GREGG K. KAKESAKO / GKAKESAKO@STARBULLETIN.COM Anthony Principi, right, chairman of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, talked in Washington, D.C., yesterday with U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, Mayor Mufi Hannemann, U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie and Gov. Linda Lingle.

Inouye envisions
worst case

Political pressures could cause
a panel to add Pearl Harbor
to a list of closures

WASHINGTON » U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye says he faces a crucial vote by an independent federal panel on the future of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard by assuming the worst.

ON ASSIGNMENT Star-Bulletin reporter Gregg K. Kakesako is in Washington, D.C., to cover the BRAC public hearing.

"In my business and the years of experience I have had, it is always wise to assume the worst-case scenario," Inouye told the Star-Bulletin yesterday.

"Oftentimes when you assume the best-case scenario ... it won't work, so I am assuming that it will be included in the list. I am geared up for that possibility," said Inouye, the senior ranking Democrat on the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

It is possible that seven of the nine members of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission -- under immense political pressure from the northeast -- will add Pearl Harbor to its hit list along with the Pentagon's original recommendation: closure of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine and New Hampshire.

Inouye said the commission is feeling the intense lobbying efforts of governors and congressional colleagues to consider other options.

"Politically, they got to say, 'OK, we considered all of them.' Then, they can say, 'These three got to have some changes. The fourth one you can't touch.' Then you can say we compared everything," he said.

U.S Rep. Ed Case, who sat through the morning portion of the BRAC hearings, said the dilemma facing the commissioners is to find a way to retain Portsmouth.

"Pearl Harbor might be added to the list to continue the discussion," he said. "The commission knows it has a very tough decision. Clearly, the commission is compelled by the Department of Defense's support of Pearl in both the strategic level and our multiplatform level. What it comes down to is that some commissioners don't know what to do with Portsmouth. It is not about Pearl Harbor. This is about Portsmouth."

Inouye, Gov. Linda Lingle and numerous government, military, civic and business leaders have unified under one banner: to keep the state's largest industrial employer in business.

Yesterday, Lingle and Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann met privately for more than 45 minutes with Anthony Principi, BRAC commission chairman, and commissioners James Bilbray, a former congressman from Nevada, and retired Gen. James Hill, who once commanded the U.S. Southern Command and the 25th Infantry Division.

Lingle said the Hawaii delegation talked about Pearl Harbor's pivotal role in the Pacific.

After the meeting, Lingle said the Hawaii delegation did not stress the financial impact to the state if Pearl Harbor were to close, because everyone else is making the same argument. "What was important (to stress) is the national security of this country," she said.

Although Principi told Lingle, Inouye and other members of Hawaii's delegation that the BRAC commission was "only considering" closing Pearl Harbor, Lingle said she "made it very clear we don't want Pearl Harbor ... on any list, in any fashion, to be downsized or to be closed."

Lingle said Hawaii's bipartisan coalition told Principi that despite his repeated inferences that Pearl Harbor could be kept open but its labor force and work be cut back, "perhaps there should be a greater investment in Pearl Harbor and not even talk about realignment. The major threat to our country is coming from East Asia, and, in fact, rather than thinking about status quo, we should be investing more in the future of Pearl Harbor."

"I am certainly in agreement with that," she said.

Inouye said it is his understanding that the Navy will be building more submarines, which would mean "the capacity we have now is not enough."

During yesterday's day-long BRAC meeting with Pentagon leaders, a question was raised on whether the Navy's current submarine force would climb from 40 to 56 boats, which could prevent the closure of Portsmouth.

But Adm. Robert Willard, vice chief of naval operations, said the Pentagon's May 13 decision to close Portsmouth was based on a force of 56 subs.

From a military perspective, U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie said, "consideration should be given to closing no shipyards at this time, and in fact make a greater investment."

U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka told reporters, "There is not only a military value of strategy in having it in Hawaii, but also a cultural value to our country. Pearl Harbor is a monument to our country, and we are looking forward to keeping it off that list."

Principi raised the possibility of scaling back Pearl Harbor and keeping Portsmouth open as a larger naval base. "Portsmouth is clearly the pre-eminent shipyard in the Navy for nuclear-powered overhauls and repair," he told about 200 people. "It is the gold standard in management-labor relationships."

However, Willard told the federal panel that "the strategic capabilities at Pearl Harbor, not just because of its location, but because of the breadth of what maintenance it in fact performs, is more important to us."

Willard said Portsmouth's record for efficiency and cost savings in repairing nuclear submarines is indisputable. However, he said aircraft carriers are able to dock at Pearl Harbor, giving it another strategic advantage. Unlike Portsmouth, Pearl Harbor workers can fix anything in any size from tugboats to aircraft carriers.

And in the long run, closing Pearl Harbor could end up costing more since the Navy would have to build more ships to maintain its current presence in the Pacific. That is because ships on repair would have to be taken offline and sent to mainland ports for regular maintenance.

But Willard and Lingle said that to compare ship repair maintenance between Pearl Harbor and Portsmouth is like "comparing apples to oranges."