ask the Navy what it thought of the idea somewhere in this process?
But then, mysteriously, the $50 million suddenly disappeared during the budget negotiations. Now we're talking about including it in the yet-to-be-adopted bond package.
Or are we?
If we can't enter into a lease agreement with the Navy without that special federal legislation, are we still going to put the money in this year's bond package?
OK, maybe I'm being just a bit cynical. If so, I look forward to that time when I have to write this column and admit I'm wrong.
Column: Navy lease rules put major snag in sub base plan
By RAY HACKETT
Norwich Bulletin
On the surface, it looks as if it was a pretty good week for the Submarine Capital of the World.
The House Appropriations Committee approved a 2008 Defense budget that included the extra money to begin construction of two submarines per year, maybe as early as fall 2009.
And Thursday, the governor had her first discussion with U.S. Navy officials regarding ways in which the state can help make the Groton submarine base more secure -- and less likely to be targeted in future base closing rounds.
But these are submarines we're talking about, ships that don't spend a lot of time "on the surface." And when one looks below the surface, the picture isn't as bright as it might appear.
Let's take a closer look at the two-subs-per-year issue.
Getting the funding included in the House Appropriations Committee bill was a major milestone. Kudos to everyone who played a part in making that happen. It was a job well done. But this is far from a done deal, and there are still plenty of land mines that have to be navigated in the coming months before it is a done deal.
The full House is expected to vote on the measure this week. And it is expected a number of amendments will be offered.
According to Government Executive magazine, Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman Jack Murtha, D-Pa., plans to introduce an amendment requiring a reduction in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq within 60 days of the bill being signed. If that bill gets to the president's desk with that amendment attached, I have a feeling it's not going to get signed.
Murtha also wants to include provisions requiring all deploying troops to be fully trained and equipped. That provision could delay many deployments, and it's doubtful the administration would agree to that either.
There's also suggestions Democrats in the House plan to offer another amendment to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within 180 days. Anyone want to take a wild guess on how the administration will react to that one?
And that's just the House. The Senate still has to act. The Senate Appropriations Committee isn't scheduled to begin its work on a Defense bill until September. Who knows how many amendments related to the Iraq War will be added to its version?
A committee will have to iron out the differences and come up with a spending plan to send to the president. Then we'll see if it gets signed or vetoed. And then we'll know for sure if we're building two subs in 2009 or not.
In the meantime, we have this other issue -- enhancing the military value of the Groton submarine base.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations & Facilities Wayne Arny had a "frank and constructive" 45-minute video conference call about what the state can do. According to the governor's office, they agreed infrastructure improvements would be the best way to achieve the goal of enhancing the base's military value.
But there's a problem. The Navy claims it can't sign a lease agreement with the state without special federal legislation allowing for it.
No one asked?
Is it just me, or did we miss a step in the process?
This plan to have the state borrow the money to construct a new pier at the sub base, and have the Navy lease it from the state, has been discussed for more than a year. How is it we are only now learning about this little wrinkle?
I thought the state had a consulting group in Washington that is suppose to be looking out for opportunities where the state could take a pro-active role with the Department of Defense in securing the future of the sub base. One might have thought the consultants would have said something about this sooner.
This idea first surfaced more than a year ago during the agonizing, yearlong series of meetings of the Governor's Commission on the Diversification of the Southeastern Connecticut Economy. And let's be honest, it was a never an idea anyone really embraced except for those who fought to have it included in the commission's final report that was delivered to the governor in December.
The legislation authorizing the state to borrow $50 million for this idea was introduced in January. It was the subject of numerous legislative hearings, and ultimately approved by both chambers -- unanimously, no less.
Didn't anyone think to ask the Navy what it thought of the idea somewhere in this process?
But then, mysteriously, the $50 million suddenly disappeared during the budget negotiations. Now we're talking about including it in the yet-to-be-adopted bond package.
Or are we?
If we can't enter into a lease agreement with the Navy without that special federal legislation, are we still going to put the money in this year's bond package?
OK, maybe I'm being just a bit cynical. If so, I look forward to that time when I have to write this column and admit I'm wrong.