Statement of Senator Webb on the Navy’s Record of Decision Regarding a Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

Washington, DC—The following is a statement from Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) on the Navy’s Record of Decision regarding a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier:

“Today’s announcement by the Navy that it intends to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Mayport was a foregone conclusion, given the Bush administration’s attempt to fast-track this process before it departs.

“I intend to bring full scrutiny to this decision in the coming months as it makes its way through the appropriate congressional process. I have yet to receive a proper, intelligence-based assessment from the Navy on this matter, despite the fact that as late as January 12, the Chief of Naval Operations confirmed that he could not identify a threat-based requirement for this proposal.

“This is not a simple turf issue between competing interests in Virginia and Florida. It is a matter of properly identifying strategic and fiscal priorities. I am an American before I am a Virginian, and I have spent my entire life working on issues of military and national security. Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers have been homeported in Norfolk since the USS Enterprise was commissioned 47 years ago. The Navy made no effort to duplicate Norfolk’s nuclear-support infrastructure in Mayport at the height of the Cold War, and it has made no compelling argument why it is necessary to do so today.

“If I were serving as Secretary of the Navy today, I would be very worried about where I would be finding $4.6 billion to pay for unfunded requirements in the Navy's existing budget. I would also be worried about where I would be finding the billions of dollars needed to fund procurement for the Navy’s lamentably mismanaged aircraft programs, and the billions that the Navy would need to grow its fleet by more than 25 ships, to its announced goal of 313 combatants. I would not be proposing an additional billion dollars on top of these shortfalls for a non-essential, redundant facility in Mayport, Florida.

“We are consulting closely with the Senate Committees on Armed Forces and Appropriations to ensure that a fully justified cost/benefit analysis and other Navy reporting requirements are completed before the committees consider any appropriation to support the Navy’s proposal.”


To download a copy of Senator Webb’s 24-page critical assessment of the Navy’s proposal to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Mayport, Fla., visit: http://webb.senate.gov/contact/homeport/CriticalAssessmentMayportHomeporting.pdf.

Contact: Jessica Smith, 202-228-5185 or Kimberly Hunter, 202-228-5258

When did Navy philosophy change to dispersal from consolidation?

by C. Grigsby Scifres

Recently, the United States Navy released a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the homeporting of additional ships, including a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, at the Mayport Naval Station in Mayport, Florida. This EIS indicates that the preferred alternative is to homeport a nuclear carrier in Mayport, Florida. If implemented, this recommendation poses a serious economic threat to Hampton Roads.

If a nuclear carrier is moved to Mayport, Florida, then the job losses in Hampton Roads will exceed 11,000 and the annual economic loss will exceed $650 million (some estimates take this up to $1 billion annually).

Our Commonwealth’s federal, state and municipal elected officials will have an early opportunity to work together as one to fight against the regional loss of an aircraft carrier to Mayport. Virginia’s Senators and Representatives need to vigorously debate their colleagues on the merits of Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter’s announced preference for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Mayport, Florida. Governor Kaine should utilize his relationship with the Obama administration to counter the influence wielded by Florida with the Bush administration.

Among the questions that should surface in the debate are:

• how does the required $500+ million infrastructure expenditure measure up against other Navy budget priorities, particularly in the face of the economic challenges facing our government and the nation;
  
  
• how does shifting an aircraft carrier to Mayport reduce security demands on the fleet;
  
  
• why did the maintenance inspections of the conventional aircraft carrier JFK (formerly homeported in Mayport) fare poorly;
  
  
• what is the quality of the public school system in Mayport;
  
  
• when did the Navy change its philosophy to dispersal from consolidation;
  
  
• how much will the entire move actually cost;
  
  
• how rare is it that several aircraft carriers are in port at the same time;
  
  
• what will be the impact on moving thousands of people and housing a crew in geographic limbo for five years; and
  
  
• is it good policy to impose the hardships on Navy families that will come when a Mayport-based nuclear carrier and crew has to come back to Hampton Roads for major overhauls (Mayport lacks the capability to perform such overhauls on a nuclear carrier) lasting 6-12 months at a time?

The announced preference to create a second East Coast homeport for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Mayport, Florida is not supported by operational necessity, nor is it grounded in economic realities. The Navy identified $4.6 billion in unfunded budget requirements in FY2009 for important infrastructure improvements to facilities such as the four public shipyards and Naval Station Norfolk. The taxpayers of these United States cannot afford unnecessary redundancy in facilities or personnel.

