Delegation heads back to Washington with specific requests for Guam's military buildup
By Heather Hauswirth
8/12/09
KUAM News
Today marked the final day of the congressional delegation's visit to Guam. The codel began the day by paying tribute to the thousands of Marines who paid the ultimate sacrifice. They then wrapped up their visit by discussing the needs of the island in preparation of the military buildup.
The congressional delegation now leaves the island with what they say is a better understanding of the territory's needs and the impact the military buildup will have not just on our community but infrastructure, as well. Consolidated Commission on Utilities chairperson Simon Sanchez says he would like to implement key infrastructure construction blue prints pertaining to water and power.
The only problem - he's still waiting on funding. Said Sanchez, "We are working on a comprehensive water management program for the northern aquifer. We hope to reach some consensus with JGPO on this plan, and from then be able to determine what has to be built in terms of wells, how do we tie the systems together and most importantly, who pays for it?"
Money allocated for the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Authorization Bill has not yet been appropriated for construction purposes. However, representative Nick Rahall, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and leader of the codel's trip to Guam, spoke to these concerns and says this funding will not come over night.
He said, "There will be costs involved all the way around here. It's not something Congress will be able to address over night with a magic wand and magic appropriations bill. It will take a lot of working together and coming up with innovative and perhaps new ways of financing public private partnerships is one of the alternatives we are looking at."
The issue of finances is further complicated with Hawaii representative Neil Abercrombie's controversial provision that would increase the defense authorization by billions of dollars. "It would also initiate a dual wage system here in Guam, which would not be beneficial to our community. This could possibly, if anything like this went through, could derail the Guam buildup," said Guam congressional delegate Madeleine Bordallo.
And while Bordallo's sentiments are shared by many on the island, Senator Matt Rector introduced legislation supporting the Abercrombie amendment, as he said, "I don't think it's controversial at all. The Abercrombie amendment will produce over $10 billion into our economy, a minimum of a billion dollars in revenue just for the public structure. Who in their right mind wouldn't want that?"
While local politics will continue to play out here in the Guam Legislature, the codel returns to Washington with a laundry list of requests that include ensuring the necessary funding for the island's infrastructure needs.
Showing posts with label Abercrombie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abercrombie. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Guam Military Buildup by Congressman Neil Abercrombie
By Neil Abercrombie
July 11, 2009
Some in Guam have expressed strong opposition to provisions in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, passed overwhelmingly this week by the U.S. House, concerning military construction in Guam.
The measure authorizes a multi-year, multi-billion dollar building program to construct a new home for the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Forces and elements of other units stationed on the island of Okinawa and in mainland Japan for many years. This means building permanent military facilities to accommodate about 8,000 military personnel and as many as 9,000 family members. The move is the result of a lengthy and detailed agreement between the United States and Japan, under which the U.S. will pay about 40% of the cost.
When Members of the House Armed Services Committee considered the matter, we had two aims: 1.) to assure our men and women in uniform and their families high quality, comfortable and durable buildings and facilities in a secure environment in which they can work, train and live, and 2.) create stable, well-paid jobs for skilled American building and construction workers to replace some of the thousands of jobs lost in this economic recession,.
This five-year project will require 15,000 or more construction workers. Thousands will have to be recruited to relocate to supplement the local workforce. The legislation reserves 70% of those jobs for American workers.
My ideal for the quality of housing and facilities we want on Guam are the military construction projects in Hawaii and across the country through public-private joint ventures, in which companies win multi-year contracts to build, maintain, repair and manage family housing and other structures on a base. The company builds out the project and makes its money from the Basic Allowance for Housing paid by the military families who live in the housing. In Hawaii, we negotiated 50-year agreements with our construction companies at Schofield Barracks, Hickam Air Force Base, Pearl Harbor Naval Station and Marine Base Kaneohe. The product and the process have been widely praised by military families and military leaders.
Wages should be commensurate with the experience and skills of the building trades workers who can provide the quality construction our military personnel deserve. The legislation established wages at the level for similar projects in Hawaii, the closest U.S. labor market. Guam’s prevailing wage is significantly less than most U.S. labor markets; its tax base is limited; and its workforce has only a fraction of the trained and skilled people needed for this job.
The alternative is to outsource to Japanese companies that will bring in foreign workers, for which the Guam government collects a bounty of $1000 per head. This will open the door to profiteering and continued wage bondage, and be a slap in the face of every qualified, unemployed American worker.
