You proposed the idea of a two-vessel block buy of icebreakers. What is the status of that?

Yeah, we had hearings on this. We had Ron O’Rourke, largely known as an expert in shipbuilding and acquisition. I’ve talked to Secretary [Sean] Stackley in the Navy [assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition]. I mean, why not be as efficient as possible? And if you have authority now for lead-time material buying and you have authority to block buy, why not do it? It was really surprising to us the Coast Guard did not do that.

How many icebreakers do you think the Coast Guard needs, or do you have a sense of that yet?

More than they have now. So no, we probably, in the hearings at some point, talked about that. I don’t remember. I think their requirement is for three. I think the requirement is for two heavies and two mediums or something like that.

You mentioned the Arctic. We’ve been talking about the icebreakers, but you’ve also got a problem with the infrastructure; deep-water ports and supplying those ports up on the North Slope, for example. What can be done as far as trying to build up infrastructure so that we can have more of a Coast Guard presence in the Arctic?

I don’t know, actually. I have not looked at it. I think first things first. You have to have the ability to get up there and move around. And now you had your first cruise ship transit the Arctic. Once oil goes back up again, this is going to become a main issue again. You know, not that I’ve been lucky, but this hasn’t been an issue that much because of oil prices. It’s too expensive to explore up there. So Shell pulled in their operation. Once oil goes back up – which it will, that’s just life – it will probably go up a lot and you’re going to have a lot more exploration again. That’s one reason I think working on the icebreaker issue and trying to get ahead of what’s going to happen in the future is a good thing. Governments kind of run – especially in terms of Congress – we’re a bunch of cats chasing shiny objects. So if something pops up and we jump on it, I think getting ahead of the icebreaker issue now is going to pay off massive dividends in the future, because we’re going to be prepared finally when you have more ice exploration.

The service has stated that as much as it needs new platforms it also needs an investment in personnel to operate as a 21st century Coast Guard. The commandant himself has said with today’s challenges he thinks the nation is going to need a bigger Coast Guard. Do you think it may be time to grow the service?

I don’t know. They have not brought that up. When they’ve come in, they said that they have the people that they need. The problem is getting a straight answer from many of the services, frankly. I’m on the Armed Services Committee as well and the answer always is: We have what we need to get the job done, always. That’s kind of the stock answer. So if the commandant comes in and says, “Hey we need more people to accomplish the mission,” then we’ll start looking at that. But they haven’t as yet as far as I know. They haven’t, in any of our hearings, they haven’t brought that up.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps right after Sept. 11, 2001, serving as an artillery officer. How do you think your experience in uniform informs your leadership as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and as a member of two House Armed Services Committee subcommittees?

No. 1, I think we get things done. We don’t play a lot of politics. We just try to get things done even if that requires using blunt political force. That’s usually kind of the way we do it. We just go headfirst into something. And I guess you could say we bang our heads on the wall until the wall breaks. That’s kind of how we do business. We don’t beat around the bush. That’s one thing. No. 2, we aren’t here to chair the Coast Guard committee and be friends and treat it like a DHS component. We treat the Coast Guard like a military service and think that they should look at themselves in the same way, in the same vein. And I think that’s a different way than they’ve had in the past with the subcommittee chairman. We’re trying to bring them more in line with the Navy. Like I said, they buy the same stuff as the Navy buys. I mean, you have some small things too, like the Coast Guard has to ask CBP [Customs and Border Protection] to use UAS, right? They have to get UAS from CBP as opposed to them owning their own UAS, which the Navy does. So if the Navy is going to buy 10 UAS systems or 10 UAS that can operate off of a small deck or whatever, why shouldn’t they get in with the Coast Guard, leverage that buy, get a lower price, and buy two extra ones that can fly off the NSC? Why aren’t they doing things like that and being treated in the same vein? You had a deal in the Caribbean where DOD has an exception by the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] to use lasers whether they are targeting or being able to see in low light or at night. The Coast Guard does not have that exception. Why? Why are they treated differently just in terms of the exceptions for what type of lasers they are allowed to use? Why aren’t they approved? Why are the rules of engagement in those terms different?

The Coast Guard is the last line of defense for people trying to get either bad things or bad people into the country onto American soil. And if you secure the land borders, which, let’s assume that that may happen in the next four to eight years, then the only access you’re going to have is by the ocean.

So what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to put them in line with the other services. We think that’s important because No. 1, there is less money than there has been. Like you talked about earlier, there is a greater need for the Coast Guard to be more places with better gear than they have been in the past because of this terrorist threat that we’re going to face, now, forever. And that’s not going away. So why not make sure that they can leverage their ability to buy things like the Navy does? They literally buy the same stuff. So why should it be two separate acquisitions, one ruled by DHS, which is not as smart in acquisitions of these types of things, and not the Navy or DOD? I mean, this is what DOD does.

What are your top priorities for the service? If you had to bullet point the things that you want to see happen, what would they be?

No. 1, the ability to check for nuclear material in every single way at multiple transit points for things coming into the U.S. And I don’t know whether that’s a Coast Guard issue or a CBP issue at the ports of exit where they leave those ports and come to the U.S. ports. I mean, it’s too late by the time it’s in a U.S. port if there is something really bad and they wanted to explode there. So that’s one thing. That’s more of a Homeland Security [responsibility]. But the Coast Guard is going to have a role in that, whether they are checking these ships in transit or it’s from the ports where the cargo leaves from. That’s No. 1, because there is no room for error there whatsoever. And as the Iranians develop more advanced nuclear material and as the North Koreans develop more advanced nuclear material, I think that ought to be top priority for the Coast Guard. No 2. is acquisitions, like we talked about, letting them have the same rules and acquisition authority that the Navy does in terms of how they buy things and how they modernize. I would say those are the top two issues. And, of course, icebreakers. We have nothing. So anything would be better than what we have now.

What haven’t I asked you about that I should have asked you? Is there anything you’d like to add?

The Coast Guard is the last line of defense for people trying to get either bad things or bad people into the country onto American soil. And if you secure the land borders, which, let’s assume that that may happen in the next four to eight years, then the only access you’re going to have is by the ocean. No one is going to fly into LAX [Los Angeles International Airport] with a bomb or a high-value target. They’re going to come in and hit American shores where they can, like I said, with the same pathways that they get drugs in. And I think that’s what we really have to be on the lookout for going forward in the future, because that will be the way that you get bad people or bad things onto American soil.

This article was first published in Coast Guard Outlook 2016-2017 Edition.