Pentagon affirms Mayport-based carrier

WASHINGTON, D.C. - It's known simply as the QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review. Tucked deep inside the lengthy report, there is one page--one sentence--that could spell bad news for Virginian and Hampton Roads: "...the U.S. Navy will homeport an east coast carrier in Mayport, Florida."

"Its a little surprising that over the weekend the word Mayport had been put into the QDR," U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, R-Virginia, said by phone Monday. "It was not in there as far as we know at the end of last week."

The inclusion was a surprise to Webb, but the debate itself has been ongoing for more than a year.

The Navy says it wants to make the move because Naval Station Norfolk is the largest Navy base in the world and it houses several nuclear powered carriers. With so much power in one place, the Navy fears a natural disaster or terrorist attack could be catastrophic to the nation's defense.

Naval Station Mayport in Jacksonville, Fla. had often been discussed as a destination for one of the carriers.

At a news conference Monday morning, Florida lawmakers were more than pleased to see the report, claiming they had won the debate.

"It's going to be hard for anybody to argue that this hasn't had a thorough review. It's been the most reviewed project that I've ever seen, the decision this time, in fact, is a final decision," Rep. Ander Crenshaw, a republican from Florida's 4th district, told reporters in Jacksonville.

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson (D) called it a great day for Jacksonville and America.

"The decision's done and now get ready, there are going to be 4,000 sailors coming, their families, half a billion dollars of construction in the meantime...all that ancillary business that will come with a carrier."

Sen. Webb said the Florida lawmakers may be getting ahead of themselves, as the report is a valuable planning document, but not one that holds force of law. Congress would have to approve the move in addition to appropriating funding because it's a project that comes with a $1 billion price tag.

"I would be very curious to see where the Navy believes it can take a billion dollars away from shipbuilding programs, weapons procurement, ship maintenance and repair, those sorts of issues and building the fleet, in order to put an alternate port that really isn't needed," he said.

Webb believes money would be wasted by building another port to support a nuclear carrier.

Currently, Mayport does not have one and would have to build, a move Webb suggested would be redundant federal spending.

"We have to be very careful stewards of where the taxpayer dollars go in a time when we're looking at constraining our budgets - a billion dollars to build something of a redundant facility when we could take that money and put it into other programs, I don't see the justification for it."

Webb said at least four other ports around the world could currently house a nuclear carrier if there was a need to move one out of Virginia.

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner offered his opinion on the issue Monday afternoon. In an email to WAVY.com, Warner wrote:

“In a time of concern about federal spending and budget deficits, I will be asking tough questions about this Pentagon plan to divert $700 million to $1 billion -- or more – to reassign an aircraft carrier from the Norfolk Naval Station.

“The Commonwealth of Virginia has long supported the world’s largest naval base at Norfolk. In fact, it was Virginia shipbuilders who constructed the Navy’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier nearly 50 years ago and who continue to build, refuel and maintain the carriers today.

"We will continue to work in partnership with Sen. Jim Webb, our colleagues in the House of Representatives, and our state and local partners to maintain Virginia's historic and long-standing commitment to support our military installations and Virginia's military men and women and their families."

Senator Webb also released an official statement Monday:

“As someone who has spent time in the military and served as Secretary of the Navy, I both understand our national security priorities and our responsibility to be careful stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars—especially at a time of great budget constraints. We are talking about a billion dollars to build a redundant facility, when we can and should be investing that money into other, higher-priority defense programs. I don’t see the justification; it has yet to be demonstrated.

“I would be curious to see where the Navy believes that it can take a billion dollars away from shipbuilding, weapons procurement, ship maintenance and repair, and building a fleet in order to construct an alternate port which, on all accounts, doesn’t seem to be needed.

“This is not a done deal.

“The QDR—while a valuable internal, planning document—does not have the force of law. The President’s budget request will have to be authorized and appropriated by the Congress; and my colleagues and I in the Virginia delegation have been working assiduously all year to make sure