Relocating thousands of military personnel and their families is a massive undertaking, and will dramatically alter Guam’s future. Building a new military base from scratch will take several years and billions of dollars. The project will offer thousands of local jobs, thousands more from outside, create opportunities for local small businesses and transform the economy of the island. It is also a singular opportunity to put Americans to work, in an American territory, building America’s future in the Pacific region. Economic security and national security go hand in hand.
July 11, 2009
Some in Guam have expressed strong opposition to provisions in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, passed overwhelmingly this week by the U.S. House, concerning military construction in Guam.
The measure authorizes a multi-year, multi-billion dollar building program to construct a new home for the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Forces and elements of other units stationed on the island of Okinawa and in mainland Japan for many years. This means building permanent military facilities to accommodate about 8,000 military personnel and as many as 9,000 family members. The move is the result of a lengthy and detailed agreement between the United States and Japan, under which the U.S. will pay about 40% of the cost.
When Members of the House Armed Services Committee considered the matter, we had two aims: 1.) to assure our men and women in uniform and their families high quality, comfortable and durable buildings and facilities in a secure environment in which they can work, train and live, and 2.) create stable, well-paid jobs for skilled American building and construction workers to replace some of the thousands of jobs lost in this economic recession,.
This five-year project will require 15,000 or more construction workers. Thousands will have to be recruited to relocate to supplement the local workforce. The legislation reserves 70% of those jobs for American workers.
My ideal for the quality of housing and facilities we want on Guam are the military construction projects in Hawaii and across the country through public-private joint ventures, in which companies win multi-year contracts to build, maintain, repair and manage family housing and other structures on a base. The company builds out the project and makes its money from the Basic Allowance for Housing paid by the military families who live in the housing. In Hawaii, we negotiated 50-year agreements with our construction companies at Schofield Barracks, Hickam Air Force Base, Pearl Harbor Naval Station and Marine Base Kaneohe. The product and the process have been widely praised by military families and military leaders.
Wages should be commensurate with the experience and skills of the building trades workers who can provide the quality construction our military personnel deserve. The legislation established wages at the level for similar projects in Hawaii, the closest U.S. labor market. Guam’s prevailing wage is significantly less than most U.S. labor markets; its tax base is limited; and its workforce has only a fraction of the trained and skilled people needed for this job.
The alternative is to outsource to Japanese companies that will bring in foreign workers, for which the Guam government collects a bounty of $1000 per head. This will open the door to profiteering and continued wage bondage, and be a slap in the face of every qualified, unemployed American worker.
Relocating thousands of military personnel and their families is a massive undertaking, and will dramatically alter Guam’s future. Building a new military base from scratch will take several years and billions of dollars. The project will offer thousands of local jobs, thousands more from outside, create opportunities for local small businesses and transform the economy of the island. It is also a singular opportunity to put Americans to work, in an American territory, building America’s future in the Pacific region. Economic security and national security go hand in hand.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
What's Behind Abercrombie's Ammendment?
What’s behind the Abercrombie amendment?
Sunday, 12 July 2009 23:49 by Jayne Flores
The Marianas Variety
It’s a trade off: the long-awaited payment of war reparations to our dwindling number of survivors of the Japanese occupation, for a Hawaii-based wage rate for the buildup.
That seems to be the most logical reason behind Hawaii Rep. Neil Abercrombie’s two additional amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
Abercrombie is running for governor, and if he can boost his state’s struggling economy by giving construction workers jobs on Guam that pay just as much as if they were working in Hawaii, it would be a large feather in his political cap. It’s a cap that, according to a candidate watchdog web site, has been paid for with contributions from the likes of Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and 21st Century Systems, all military contractor heavyweights.
On the other side, we’re getting to the point that if we don’t settle this war claims issue soon, there won’t be any WWII survivors left to receive the money.
Abercrombie’s first amendment requires that Hawaii construction wage rates, which are approximately double what construction workers on Guam are paid, will apply to all build-up related projects funded with money specifically earmarked for the build-up.
The second amendments says that not more than 30 percent of the total hours worked per month on a buildup construction project may be performed by foreign workers, or workers holding temporary work visas.
So we’ve now got requirements that the Defense Department has to pay everyone who works on a buildup project those high Hawaii wage rates, and on each of the jobs, 70 percent of the work hours have to be worked by U.S. workers.