A recent headline in the Jacksonville newspaper read “Our Ship Has Come In.” The obvious target is the soon to be commissioned USS GHW Bush CVN-77.

We can not discount the enormity of the impact that this “political” decision will have on our lives in Hampton Roads and on the lives of the men and women who serve our country in the greatest Navy in the world. In many ways, this political decision (not based on economic or military strategic imperatives) is being imposed on the backs of sailors and their families.

We must now have faith in our elected leadership to arrive at a decision that puts the interest of the Nation first and best supports our sailors and the mission of the United States Navy.


C. Grigsby Scifres is a partner in the law firm of Williams Mullen and Chair of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce. A version of this article appeared as an Op-Ed in the Daily Press and the Virginian-Pilot.

Carrier Debate: Economic and Strategic, Mayport v. Norfolk Naval Station

Frank Roberts, Executive Director of Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance (HRMFFA), provided a summary of key events and actions related to the potential loss of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from Norfolk Naval Station to Mayport:

Letter to President-Elect:
Read the joint letter from Representatives Wittman, Drake, Scott, Forbes and Representative-Elect Nye to President-Elect Obama spearheaded by Rep Forbes.

Letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:
Read the joint letter from U.S. Senators John Warner and Jim Webb.

Mayport Impact Analysis Meeting:
Join HRMFFA on Monday, November 24th, from 1 – 2:30 PM in the ballroom at the Residence Inn at 1590 North Military Highway in Norfolk. Your feedback, expertise and support in developing the regional response to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is critical to influencing the ultimate decision and protecting the Hampton Roads region. Once the FEIS is released on November 21st the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a minimum of a 30-calendar day waiting period before a Record of Decision (ROD) can be issued.

The official Executive Summary of the FEIS from Fleet Forces Command will be available Friday, November 21st:
Get the complete ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED HOMEPORTING OF ADDITIONAL SURFACE SHIPS AT NAVAL STATION MAYPORT, FLORIDA at http://MayportHomePortingEIS.com.

Mayport Homeport Strategically Flawed, Fiscally Irresponsible

SENS. WARNER & WEBB, SEN.-ELECT WARNER & GOV. KAINE
CALL NAVY’S PROPOSAL FOR NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIER HOMEPORT
STRATEGICALLY FLAWED, FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE

Washington, DC—Senator John Warner (R-VA), Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), Senator-elect Mark Warner (D-VA), and Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine today called the Navy’s announced preference to create a second East Coast homeport for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Mayport, Fla. “strategically flawed and fiscally irresponsible.” They called on the Navy to delay its decision until a new administration is allowed to analyze the proposal’s strategic and fiscal considerations.

At a press conference in the U.S. Capitol, the four Virginia leaders cited the “fiscal irresponsibility” of creating a new homeport for the carrier in Mayport—a move that the Navy estimates will cost at least $600 million to complete. The costs may well approach $1 billion when the Navy’s preliminary estimates are refined and all projected expenses documented more thoroughly. They argued that this money could be better directed to the more than $4.6 billion in higher-priority, unfunded budget requirements the Navy has identified for fiscal year 2009.

Among other unfunded Navy priorities is a $791 million backlog in critical restoration and modernization projects at the nation’s four naval shipyards. The nuclear-capable Norfolk Naval Shipyard, which currently has the capacity for repair and maintenance of the Navy’s East Coast nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, has a backlog for such critical projects of $224 million alone.

“This proposal lacks the in-depth analysis normally expected in decisions of this magnitude,” said Senator John Warner, who will be retiring his seat this year to his successor, Senator-elect Mark Warner. “Moving a carrier to Mayport does very little to mitigate risk to the carrier fleet. And the tremendous costs associated with such a move merely duplicate existing capabilities at other naval stations and shipyards. Saddling the incoming administration with a bill for new naval nuclear facilities that could approach $1 billion is simply irresponsible.”

“Based on the briefing we received, we see no evidence that the Navy’s announcement was supported by either economic logic or strategic necessity,” said Senator Jim Webb. “There is no possible justification for the relocation of an aircraft carrier to the tune of an estimated $1 billion when the Navy has identified $4.6 billion in higher-priority unfunded requirements for its personnel, shipbuilding, aircraft procurement, and installations. This decision is fiscally irresponsible and contrary to the best interests of the fleet.”

Webb continued: “The Navy cannot show that homeporting at the Mayport base offers any significant strategic advantage over Norfolk. And the strategic dispersion argument made during the Cold War era is not applicable in today’s strategic framework. There are other suitable nuclear-capable repair and maintenance facilities available for emergency use on both the East and West Coasts, and in Hawaii.”

