Navy League of the United States
Marin County Council
Monday, March 19, 2001

First, the legislation authorizing the relocation of the USS Iowa to California was not written by Boxer, as the author purports. Second, the author is incorrect in stating that the appropriation was not authorized. In fact it passed both the Senate and the House Appropriation Committees. Specifically, the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Jerry Lewis, passed the measure in the YR 2000 Defense Appropriations Act. Third, the association's Executive Director William Stearman would have the reader believe that it was illegal to spend appropriated funds in FY2001. This monies were committed and accrued as spent in YR2000 once the secretary of the Navy decided in YR2000 to tow the Iowa, per standard practice.

The MARAD facility in Suisun Bay, Calif., is quite able to take great care of the Iowa. USNFSA is also incorrect in stating otherwise. The Iowa is a Maintenance Category B mobilization asset, ready for recall and designated to receive the highest practicable degree of maintenance within personnel and funding limitations. Vessels placed in this category are those identified as most urgently needed to augment the active fleet in the event of an emergency. MARAD is qualified to maintain a Maintenance Category B reserve asset.

Indeed, the Navy has another Category B ship at Suisun Bay, where the Iowa will be maintained and which the Navy has designated an Inactive Fleet Site for its ships in the Bay Area. There are almost 90 other vessels there in reserve status as well. Further, it is a designated Naval Inactive Fleet Site. USNFSA would have the public believe there is no electricity at the MARAD facility and that the state of California, among the world's top ten economies, is in the stone age. This is a laughable assertion and ignores that the facility has available underwater network of cables that feed electricity from shore utilities to the fleet moored in a channel as well as having generators aboard afloat platforms. The Iowa's dehumidification and cathodic protection systems will have plenty of electrical power to run on.

Further, the Iowa will have cadres of skilled workman to take care of her. Overall, the Bay Area is home to more than 120 reserve and ready reserve ships. Essentially, USNFSA should understand that Inactive Fleet Sites are all maintenance businesses. Ships are not there for display.

Further, the Bay Area has heavy lift capacity, including a functioning regunning crane built for Iowa-class battleships. The region also has a floating drydock large enough for the Iowa at San Francisco Drydock and is blessed with many deep-water piers. In point of fact, the Iowa will enjoy superior maintenance protocals and preservation facilities in the Bay Area. This conclusion was reached after a $300,000 feasibility study was authorized by Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig. These facts argue against the rash, superficial and misleading assertions of USNFSA.

The decision to relocate the Iowa to San Francisco is supported by two consecutive years of congressional approval. For the record, the Navy's decision to bring the Iowa to California received bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress for two consecutive years. The YR1999 Defense Authorization Act expressed the sense of Congress that USS Iowa be homeported in San Francisco, and the YR 2000 Defense Appropriation Act provided $3 million for the transfer of USS Iowa from Rhode Island to San Francisco. USNFSA falsely paints this congressional appropriation as a dark affair with no transparency. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Iowa will be kept in superb condition in California. A battleship on the West Coast in mobilization status as well as one on the East Coast in mobilization status makes perfect sense following the United States' relinquishment of the Panama Canal. In fact, the case for the battleship's utility in a modern, electronic age is only strengthened by this relocation from the visibility the Iowa will receive.

In conclusion, USNFSA arguments against the Iowa's relocation to California hold no weight. They are misleading and incorrect. The Navy, the public, and the U.S.S. Iowa are poorly served by an organization that is on record as accusing our nation's own Navy of deliberate incompetence, that makes a policy of insulting congressman and our secretaries of Defense and the Navy, and that excels at disinformation.