Obviously, Abercrombie is trying to prevent jobs going to foreign workers while construction workers in his state and other states are out of work. His amendment makes perfect sense if you’re a senator watching unemployment rates skyrocket in your state, or watching your state hand out vouchers for payment because it is broke.
This amendment seems to strike fear in the hearts of contractors on Guam and the overall Guam business community. They’ve been collectively saying that doubling wage rates for these projects might kill the buildup, or cause a domino effect and increase the cost of living on the island. But would it?
The large contractors that will be paying these higher rates already pay similar rates in many states. According to www.payscale.com, journeyman electricians make an average of $25.44 an hour in the states. Carpenters make from $22.33 to $32.43, depending on where they work. So these contractors’ bids will reflect the Hawaii-based wage rates accordingly. It’s the Department of Defense that will have to fork out the big bucks.
Local contractors are not getting these jobs – that’s the word through the grapevine. They may get subcontracts, but they can work the higher wages into their subcontract bids. So the local contractors won’t actually have to pay these rates, because Abercrombie’s amendment is specific to the buildup, not to the prevailing wage rate on Guam.
What will happen, though, is that the buildup will create two classes of H-2 workers and local workers, those who work on federal projects and are paid the higher wages, and those who work on local projects and are paid Guam’s prevailing construction wage rates. This could cause some animosity among workers within a company, especially among foreign workers who might fight over who gets to work the 30 percent hours on federal projects.
The higher wage rate might actually work in Guam’s favor. Although stateside workers will probably send home a significant portion of their paychecks if they don’t move their families out here, rest assured, they’ll frequent local restaurants and other establishments, and spend more of their money here than would foreign workers, who as a general rule send home most of their paychecks.
The defense budget bill, including the war claims and Abercrombie amendments, is now in the U.S. Senate. What senators are going to have to decide is whether they want to increase the cost of the buildup in order to put more Americans back to work, or scratch the whole bill and start over. Or, they could take out Abercrombie’s amendments, or the war claims amendment, or both.
At this point, anything can happen. But having to deal with the higher buildup wages won’t be as devastating as will having the war claims legislation slip through our fingers once again.
If this is the deal – we should take it.
Sunday, 12 July 2009 23:49 by Jayne Flores
The Marianas Variety
It’s a trade off: the long-awaited payment of war reparations to our dwindling number of survivors of the Japanese occupation, for a Hawaii-based wage rate for the buildup.
That seems to be the most logical reason behind Hawaii Rep. Neil Abercrombie’s two additional amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
Abercrombie is running for governor, and if he can boost his state’s struggling economy by giving construction workers jobs on Guam that pay just as much as if they were working in Hawaii, it would be a large feather in his political cap. It’s a cap that, according to a candidate watchdog web site, has been paid for with contributions from the likes of Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and 21st Century Systems, all military contractor heavyweights.
On the other side, we’re getting to the point that if we don’t settle this war claims issue soon, there won’t be any WWII survivors left to receive the money.
Abercrombie’s first amendment requires that Hawaii construction wage rates, which are approximately double what construction workers on Guam are paid, will apply to all build-up related projects funded with money specifically earmarked for the build-up.
The second amendments says that not more than 30 percent of the total hours worked per month on a buildup construction project may be performed by foreign workers, or workers holding temporary work visas.
So we’ve now got requirements that the Defense Department has to pay everyone who works on a buildup project those high Hawaii wage rates, and on each of the jobs, 70 percent of the work hours have to be worked by U.S. workers.
Obviously, Abercrombie is trying to prevent jobs going to foreign workers while construction workers in his state and other states are out of work. His amendment makes perfect sense if you’re a senator watching unemployment rates skyrocket in your state, or watching your state hand out vouchers for payment because it is broke.
This amendment seems to strike fear in the hearts of contractors on Guam and the overall Guam business community. They’ve been collectively saying that doubling wage rates for these projects might kill the buildup, or cause a domino effect and increase the cost of living on the island. But would it?
The large contractors that will be paying these higher rates already pay similar rates in many states. According to www.payscale.com, journeyman electricians make an average of $25.44 an hour in the states. Carpenters make from $22.33 to $32.43, depending on where they work. So these contractors’ bids will reflect the Hawaii-based wage rates accordingly. It’s the Department of Defense that will have to fork out the big bucks.