Senators John Warner and Jim Webb, both former Secretaries of the Navy and members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, sent a letter Wednesday evening, November 18, to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates requesting that the Navy refrain from publishing its Final Environmental Impact Statement as planned on November 21, and withold issuing any Record of Decision “until the new administration is able to evaluate the Navy’s decision with greater analytical rigor than the Navy has demonstrated.”

“Norfolk has long been the site from which Navy sailors have deployed to protect American interests, and it’s where our shipyard workers and naval aviators and military families have worked for decades to support the Navy. That’s why this effort to have a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier homeported in Mayport instead of Norfolk is so troubling," said Senator-elect Mark Warner. "We also owe it to the American taxpayer not to waste their money building unnecessary infrastructure in Florida when it already exists in Virginia.”

“We remain disappointed with the Secretary of the Navy’s recommendation to initiate the movement of a nuclear aircraft carrier to Florida in the President’s 11th hour. This proposal does not serve the strategic interests of the nation well,” said Governor Tim Kaine. “Moreover, there is simply not enough justification for prioritizing this change. Considering the impacts of the financial crisis on all budgets and the realistic costs of moving the nuclear carrier and developing the necessary infrastructure for a possible new placement, why should the nation incur an unnecessary cost? I will continue to work closely with Virginia’s congressional delegation to address this issue over the coming weeks.”

The lawmakers also noted that in 2006 the citizens of the City of Jacksonville, Fla., voted against returning Cecil Field to the Department of Defense so that it could be reactivated as the Navy’s East Coast Master Jet Base—a function now fulfilled by Naval Air Station Oceana, Va.

Video excerpts will also be posted on Senator Webb’s YouTube page.

Letter from Senators J. Warner and J. Webb to Secretary of Defense

The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Gates:

On November 18, we were briefed on the Navy's proposal, as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, to base a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport. We have enclosed a copy of that briefing. In accordance with the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, we understand that the Navy's preferred homeporting alternative will be published in the Federal Register November 21 as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Following this announcement, the Navy must wait a minimum of 30 days before issuing its Record of Decision (ROD), but may extend that period for as long as necessary before publicly announcing its final decision.

We ask that an opportunity be provided for the next presidential administration to analyze the strategic and fiscal considerations pertaining to this matter and contribute its views prior to the publication of the FEIS and any issuance of the Record of Decision. As Congress has considered issues associated with strategic homeporting for the last four years, it is inconceivable that an additional 90 days could not be given to ensure a proper decision is made.

Based on the briefing we received, we are extremely concerned that the Navy has made no compelling argument to justify its decision. We saw little or no evidence that the Navy's announcement was supported by either economic logic or strategic necessity. Indeed, according to the Navy's own assessment, the meager advantages attributed to Naval Station Mayport over Naval Station Norfolk are "slight" at best, while initial Navy estimates identify nearly $600 million in military construction costs and other expenses that would be incurred to enable Mayport to serve as a homeport for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. These costs may well approach $1 billion when the Navy's preliminary estimates are refined and all projected expenses documented more thoroughly. This, Mr. Secretary, does not provide for a persuasive case given the scarcity of the Navy's resources.

Moreover, assuming that mitigation of strategic risk is a viable rationale for expanding nuclear-carrier repair and maintenance facilities, the Navy has not fully examined all alternatives short of establishing a second East Coast nuclear-carrier homeport, including the use of other nuclear-capable repair and maintenance facilities on both the East and West Coasts.

Given the extraordinary financial crisis facing our nation and the compelling need to overcome existing shortfalls and invest in higher-priority Navy budget requirements, the Navy's announcement enters the realm of fiscal irresponsibility. The Navy has identified $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2009 unfunded budget requirements. Within the last several years, it has already invested more than $400 million to improve and upgrade its infrastructure at Naval Station Norfolk to support the Navy's carrier fleet with adequate nuclear-capable piers and other support facilities. Before duplicating Norfolk's existing capital-intensive facilities in Mayport, the Navy should make the fiscally sound decision to optimize past investments at Norfolk and preserve scarce resources to address the near crisis in budget shortfalls for its people, shipbuilding program, aircraft procurement, and installations.

