Panel OKs Bid to Block Long Beach Cargo Terminal

Opponents of a proposal to turn shuttered Long Beach Naval Station property into a 145-acre cargo terminal for a Chinese shipping line struck a major blow Wednesday on Capitol Hill as a key committee approved a provision to outlaw the project.

An amendment added to a routine defense bill by a 29-24 vote of the House National Security Committee would bar cities from selling or leasing any former military installation to any foreign-owned shipping line. That amendment would sink the city’s plan to erect a $200-million cargo terminal on the Navy land and lease it to the China Ocean Shipping Co., known as Cosco, a Beijing-based firm.

“I would call it a setback, perhaps temporary,” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Torrance), who voted against the amendment. “What’s in this bill, unless it’s a hot button issue for the president to veto, becomes law.”

The bill still faces votes by the full House and the Senate.

Supporters of the terminal project accused the committee of undermining the federal base closure process, which generally allows local governments to decide how to use former military sites.

“I never thought I’d see the day when members of Congress tried to second-guess the base closure law,” said Del Smith, the city’s Washington lobbyist.

Authors of the amendment said they believed the likely customer at such a terminal, Cosco, would pose a risk to national security.

The committee vote comes as another defeat for Long Beach city leaders. A California judge has blocked construction of the terminal, and city officials have been unsuccessfully pressing the Navy to officially transfer title of the Naval Station land to the city, in part because lawyers hope it would demonstrate to an appeals court that the city has met all federal environmental requirements. But the city and the Pentagon are at an impasse.

In a June 5 letter asking for President Clinton to intervene, Long Beach Mayor Beverly O’Neill criticized the Navy’s “apparent unwillingness” to issue a so-called Record of Decision to transfer the land as threatening the local economy.

Navy Deputy Asst. Secretary William J. Cassidy Jr., who supervises base conversions, did not return calls for comment. He insisted in a March 18 letter to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), however, that the Navy “is not delaying its process” in reviewing the naval station transfer, although he indicated that an official conveyance of the land was still months away.

Now, the terminal must come under scrutiny in Washington at a time when criticism of China is likely to rise to a boil on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are preparing to debate whether to renew China’s most-favored-nation trade status, and federal investigators are probing allegations that Beijing tried to influence U.S. elections.

Opposition to the terminal has risen from environmentalists who fear the construction would eradicate a colony of black-crowned night herons; preservationists who want to spare the World War II-era buildings near the center of the site; and critics of U.S.-China trade.

Two San Diego area congressmen have authored a bill similar to the amendment adopted Wednesday, on the grounds that the Chinese government might use the terminal for smuggling or intelligence operations. Cosco has been a customer at the Long Beach Harbor since 1981, and Pentagon officials say the terminal would not pose a significant security threat.