Local contractors are not getting these jobs – that’s the word through the grapevine. They may get subcontracts, but they can work the higher wages into their subcontract bids. So the local contractors won’t actually have to pay these rates, because Abercrombie’s amendment is specific to the buildup, not to the prevailing wage rate on Guam.
What will happen, though, is that the buildup will create two classes of H-2 workers and local workers, those who work on federal projects and are paid the higher wages, and those who work on local projects and are paid Guam’s prevailing construction wage rates. This could cause some animosity among workers within a company, especially among foreign workers who might fight over who gets to work the 30 percent hours on federal projects.
The higher wage rate might actually work in Guam’s favor. Although stateside workers will probably send home a significant portion of their paychecks if they don’t move their families out here, rest assured, they’ll frequent local restaurants and other establishments, and spend more of their money here than would foreign workers, who as a general rule send home most of their paychecks.
The defense budget bill, including the war claims and Abercrombie amendments, is now in the U.S. Senate. What senators are going to have to decide is whether they want to increase the cost of the buildup in order to put more Americans back to work, or scratch the whole bill and start over. Or, they could take out Abercrombie’s amendments, or the war claims amendment, or both.
At this point, anything can happen. But having to deal with the higher buildup wages won’t be as devastating as will having the war claims legislation slip through our fingers once again.
If this is the deal – we should take it.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
House Bill Would Sharply Raise Cost of Guam Project
House Bill Would Sharply Raise Cost of Guam Project
By Walter Pincus
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Washington Post
A little-publicized provision in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill approved by the House last week would double the $10 billion cost of construction on Guam as part of the realignment of U.S. military forces in the Pacific.
The planned move of 8,000 U.S. Marines and about 3,600 other U.S. military troops and their dependents from Okinawa and mainland Japan to Guam over the next five years was originally expected to cost about $15 billion.
Of that total, $10 billion would be in construction of facilities, family housing and public utilities.
But a provision in last week's House bill would require that construction companies pay their employees working on Guam's realignment construction projects wages equivalent to rates in Hawaii, which are 250 percent higher than those on Guam, according to the Joint Guam Program Office.
The Congressional Budget Office report attached to the House bill estimates the growth in labor costs from this provision alone "would increase the need for discretionary appropriations by about $10 billion over the 2010-2014 period."
The provision was authored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), the fourth-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Another amendment Abercrombie added to the bill would limit to 30 percent the proportion of foreign workers that would be allowed to work on these projects.
"At a time when a depressed economy has dealt a body blow to our construction industry, the Department of Defense should not even consider turning over badly needed jobs to foreign workers at questionable wages," Abercrombie told his constituents.
"This is a huge opportunity to put Americans to work, in an American territory, building an American military base. My amendments provide clear guidelines to manage the buildup while ensuring quality work for our service members and their families," he added.
ad_icon
Another provision would require the secretary of labor to report to the House and Senate Armed Services committees by June 30, 2010, "on efforts to expand the recruitment of construction workers in the United States to support this effort; on the ability of labor markets to support the Guam realignment."
Not everyone agreed with Abercrombie's proposals. Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), also an Armed Services Committee member, said during debate on the bill, "This provision will lead to inflated wages in Guam, while taking American jobs from construction projects in Texas, Maryland and Virginia."
The realignment, first agreed to in 2006 by the Bush administration and Japanese government, was designed to reduce tensions caused by a large, unwanted American military presence on Okinawa. In February, during her trip to Japan, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton restated the U.S commitment "to modernize our military posture in the Pacific."
The government of Japan is expected to contribute about $2.8 billion to pay for the move. The U.S. government is to contribute $4.2 billion, and an additional $3.2 billion worth of family housing construction will be financed by third parties, who would then take a fee for managing those properties.
The Congressional Budget Office said it "does not expect the Japanese government to increase its share," thus leaving Washington to pick up the additional costs for construction projects if the provision remains in the bill.
A Government Accountability Office report in April raised questions about whether the U.S. government and the military had made adequate preparations on Guam. The GAO pointed out that military members and their families would create roughly a 14 percent increase in Guam's current population of 171,000, which would "substantially impact Guam's community and infrastructure."
There also would be a need for an estimated 22,000 additional construction workers, at least temporarily.
The GAO suggested that Guam's two major highways would need upgrading to carry the increased traffic. In addition, the island's major port would have to double its capacity.
Its electric capacity would need a major buildup, as would its water and wastewater systems, which the GAO said are near capacity already. The estimate was that the latter would have to be increased by 25 percent.
