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.