I won’t waste my limited moments here waxing nostalgic about the tradition of military service in Massachusetts and throughout New England. But it’s as old as the country itself, and we are proud of our military bases and we are proud of the men and women who serve on them. They are an important tie between communities and the nation. They live among us. Their children go to school with our children. No matter where they are from, they are our sons and daughters. We want them to stay.

But the case for Massachusetts’ bases is not founded on emotion or economic impact. It’s based on hard facts.

The presentation we’ve just seen makes clear: Otis Air National Guard Base remains vital and relevant to the threats we face today. The Defense Department got it wrong in putting Otis on its list.

Let me recap the main points:

Congress told the Department of Defense to consider impacts on other tenants. But DOD failed to do that. Closing Otis would significantly jeopardize the sustainability of U.S. Coast Guard Station Cape Cod. Over the last two years, the Coast Guard has conducted 520 search and rescue operations from Otis. And for the Coast Guard, Otis’ value is all about geography. Losing Otis puts U.S. Coast Guard Station Cape Cod in serious jeopardy of loss or relocation—and that is not acceptable.

But ignoring the Coast Guard’s Mission at Otis is part of a bigger problem: a general failure by the Air Force to factor Homeland Defense into its considerations. You saw the charts. You saw the routes used by international flights. You know that more than 400 of those flights every month are considered “Flights of Interest.” And if you look at the location of Otis and its access to supersonic air space you can see: Otis Air National Guard Base is the best positioned air base to rapidly intercept threats at maximum range.

The bottom line is simple: Otis Air National Guard Base should remain open. Its unique geographic location, access to unrestricted airspace, and its importance to other vital federal missions—including the operations of the Coast Guard—make it critical to the nation’s security.

There are several other bases in Massachusetts that warrant our attention today. I would like to share some additional thoughts on a few in particular.

Massachusetts and Connecticut have long held a common pride in the service of the 104th and 103rd Fighter Wings of the Air National Guard. Both Wings fly the A-10 Warthog. Barnes Air National Guard Base, home of the 104th, and Bradley International Airport, home of the 103rd, are just 12 miles apart, but there are significant differences between those bases—differences that make Barnes the right base for the future of the A-10 and its successor.

We will provide additional details on the merits of Barnes to the commission in the days ahead. But in the mean time, let me just say, Barnes Air National Guard Base is very well suited to meet the operational needs of the warfighter. Its munitions storage facility currently stores War Reserve Materials for six other military units, including Connecticut’s 103rd Fighter Wing. At present, Barnes has significant reserve capacity for aviation and support requirements for everything from air-to-air missiles, high-explosive rounds, hand grenades, and other munitions. Barnes Air National Guard Base has more than enough space for its current and future missions. According to the Air Force, Barnes is suitable for every transport aircraft in the U.S. inventory—the C-141B, the C-5, the C-130, the C-17, the KC-10, the KC-135, and so forth. It also has the advantage of being able to deploy combat loaded aircraft or load-and-unload munitions from transport aircraft.

In short, this is an exceptionally capable facility, well suited for current and future missions.

Hanscom Air Force Base plays a vital role in building and maintaining America’s high-tech air and space forces. Its unique location in the heart of the nation’s preeminent high-technology cluster is a strategic asset. The Air Force recognized Hanscom’s unique value in seeking to consolidate some of its high-tech research, development, and program management at the base.

Hanscom is ready and able to welcome the influx of personnel and new missions the Air Force has planned for it. And so is Massachusetts. Our high-tech workforce, our world-class research institutions and universities, and our commercial investment in research and development make the Commonwealth well suited to support the high-technology mission of Hanscom. The Milliken Institute has singled out Massachusetts for its excellence in these fields. In its 2004 ranking of states by science and technology, Massachusetts received a “dominant” first place ranking.

Unfortunately, the Air Force wants to move two elements of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) from Hanscom: the Battlespace Environment Division of the Space Vehicles Directorate and the Electromagnetic Technology Division of the Sensors Directorate. Doing so would be a mistake. The unique synergy and collaboration that occurs every day between AFRL and the high-tech community in and around Boston would be lost. Equally important, it is expected that of the 225 scientists and engineers who would be affected by relocating these missions, only about 10% would move—depriving the Air Force of one of its most vital assets—human capital.

This type of expertise does not come easily and is sustained by the cluster of high-technology companies, research universities, and professionals in the Boston area. If the professionals who run these programs and conduct this research refuse to move with their jobs, the impact on vital programs, including sensor fusion, automated target recognition, and space-situational awareness—all vital components of future military capability—will be disrupted. Hanscom—and the high-technology cluster around Boston—is the place for these missions.

Here in Boston we also have a military organization with an unfortunate name: the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard-Boston Detachment. This is a self-sustaining planning yard separate from Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Their only association with Puget Sound is for administrative and accounting purposes. They provide engineering and design, logistics and planning support for the modernization and repair of U.S. naval vessels. They are the only Naval Engineering Activity to win a public/private competition in which the Navy recognized it could not afford to lose their expertise. Yet we still find them on the list for closure. There are legitimate doubts about the Navy’s calculation of military utility and cost savings that may be derived from the closure of the Boston Planning Yard—questions Congressman Lynch will examine in much greater detail. I urge you to give it the review it warrants.

I also want to say something about the Pentagon’s recommendation to close Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. More than 100 Massachusetts residents work at Portsmouth—and the economic impact on my state is significant. But the case for Portsmouth goes beyond jobs and the economy—it’s about a national asset that, once lost, will be forever gone.

In formulating its BRAC list, the Department of Defense had to make assumptions about the future nature of conflict and the future of naval force structure. That’s true of any planning exercise, but it’s particularly problematic in this instance since the Department of Defense is in the midst of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)—a review that will determine strategy, force structure, and organization for all the services. But without the benefit of the QDR’s conclusions, the Department of Defense was left to make assumptions about the future needs of facilities like Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. And their conclusions were flawed.

Members of the commission have visited the shipyard. They know that it is a state of the art facility, honored for its quality workmanship and its efficiency. They know that it is a model for returning ships to the fleet on time and under budget. But the evidence suggests the Department of Defense failed to properly anticipate future requirements, the unique value of Portsmouth as a nuclear licensed shipyard, the expertise of its workforce, and the increasing reliance on submarines for a range of military missions—not just anti-submarine warfare.

Finally, I want to conclude with a request. Over the years, BRAC has taken more and more bases from the Northeast—a dangerous trend if you, like me, believe that our military must resemble the country it serves. Every time we lose a base in the Northeast, we lose that example of service—that tie to the nation. The bases we’ve discussed today stand on their own merit. But I hope you will also consider the damage done to the fabric of the nation every time a base is closed.