One question was who would fund the additional demands on Guam's roads, schools and public utilities. In last week's bill, the House expressed its "sense of the Congress that utility improvements on Guam should incorporate military and civilian utilities on Guam into a unified [electric] grid."
By Walter Pincus
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Washington Post
A little-publicized provision in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill approved by the House last week would double the $10 billion cost of construction on Guam as part of the realignment of U.S. military forces in the Pacific.
The planned move of 8,000 U.S. Marines and about 3,600 other U.S. military troops and their dependents from Okinawa and mainland Japan to Guam over the next five years was originally expected to cost about $15 billion.
Of that total, $10 billion would be in construction of facilities, family housing and public utilities.
But a provision in last week's House bill would require that construction companies pay their employees working on Guam's realignment construction projects wages equivalent to rates in Hawaii, which are 250 percent higher than those on Guam, according to the Joint Guam Program Office.
The Congressional Budget Office report attached to the House bill estimates the growth in labor costs from this provision alone "would increase the need for discretionary appropriations by about $10 billion over the 2010-2014 period."
The provision was authored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), the fourth-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Another amendment Abercrombie added to the bill would limit to 30 percent the proportion of foreign workers that would be allowed to work on these projects.
"At a time when a depressed economy has dealt a body blow to our construction industry, the Department of Defense should not even consider turning over badly needed jobs to foreign workers at questionable wages," Abercrombie told his constituents.
"This is a huge opportunity to put Americans to work, in an American territory, building an American military base. My amendments provide clear guidelines to manage the buildup while ensuring quality work for our service members and their families," he added.
ad_icon
Another provision would require the secretary of labor to report to the House and Senate Armed Services committees by June 30, 2010, "on efforts to expand the recruitment of construction workers in the United States to support this effort; on the ability of labor markets to support the Guam realignment."
Not everyone agreed with Abercrombie's proposals. Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), also an Armed Services Committee member, said during debate on the bill, "This provision will lead to inflated wages in Guam, while taking American jobs from construction projects in Texas, Maryland and Virginia."
The realignment, first agreed to in 2006 by the Bush administration and Japanese government, was designed to reduce tensions caused by a large, unwanted American military presence on Okinawa. In February, during her trip to Japan, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton restated the U.S commitment "to modernize our military posture in the Pacific."
The government of Japan is expected to contribute about $2.8 billion to pay for the move. The U.S. government is to contribute $4.2 billion, and an additional $3.2 billion worth of family housing construction will be financed by third parties, who would then take a fee for managing those properties.
The Congressional Budget Office said it "does not expect the Japanese government to increase its share," thus leaving Washington to pick up the additional costs for construction projects if the provision remains in the bill.
A Government Accountability Office report in April raised questions about whether the U.S. government and the military had made adequate preparations on Guam. The GAO pointed out that military members and their families would create roughly a 14 percent increase in Guam's current population of 171,000, which would "substantially impact Guam's community and infrastructure."
There also would be a need for an estimated 22,000 additional construction workers, at least temporarily.
The GAO suggested that Guam's two major highways would need upgrading to carry the increased traffic. In addition, the island's major port would have to double its capacity.
Its electric capacity would need a major buildup, as would its water and wastewater systems, which the GAO said are near capacity already. The estimate was that the latter would have to be increased by 25 percent.
One question was who would fund the additional demands on Guam's roads, schools and public utilities. In last week's bill, the House expressed its "sense of the Congress that utility improvements on Guam should incorporate military and civilian utilities on Guam into a unified [electric] grid."
Monday, June 29, 2009
Amendment Could Stall Marine Transfer
Amendment could stall marine transfer
Monday, 29 June 2009
by Romeo Carlos
Marianas Variety
AS EARLY as June 9, Japanese media reports were saying that negotiations between officials from Tokyo and Okinawa in Japan had come to a standstill over concerns about references made to amendments to the United States’ Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget.
More recently, the office of Representative Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, proposed a key amendment to the fiscal 2010 defense budget that would jeopardize the planned transfer of 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam.
The plan to move 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam is part of an agreement struck between the United States and Japan in May 2006 to realign the U.S. military presence in Japan by 2014. Relocating the Marines to Guam is closely tied to a key element of the agreement - transferring the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station's heliport functions from Ginowan in central Okinawa, to an alternative facility located near Camp Schwab, in Nago, a northern Okinawa prefecture.