Good stewardship of taxpayer dollars demands that the Navy should fund its shortfalls in shore-readiness requirements rather than expand its shore footprint with duplicative facilities. Before creating excess infrastructure and nuclear-warship capacity in Mayport, the Navy should complete a large number of critical unfunded military construction projects. Owing to the Navy's chronic underfunding of modernization at its four public naval shipyards, there remains a $791 million backlog in sustainment, restoration, and modernization projects at these installations. The nuclear-capable Norfolk Naval Shipyard, which currently has the capacity for repair and maintenance of . the Navy's East Coast nuclear carriers, has a backlog for such critical projects of $224 million alone.

It is not in the taxpayer's interest for the Navy to render such an important and expensive decision at the very end of one presidential administration. The new administration should have the opportunity to assess its defense priorities in order to determine how best to address the defense budget's growing shortfalls. For these reasons, we request that the Navy withhold publication of its Final Environmental Impact Statement. Under no conditions should the Navy issue its Record of Decision before the new administration is able to evaluate the homeporting proposal with greater analytical rigor than the Navy has demonstrated. We respectfully note, Mr. Secretary, that the undersigned have had considerable experience as former Secretaries of the Navy in assessing matters of this nature.

Sincerely,

United States Senators John Warner and Jim Webb


cc:
Chairman and Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Armed Service
Chairman and Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations
Secretary of the Navy
Chief of Naval Operations

Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama from Hampton Roads' Congressional Members

President-Elect Barack Obama
Presidential Transition Office
Washington, DC 20270

Dear President-Elect Obama:

Congratulations on your hard-fought and historic election. We are writing you because of your announced intention to reform and cut waste in the Depal1ment of Defense. As Virginians, we understand first-hand the importance of a strong national defense, and we appreciate your stated commitment to maintaining one. We also share your concern that in the midst of a ballooning budget deficit, a declining economy, and continued growth in entitlement spending, we must ensure every defense dollar is spent on the most important national security priorities, such as providing benefits for our soldiers, working towards a 313-ship Navy, and restoring readiness in our aging aircraft fleet, rather than on unnecessary or wasteful interests. We can be confident in the urgency of the matter at hand when even defense industry leaders agree that, "Business as usual is not an option,"(1) for our defense budget planning.

For this reason, we wanted to offer a bipartisan suggestion as to how you can save half a billion dollars that could be directed towards more critical defense priorities as you prepare your Fiscal Year 2010 budget. Today, the Navy announced its preference to expand its footprint by investing $500 million to upgrade the Navy's port at Mayport, Florida to accommodate a nuclear aircraft carrier in addition to the existing East Coast port in Norfolk, Virginia. This cost does not include the additional annual expense of dredging in the harbor in Mayport or the personnel and operational impacts of starting up and shutting down the nuclear component of the port each time a carrier docks in Mayport.

Most importantly, this decision ignores the fact that there is no national security or strategic rationale requiring this buildup, unlike the decision in recent years to increase the proportion of the Navy's fleet in the Pacific from 50% to 60% to balance an expanding Chinese Navy. Some have suggested that our East Coast aircraft carriers must be strategically disbursed to avoid a Pearl Harbor-like attack. As any sailor can tell you, these carriers are dispersed around the world on a routine basis in times of peace, and in times of war. In fact, the last time all the carriers were in port at Norfolk for a matter of days, many pictures were taken because it was such a unique event.

Our concern remains that this would be an unwise use of taxpayer dollars in the face of a serious budget deficit. We are in agreement that we should focus on completing the ongoing consolidation of military facilities as prescribed in the 2005 BRAC law, not spending money to expand a footprint the Depal1ment of Defense asked Congress to reduce just three years ago. As Admiral Mike Mullen has stated, extensive analysis has demonstrated that we need a minimum of 313-ships in our Navy(2). We do not see how we can get there if we do not make the tough budget choices and the easy ones. We humbly suggest to you that choosing not to expand the number of nuclear ports on the East Coast is one of the easy choices.

We look forward to your support on this issue and learning more about your vision for the Department of Defense. Thank you for your consideration, and we wish you the best in your transition.

Sincerely,

Members of Congress
J. RANDY FORBES
BOBBY SCOTT
THELMA DRAKE
ROB WITTMAN
Congressman-Elect
GLENN NYE

cc:
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Chairman
House Armed Services Committee
2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Duncan Hunter
Ranking Member
House Armed Services Committee
2120 Raybul'l1 House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Admiral Mike Mullen
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington DC 20301

(1) http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN1048805120081110
(2) " Interview with Adm. Michael Mullen," Defense News, December 3, 2007.