Committee Approves Charging for Gulf Protection

WASHINGTON--A House committee voted yesterday to impose heavy fees on oil tankers protected by U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf, but critics warned the moneysaving move would send a dangerous signal that U.S. military services are for sale.

The House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee voted 32-7 to approve the measure, which is designed to meet a $94 million savings requirement imposed on the panel by the House Budget Committee.

Under the proposal, each one way trip made by an oil tanker under U.S. protection through the gulf would cost $250,000 or the actual cost of the services, whichever is more. Oil companies not paying the fee would be subject to penalties and the protection service would be halted. The committee staff estimated the escort fee would generate at least $95 million a year.

Supporters led by committee Chairman Walter B. Jones (D-N.C.) and Rep. Robert W. Davis (R-Mich.), the ranking GOP member, argued that the fee was the only way to meet the budget target and not resort to a Coast Guard user fee for domestic vessels, an approach favored by the administration but traditionally opposed by the committee and the boating community.

"This is the only way we have available to meet that objective," said Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.). "We should thank God the situation has developed that permits this," he said.

But Rep. Don Young (R-Ak.) said, "It is wrong for us to keep protecting these ships using taxpayer dollars."

He estimated the cost of the administration's policy of escorting reflagged Kuwaiti tankers through the war-torn region at $200 million to date. The Pentagon has said it costs about $20 million a month more than military would spend ordinarily on the ships and troops.

"The bottom line is, somebody is going to pay for these escort services," said Rep. Robin M. Tallon Jr. (D-S.C.). "Now the American taxpayer is picking up the tab."

But a group of five committee Republicans and two Democrats opposed the idea, which they conceded would be popular among voters.

"It's a very bad precedent to set that somehow our military services are for sale around the world," said Rep. Douglas Bosco, (D-Cal.).

"Unless we get out of there right away, there are going to be American servicemen killed in this action and what are we going to say, that we were selling commercial escort services?" he asked.

Rep. Norman D. Shumway (R-Cal.) said the measure inappropriately seeks to make a "major, major foreign policy change" without consulting the administration or the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"For 200 years, our Navy has committed to the right and freedom of the high seas and worked to ensure protection of that right. This proposal would change the ground rules of our long-standing foreign policy, where we now only would be committed to freedom of navigation if someone else picks up the tab," Shumway said.

Rep. Herbert H. Bateman (R-Va.) said it is simply not "the American way of doing business," and questioned what impact such a move would have on western allies helping in the escort effort.

The escort fee would cover the full $94 million the committee is required to come up with by the Budget Committee.

White House officials declined to comment, but the administration is known to oppose the idea of charging for the military services.

"We shouldn't be in the position of renting out the lives of American servicemen for something that isn't in our national interest, and if it is in our national interest, we should be willing to pay for it," said one administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The official predicted the fee concept, which now goes to the House Budget Committee to be compiled with money-saving proposals from the other committees, would be rejected by the Senate.