PORTLAND – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld turned down an opportunity to testify Monday before the base closing commission as his top deputy responded to a request for information about possible additions to the list of facilities under consideration for closure.

Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England’s 17-page response on Friday contained no surprises in the discussion about three imperiled Maine bases.

The Pentagon has proposed closing Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service facility in Limestone, and removing all aircraft from the Brunswick Naval Air Station. Altogether, about 7,000 jobs would be eliminated.

The proposal to close Portsmouth Naval Shipyard instead of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard came down to strategic location, Pearl Harbor’s ability to handle an aircraft carrier in dry dock, and consideration to sailors who would have to leave their Hawaii homeport for extended periods during submarine refuelings, England said.

“The total cost attribute favored Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, while the homeport proximity favored Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard,” he wrote.

As for Brunswick Naval Air Station, the Pentagon chose to scale back instead of close the base to retain an operational airfield for “surge capacity” as well as the ability to respond to threats against the Northeast, England wrote.

The Pentagon proposal “provides strategic flexibility by maintaining an ability to rapidly position aircraft in the Northeast should an increased threat materialize,” he wrote.

As for Limestone, consolidating 26 Defense Finance and Accounting Service centers into three centers in Colorado, Ohio and Indiana produced the optimal cost savings, he said.

He acknowledged that new construction costs were left out of the equation, but he said none were envisioned. An existing building would have to be overhauled at the Defense Supply Center in Columbus, Ohio, but the building is in good shape, he wrote.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, called the Pentagon’s arguments repetitive and dismissive.

“It’s clear to me their preconceived notions drove their conclusions, irrespective of the facts,” said Snowe. “They had a predetermined notion of where they were planning to go with this.”

She said England’s letter continues to ignore the workload efficiencies at Portsmouth. But she said she doesn’t think the base closing commission has to vote to add Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard to the closure list in order to keep Portsmouth open. Instead, she said she thinks the submarine repairs can be shared so that Portsmouth does long-term work, while Pearl Harbor does more short-term emergency repairs.

New Hampshire’s congressional delegation said England’s letter offered no new insight into the Defense Department’s reasons for recommending closure of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

“In fact, the New Hampshire and Maine congressional delegations persuasively refuted the flawed analysis regarding Portsmouth that is included in Secretary England’s letter,” said U.S. Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu and U.S. Reps. Jeb Bradley and Charles Bass.

In making a request for more information last month, Chairman Anthony Principi of the Base Realignment and Closure commission extended an invitation to Rumsfeld to appear before the commission during a regular hearing Monday.

In his letter Friday, England said each branch of the service would be represented and indicated that neither he nor Rumsfeld planned to attend.

The commission will meet a day later to consider whether to add bases to the list of those under consideration to be closed or realigned. That would require a vote of seven of the nine commissioners.

The panel has a Sept. 8 deadline to come up with its final list of recommendations and present it to President Bush.