Abercrombie’s amendment says the U.S. defense secretary should not give its approval to the alternative facility as long as it fails to comply with minimum flight safety requirements. The amendment would make it difficult to realize the agreement.
Abercrombie believes that an area extending from the lower part of Camp Schwab into shallow waters is not the right sort of location for the alternative facility and has urged that an alternate site be considered. The Hawaii congressman told Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun last week that the alternative facility under the current plan does not meet several safety standards; particularly:
- The runways are too short.
- A school, Okinawa National College of Technology, is located nearby.
- There are obstacles, such as utility polls, along the flight path.
The Yomiuri Shimbun reported last Thursday a Japanese government source saying, "The content of this amendment suggests the transfer to the alternative facility agreed by Japan and the United States won't be permitted."
Another Japanese paper, Mainichi Daily, reported in early June that the Japanese ministry of defense is keen to reach a settlement on the relocation of the air base from Ginowan to the coastal side of Camp Schwab in Nago.
The paper detailed a reference made then by U.S. Marine Corps Commandant James Conway to a possible amendment of the relocation plans - an indication the U.S. is not settled in its stance.
Conway spoke to the Senate Committee on Armed Services on June 4, mentioning problems relating to training and the ability to move Futenma Air Station facilities, and said there were several amendments that deserved consideration, indicating that doubts remain over the direction of the relocation plans.
In testimony before the committee, Conway indicated a need to modify the plan to transfer U.S. Marines from Japan's Okinawa prefecture to Guam by 2014.
"This Futenma replacement facility has to be indeed a fully capable replacement for what we're giving up on Okinawa," Conway said, adding, "We are concerned about training opportunities on Guam, in the nearby islands as well as the rest of the Asia-Pacific basin.
"So there are some things like that, that we certainly want to see considered and negotiated as need be with the Japanese before we slap the table," he said.
As part of his opening remarks, Conway said, though the U.S. Marines support this move, he also believes the development of training areas and ranges on Guam and the adjoining islands of the Marianas are key prerequisites to the realignment of our forces.
Japanese Administrative Vice Minister of Defense Kohei Masuda confirmed in early June that, for their part, Japan intends to steadily press ahead with plans in line with the road map adopted by both governments. Another Defense Ministry official commenting on the situation told Mainchi Daily, "We are waiting carefully to see what the U.S. does first."
The opposition Democratic Party of Japan, which has requested that Futenma Air Station be moved out of Okinawa Prefecture, is opposed to an agreement on the relocation of U.S. Marines in Okinawa to Guam. The agreement, approved by the Japanese Diet in May, sets as a prerequisite a development toward the completion of a replacement for facilities at Futenma.
Monday, 29 June 2009
by Romeo Carlos
Marianas Variety
AS EARLY as June 9, Japanese media reports were saying that negotiations between officials from Tokyo and Okinawa in Japan had come to a standstill over concerns about references made to amendments to the United States’ Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget.
More recently, the office of Representative Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, proposed a key amendment to the fiscal 2010 defense budget that would jeopardize the planned transfer of 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam.
The plan to move 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam is part of an agreement struck between the United States and Japan in May 2006 to realign the U.S. military presence in Japan by 2014. Relocating the Marines to Guam is closely tied to a key element of the agreement - transferring the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station's heliport functions from Ginowan in central Okinawa, to an alternative facility located near Camp Schwab, in Nago, a northern Okinawa prefecture.
Abercrombie’s amendment says the U.S. defense secretary should not give its approval to the alternative facility as long as it fails to comply with minimum flight safety requirements. The amendment would make it difficult to realize the agreement.
Abercrombie believes that an area extending from the lower part of Camp Schwab into shallow waters is not the right sort of location for the alternative facility and has urged that an alternate site be considered. The Hawaii congressman told Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun last week that the alternative facility under the current plan does not meet several safety standards; particularly:
- The runways are too short.
- A school, Okinawa National College of Technology, is located nearby.
- There are obstacles, such as utility polls, along the flight path.
The Yomiuri Shimbun reported last Thursday a Japanese government source saying, "The content of this amendment suggests the transfer to the alternative facility agreed by Japan and the United States won't be permitted."
Another Japanese paper, Mainichi Daily, reported in early June that the Japanese ministry of defense is keen to reach a settlement on the relocation of the air base from Ginowan to the coastal side of Camp Schwab in Nago.
