Hawaii to fight
for shipyard with
strong letter and
presence at hearing
The Pentagon did not "substantially deviate" from guidelines when it decided against closing Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, say Hawaii's four congressmen.
In a strongly worded letter, the four urge the Base Realignment and Closure commission to take no action that "would preclude our ability to respond to future threats" in the Pacific.
As part of Hawaii's campaign to continue operation of the Navy's 97-year-old Pearl Harbor facility, U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, Gov. Linda Lingle, state adjutant general Maj. Gen. Bob Lee and Mayor Mufi Hannemann will attend a private meeting Monday with several members of the commission.
"While the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard is vital to our state's job market and overall economy, our meeting in Washington will focus on the shipyard's strategic long-term value in keeping our nation and the Asia-Pacific region secure," Lingle said.
Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii leaders are seeking the support of Pacific Rim allies such as South Korea, Australia, Japan and the Philippines, which have consulates here.
The four-page letter to Anthony Principi, chairman of the nine-member BRAC commission, comes five days before Principi's panel will be told the reasons the Pentagon chose to close Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine over Pearl Harbor.
Because there is no opportunity for Hawaii's political, military, union or business leaders to present testimony before the BRAC panel on Monday in Washington, Democrats Inouye, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka and U.S. Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Ed Case decided to outline Pearl Harbor's defense in writing.
The BRAC commission's agenda for the Monday hearing has only three items:
» Testimony from the Department of Defense regarding installations that were not recommended to be closed or realigned.» The controller general's testimony regarding a Government Accountability Office analysis of the Pentagon's 2005 selection process, which said, in part, that the Pentagon might have overestimated potential savings.
» Report by the Overseas Basing Commission, which, among its many findings, endorsed moving one of the Navy's 12 aircraft carriers to the Pacific, possibly Pearl Harbor, but warned of the high cost of living in Hawaii.
Just 12 days ago Principi asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to explain why the Pentagon had left Pearl Harbor off its hit list of potential bases to be closed or scaled back.
Lingle and Hannemann will be on hand Tuesday to observe as the commission deliberates on whether to include other installations like Pearl Harbor -- Hawaii's largest industrial employer, with 4,300 civilians and a payroll last year of $385 million -- on its hit list. It would take seven of the nine members to add Pearl Harbor.
If the BRAC panel recommends closing or realigning Pearl Harbor and sending some of its work to any of the three other shipyards, it is required to send two commissioners to Hawaii to hold public hearings.
The letter from Hawaii's congressional members says, "The overwhelming strategic value of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard is clear. Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard is the largest shipyard repair facility between the West Coast and the Far East and home port to 29 ships."
If the shipyard were closed, those 29 ships would have to travel, in some cases, to the East Coast, where Portsmouth and Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia are located, which would "severely impact the Navy's readiness and homeland defense capabilities," the letter says.
The letter also is seen as an attempt to answer one of the questions raised by Principi at a Boston hearing last week: whether it is possible to downsize the Pearl Harbor operations.
Downsizing Pearl Harbor, the Hawaii letter says, would be "detrimental to its (Navy's) strategic objectives to have ship maintenance capabilities near fleet concentration areas."
There are no Navy warships berthed at Portsmouth, whose only purpose is to overhaul nuclear submarines.
The letter also points out that various shipyard scenarios were discussed by the Navy and its advisers before the Pentagon reported in May that even if the depot work were moved, Pearl Harbor's four dry docks would have to remain open to serve the intermediate maintenance work on the 29 ships home-ported there.
As to other concerns raised by Portsmouth supporters that "the numerical military value" of Pearl Harbor was "evaluated as marginally lower" than that of Portsmouth, Hawaii's politicians said this score does not take into consideration "military judgment."
With the possibility that an aircraft carrier could be relocated here from the West Coast, Hawaii's congressional leaders said closure of Pearl Harbor would mean the loss of capability to repair the carrier -- a likelihood that increases with the shipyard continuing to provide valuable emergency services to naval ships assigned throughout the Pacific.
In a separate statement, Abercrombie said there is a compelling argument "with the nation's strategic focus shifting to the Asia-Pacific region. ... Closing or reducing Pearl Harbor amounts to shifting the Navy's maintenance capacity eastward while we send the fleet westward. It doesn't make sense strategically or financially. It raises doubts among both allies and potential adversaries about the seriousness of our intentions. Pearl Harbor Shipyard keeps the Fleet fit to fight. This is no time to compromise the Shipyard's ability to fulfill that vital mission."
The BRAC panel has until Sept. 8 to finalize its list of base closures for President Bush to review.
|
E-mail to City Desk
[News] [Business] [Features] [Sports] [Editorial] [Do It Electric!]
[Classified Ads] [Search] [Subscribe] [Info] [Letter to Editor]
[Feedback]
