Congress is battleground over carrier move

Now that the Department of Defense has made clear its intent to move a Norfolk-based aircraft carrier to Mayport, Fla., the battle between Florida and Virginia shifts to Congress.

Members of the Hampton Roads congressional delegation have pledged to fight tooth and nail to block any more money for the project.

They’re taking on Florida’s congressional delegation, who outnumber the Virginians by more than two to one and are already claiming victory.

Hampton Roads representatives said they are not ready to talk about what might happen if the carrier battle is lost.

“We have to continue to have a united front,” said U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee. “I think clearly they’ve got the lead now. They’ve got the horsepower. We’ve got to hope that somewhere along we’ll get a break.”

The stakes are high on both sides.

Florida legislators say a carrier would mean thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions for the local economy. Mayport Naval Station, which is home to more than 20 ships, lost its only carrier when the conventionally powered John F. Kennedy was decommissioned in 2007.

In Hampton Roads, a carrier provides about 6,000 jobs and $425 million in annual revenue, according to recent estimates from the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. About half the jobs are carrier personnel. The others include construction, health care, social services, professional and technical services, and hotels and restaurants.

Each region’s c ongressional delegation is intent on exposing why the other side is wrong. But lawmakers don’t want it seen as a parochial battle over jobs – that makes it harder to build support among their colleagues, they said.

Legislators from both states say it’s a national security issue – but for different reasons.

U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw, a Republican whose district includes Mayport, said the Navy has stated – most recently in a four-year strategic defense review – that having one port on the East Coast for nuclear-powered carriers is a weakness in the nation’s defense system.

“All the senior military officials know this is the right thing to do,” he said.

Virginia supporters have argued that the Navy hasn’t offered data to back up the claim that having one East Coast base makes the carriers more susceptible to terrorist attacks or man-made and natural disasters.

They don’t accept comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during recent House committee testimony that he and other senior officers can make such decisions based on their professional military experience.

Forbes is particularly strident. The Navy’s unwillingness to provide information about the possible risk in Norfolk or to rate the importance of the Mayport against other expensive military projects is “gutless,” the Chesapeake Republican said.

“This is a terrible, terrible decision for the Navy. I think it undermines the Navy’s integrity,” Forbes said, adding that he’ll be more skeptical of Mullen’s comments on any issues, including the war in Afghanistan, because of how the Mayport decision was handled.

Hampton Roads’ delegation expects its strongest case with other legislators will be to show that with limited defense dollars and pressing needs for ship repairs, more ships and other projects, spending $600 million to $1 billion to set up a new carrier base is a waste of money.

Given the national recession and the current Congress’ sensitivity toward big-ticket federal spending, that argument may hold sway, said Todd Harrison, defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank.

“We’re entering an era where it’s going to be much more challenging and defense investments are going to come under more scrutiny,” Harrison said.

U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., is seen by some Virginia colleagues and local officials as best suited to take on the lead role in the fight – a role once held by Sen. John Warner, who retired last year. Both men are former Navy secretaries.

Webb, a decorated combat veteran and a member of the armed services panel, reiterated in a statement last week that he isn’t backing down any time soon.

“As long as these strategic necessities remain unfilled, and particularly until our ship building program is on a clear trajectory that will take the Navy back to 313 ships, I will oppose any expenditure toward a nuclear upgrade in Mayport, Fla.,” Webb wrote.

The carrier debate has political overtones as well. House members who will be up for re-election in November don’t want a carrier taken away on their watch.

U.S. Rep. Glenn Nye, a Norfolk Democrat targeted by the national Republican Party for defeat, said just because the carrier move is on the Navy’s “wish list” doesn’t mean it will happen.

The next votes on the issue may come this year as Congress considers a $708 billion defense budget. Military leaders said it contains $2 million to make plans for moving a carrier to Mayport.

Most of the funding for the Mayport relocation, which is estimated to cost $600 million to $1 billion, is expected to come before Congress in 2011 or later. The soonest a carrier might move is 2015.

The initial skirmishes will likely be in the House and Senate armed services and appropriations committees, legislators said. Virginia and Florida have lawmakers on all the panels except the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Meanwhile, the first preparations for a new carrier are expected to begin in a few weeks, Crenshaw said. Almost $76 million was approved by Congress last year to improve wharves and dredge the St. Johns River in Florida so a nuclear carrier can access port at all times.

There is a suggestion that while Virginia must resist the carrier move, lawmakers also should make contingency plans so the region won’t be caught flatfooted if it loses one of five carriers.

“Let’s be smart,” said Frank Roberts, director of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance. “Let’s accept that the intelligent, well-reasoned leadership in the Department of Defense has concluded this is what they want to do. … Let’s figure out how we go about mitigating that.”

Roberts, who said his views are his own and not those of the alliance, said that he strongly supports efforts to keep the carrier here but that there could come a time when the region must make peace with the Navy’s decision.

Continuing to oppose the movement of a carrier when the Navy’s plans are too far along could damage the region’s chances for future projects, he said. “It could create unintended consequences.”

Roberts and others also worry that the loss of a carrier might give outsiders the impression that Hampton Roads’ military assets are available. “If we create the perception that we were an easy pushover, then that opens us up for more attacks,” he said.

Crenshaw indicated that one carrier at Mayport may not satisfy Florida. “There’s room for two,” he said.

Bill Bartel, (757) 446-2398, bill.bartel@pilotonline.com