Carrier fight moves to halls of Congress

It's more than disconcerting to hear a Hampton Roads congressman's assessment that losing an aircraft carrier to Florida is inevitable. Unless we "get a break," U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes said, Florida has the momentum and the political pull to shift a Norfolk-based nuclear carrier to Mayport Naval Station in 2015.

Forbes also said he'd fight like crazy to keep that from happening. But the push in Washington and at the Pentagon seems to be headed south.

Moving a carrier to Mayport would be illogical and unnecessarily expensive. But if we're relying on a break, not sound reasoning and fiscal responsibility, to keep our strong military presence in Hampton Roads, we might as well prepare to say goodbye to the 6,000 jobs and $425 million in annual income that a carrier carries with it.

In fact, if we're conceding that loss, we might prepare ourselves for worse. The Department of Defense is unlikely to spend $1 billion readying Mayport for just one nuclear carrier; it could send two or three.

The economic effect of losing one is sobering enough - similar to losing the families and neighborhoods associated with two public high schools. But multiply that by three. It's the equivalent of Northrop Grumman shuttering operations in Hampton Roads. Or all at once losing the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Stihl Inc., Amerigroup Corp., Farm Fresh, Dollar Tree and the USJFCOM/JWFC Training, Analysis & Simulation Center in Suffolk.

Beyond the economic impact, and more important, is what this would do to a culture that revolves around the military. Kids would lose their Little League coaches. Churches would lose leaders. We'd all lose neighbors and friends.

We'd have no need to expand the tunnels or construct a transit system, no reason to build more houses or schools, no worries about waiting in line at restaurants or theaters. Businesses of all kinds would suffer. The ripples would be far worse than anything we've seen in this recession. It would, according to optimistic estimates, take a decade or more to recover.

Despite the Quadrennial Defense Review's recommendation to move a carrier to Florida, the case for keeping it in Norfolk remains strong. Unlike May-port, Hampton Roads doesn't need to spend $76 million to improve wharves or dredge a river to accommodate a nuclear carrier. It doesn't need to spend more than half a billion dollars setting up a new base.

Florida's only advantage is political. It has more votes than Virginia and a congressional delegation more united in the mission. Florida's leaders have been working for years, and spending millions, to siphon military assets of any kind from any state that has them. The state is closer than ever to winning.

The Defense review declared that moving a carrier to May-port would "mitigate the risk of a terrorist attack, accident or natural disaster," but it failed to say why Norfolk is at greater risk than other ports - and why a carrier would be safer in Jacksonville, where the chance of severe storms is much greater.

Carriers, also based in Washington and California, are spending more time at sea, so the chances of having the East Coast fleet in Hampton Roads at the same time are increasingly unlikely.

Congress is considering the Defense Department's $708 billion budget request. While there's one minute to make the case for fiscal responsibility, while one congressman remains uncertain, our senators and representatives cannot stop fighting to keep the carriers here.

It will take the kind of unified effort that has been in short supply in Washington, a test not of party but of legislative mettle and influence. Failure will have consequences.

Hampton Roads' business leaders, its tourism officials, university presidents and military brass must join them in making Washington understand that a move to Mayport is perhaps justified by politics, but not by reality.