The paper detailed a reference made then by U.S. Marine Corps Commandant James Conway to a possible amendment of the relocation plans - an indication the U.S. is not settled in its stance.
Conway spoke to the Senate Committee on Armed Services on June 4, mentioning problems relating to training and the ability to move Futenma Air Station facilities, and said there were several amendments that deserved consideration, indicating that doubts remain over the direction of the relocation plans.
In testimony before the committee, Conway indicated a need to modify the plan to transfer U.S. Marines from Japan's Okinawa prefecture to Guam by 2014.
"This Futenma replacement facility has to be indeed a fully capable replacement for what we're giving up on Okinawa," Conway said, adding, "We are concerned about training opportunities on Guam, in the nearby islands as well as the rest of the Asia-Pacific basin.
"So there are some things like that, that we certainly want to see considered and negotiated as need be with the Japanese before we slap the table," he said.
As part of his opening remarks, Conway said, though the U.S. Marines support this move, he also believes the development of training areas and ranges on Guam and the adjoining islands of the Marianas are key prerequisites to the realignment of our forces.
Japanese Administrative Vice Minister of Defense Kohei Masuda confirmed in early June that, for their part, Japan intends to steadily press ahead with plans in line with the road map adopted by both governments. Another Defense Ministry official commenting on the situation told Mainchi Daily, "We are waiting carefully to see what the U.S. does first."
The opposition Democratic Party of Japan, which has requested that Futenma Air Station be moved out of Okinawa Prefecture, is opposed to an agreement on the relocation of U.S. Marines in Okinawa to Guam. The agreement, approved by the Japanese Diet in May, sets as a prerequisite a development toward the completion of a replacement for facilities at Futenma.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
House Bill May Complicate Things at Camp Schwab
Bill may complicate planned Camp Schwab airstrip
By Leo Shane III and David Allen
Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, June 28, 2009
The House version of the Fiscal 2010 Defense Authorization Bill could hamper plans to replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma on Okinawa with a new airstrip on Camp Schwab.
Under the bill, the Defense Department "may not accept … a replacement facility in Okinawa (for Futenma) unless the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the replacement facility satisfies at least minimum Naval Aviation Safety requirements."
The language was prompted by concerns raised by Naval Air Systems Command about hazards surrounding the new airstrip location, including utility poles in the proposed flight path, a nearby school and the planned V-shaped runway into Oura Bay, said Dave Helfert, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
The bill allows for safety improvements to be made at Camp Schwab to make it an acceptable replacement for Futenma, Helfert said.
The House approved its version of the authorization bill with the Futenma language Thursday, by a 389-22 vote.
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a statement Thursday citing concern that the clause would "limit the Secretary’s authority to exercise reasonable judgment regarding airfield operations."
"The current FRF (Futenma Replacement Facility) configuration was agreed to during bilateral negotiations with the government of Japan, and this provision places the resulting International Agreement at risk," the office stated.
A Pentagon spokesman echoed the White House concerns.
"There have been public reports in the U.S. pertaining to safety issues with the Futenma replacement plan," the spokesman said Thursday.
"There are processes in place to address these concerns without making changes to the agreement itself. Moving a runway or reconfiguring a facility would be examples of major changes that the U.S. would not support."
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, the House delegate from Guam, said House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., raised concerns about the design of the facility. But, she said, the language in the bill is not mean to scuttle the far-reaching realignment plans.
"The continued commitment to the military build-up on Guam is evident in the significant military construction funding for Guam in the bill," Bordallo said. "The issue of the Futenma Replacement Facility is a provision that the committee leadership will continue to address in conference committee with the Department of Defense."
Japanese officials Thursday said the clause flies in the face of a bilateral plan to replace the air station, close U.S. military bases south of Camp Foster, and to transfer some 8,000 Marines and their families to Guam in 2014.
The plan is part of a well-thought-out agreement made by both governments, said a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defense.
"The plan was not made by a suggestion from one side, but it was a fruit of discussions and studies from various aspects by both governments," she said.
Japanese opposition parties and some Okinawa officials have serious concerns about the safety of the current plan. Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima has demanded the runways be placed farther offshore.
The 2010 appropriations bill allots $934 million for defense projects on Guam for the coming year. That’s just the start of some $4 billion the U.S. plans to spend to build housing and other infrastructure for the move of Marines, including several major Marine commands now based on Okinawa.
