Editor’s Note: Home in Henderson recently received a query as to why we were not running stories on Congressman G.K. Butterfield’s long-standing issue with the Navy over the air strip. Frankly, we did not realize that it was of interest to local readers. We are therefore running Mr. Butterfield’s statement which was read into the record at a hearing held by the Navy on March 20, 2007, and we will run stories regarding the OLF in the future.
Congress is in session and Congressman G. K. Butterfield will not be able to attend the Navy’s hearing tonight concerning the proposed Outlying Landing Field. A member of his staff will be at the hearing and will submit the following statement for the record.
“We are only here today because the U.S. Navy continues to refuse to fulfill its obligation to engage in a clear, full, fair and objective process carried out in the light of day where all possibilities are considered. Despite the federal court rulings and language in the 2006 Military Construction Appropriations bill directing the Navy to look at alternative sites, the Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations admitted during a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing that the Navy’s focus is to make the preferred site work rather than to consider other possibilities.
North Carolina has a long, rich and proud history of supporting the Navy and all branches of the military, and it is a tradition I fully intend to continue. Governor Michael Easley and other Members of Congress from North Carolina have worked diligently to provide support for the Navy to look at alternatives. Still, the Navy’s continued focus remains only on the site in Washington County.
I can agree with the Navy that the existing landing field at Naval Air Station Oceana has become undesirable for a landing field. Growing development has left Oceana unable to simulate an open-water aircraft carrier. Our Naval aviators need and deserve a suitable landing field to practice their landings but the decision to place this field in the middle of a wildlife refuge without truly considering alternatives is ill-conceived. Without looking at all the possibilities, it’s still very difficult to believe that there isn’t a better and more suitable place to build an Outlying Landing Field than alongside a highly active wildlife refuge.
In his ruling against the Navy that set these hearings into motion, U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle’s decision was rightly driven by a powerful idea that the Navy seems willing to ignore – the idea that “a fair and balanced application of the law must be achieved regardless of the outcome.”
From the beginning this has always been about the process, not the Outlying Landing Field. We must strive to protect our national security interests, but this must be accomplished here through a full, fair, just and transparent process. I believe that if all possibilities – not just the five that have so far been identified – are considered as part of a clear, full, fair and objective process carried out in the light of day that the Navy will find the best and most suitable site.
My sincerest wish remains that the United States Navy will respect the reasonable concerns of the people, respect the environment, and, respect the rule of law. The landing field needs to be constructed, but it must be built at a suitable site that can only be found by considering all possibilities.
Thank you.”