The total cost of relocation has been budgeted at $10.27 billion, with Japan paying $6.07 billion, or 59 percent.
But replacing MCAS Futenma has always been a sticking point. The United States and Japan have been searching for a way to replace the air station ever since they signed an agreement in 1996 for the return of some 21 percent of the land on Okinawa used by the U.S. military.
A spokesman for Japan’s Ministry of Defense said he was aware of the clause in the authorization bill, but was hopeful the realignment plan would move forward as planned.
"It has been affirmed by Prime Minister Aso and President Obama that both countries would steadily carry out realignment plans according to the road map, which both governments agreed to in 2006, including facility relocation and closure of the Futenma air station facility," he said.
"Also, it is stipulated in a pact signed by both governments, an international promise, that both governments have an intention to complete the replacement facility," he said.
Stars and Stripes reporters Chiyomi Sumida and Jeff Schogol contributed to this report.
By Leo Shane III and David Allen
Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, June 28, 2009
The House version of the Fiscal 2010 Defense Authorization Bill could hamper plans to replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma on Okinawa with a new airstrip on Camp Schwab.
Under the bill, the Defense Department "may not accept … a replacement facility in Okinawa (for Futenma) unless the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the replacement facility satisfies at least minimum Naval Aviation Safety requirements."
The language was prompted by concerns raised by Naval Air Systems Command about hazards surrounding the new airstrip location, including utility poles in the proposed flight path, a nearby school and the planned V-shaped runway into Oura Bay, said Dave Helfert, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
The bill allows for safety improvements to be made at Camp Schwab to make it an acceptable replacement for Futenma, Helfert said.
The House approved its version of the authorization bill with the Futenma language Thursday, by a 389-22 vote.
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a statement Thursday citing concern that the clause would "limit the Secretary’s authority to exercise reasonable judgment regarding airfield operations."
"The current FRF (Futenma Replacement Facility) configuration was agreed to during bilateral negotiations with the government of Japan, and this provision places the resulting International Agreement at risk," the office stated.
A Pentagon spokesman echoed the White House concerns.
"There have been public reports in the U.S. pertaining to safety issues with the Futenma replacement plan," the spokesman said Thursday.
"There are processes in place to address these concerns without making changes to the agreement itself. Moving a runway or reconfiguring a facility would be examples of major changes that the U.S. would not support."
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, the House delegate from Guam, said House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., raised concerns about the design of the facility. But, she said, the language in the bill is not mean to scuttle the far-reaching realignment plans.
"The continued commitment to the military build-up on Guam is evident in the significant military construction funding for Guam in the bill," Bordallo said. "The issue of the Futenma Replacement Facility is a provision that the committee leadership will continue to address in conference committee with the Department of Defense."
Japanese officials Thursday said the clause flies in the face of a bilateral plan to replace the air station, close U.S. military bases south of Camp Foster, and to transfer some 8,000 Marines and their families to Guam in 2014.
The plan is part of a well-thought-out agreement made by both governments, said a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defense.
"The plan was not made by a suggestion from one side, but it was a fruit of discussions and studies from various aspects by both governments," she said.
Japanese opposition parties and some Okinawa officials have serious concerns about the safety of the current plan. Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima has demanded the runways be placed farther offshore.
The 2010 appropriations bill allots $934 million for defense projects on Guam for the coming year. That’s just the start of some $4 billion the U.S. plans to spend to build housing and other infrastructure for the move of Marines, including several major Marine commands now based on Okinawa.
The total cost of relocation has been budgeted at $10.27 billion, with Japan paying $6.07 billion, or 59 percent.
But replacing MCAS Futenma has always been a sticking point. The United States and Japan have been searching for a way to replace the air station ever since they signed an agreement in 1996 for the return of some 21 percent of the land on Okinawa used by the U.S. military.
A spokesman for Japan’s Ministry of Defense said he was aware of the clause in the authorization bill, but was hopeful the realignment plan would move forward as planned.
"It has been affirmed by Prime Minister Aso and President Obama that both countries would steadily carry out realignment plans according to the road map, which both governments agreed to in 2006, including facility relocation and closure of the Futenma air station facility," he said.
"Also, it is stipulated in a pact signed by both governments, an international promise, that both governments have an intention to complete the replacement facility," he said.
Stars and Stripes reporters Chiyomi Sumida and Jeff Schogol contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)