Since 08-04-05
BRAC panel hints at key differences from DoD list
Since 08-04-05
From:
Waspscpo@aol.com [mailto:Waspscpo@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 5:00 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: BRAC panel hints at key differences from DoD list
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=0-NAVYPAPER-988043.php
BRAC
panel hints at key differences from DoD list
By
Gordon Trowbridge
NavyTimes staff writer
1 August 2005
A base-closings list that just got a bit longer could get substantially shorter
in the weeks to come. As the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission
finished July 19 with two days of hearings that placed a handful of new bases up
for potential closing, its members also dropped broad hints they’re ready to
reject a number of the Pentagon’s original proposals. “I suspect we’ll see some
changes, more in the form of deletions than additions,” said Christopher Hellman,
a base-closure expert with the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.
The commission will spend the next month holding regional hearings and visiting
the bases it has added, before returning to Washington in late August for final
deliberations. Its finished report — including recommended closings and
realignments — is due Sept. 8.Changes the panel seems likely to consider:
• New
England, already hammered by closures in past rounds, would lose nearly all its
remaining operational bases.
Plans to close Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Maine, and Submarine Base New London,
Conn., are among the most controversial on the list. During hearings on possible
additions, commissioners questioned whether the Navy has overestimated the
amount of excess capacity in its shipyards, and whether the Navy will cut its
submarine force so deeply that New London could be abandoned. But sociology, not
security, may be decisive. “I think it’s important for our nation that our
military and society are close together,” said Anthony Principi, the panel’s
chairman. “I think it’s important for democracy.”
“It’s abundantly clear that several members of the commission are unhappy with
what happened in New England,” Hellman said. “The question is, which [bases]
would they keep?”
• Proposed
Air National Guard changes got intense scrutiny during a July 18 hearing, but
it’s unclear how or when the controversy may be resolved. Several states have
challenged the Pentagon’s authority to remove Guard flying units without
approval from affected governors.
One commissioner, retired Navy Adm. Harold Gehman, called the Guard
recommendations “unworkable and unsatisfactory” and a violation of the
base-closings law and other statutes. But he, Principi and others also said it
would be irresponsible to toss the plan out. “We’re heartened by some of the
things we heard this week,” said John Goheen, a spokesman for the National Guard
Association of the United States, which has opposed the recommendations.
“But what will this mean? We don’t know. ”Air Force officials said they had not
considered legal implications of the changes, and Michael Wynne, the Defense
Department official overseeing the process, said the Pentagon believes the plan
is legal. The BRAC Commission nearly begged Air Force officials and the states
to present a compromise plan, and a meeting of adjutants general from several
states was scheduled for late July.•
While commissioners have carefully avoided statements that might tip their hands
on individual bases — and cautioned reporters not to read much into what few
comments they have made — readers of tea leaves in several affected communities
said they are encouraged. In a July 19 discussion on Grand Forks Air Force Base,
N.D., Principi mentioned that he had asked Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force
vice chief of staff, whether Grand Forks would be affected if the panel were to
reject plans to close Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.
And in previous hearings, Commissioner Phillip Coyle, an expert on defense
research and development, has questioned wholesale moves of technically skilled
workers from locations such as Fort Monmouth, N.J., and office space in
Washington’s Virginia suburbs.
Harder to add to list
The law governing the commission makes removing bases from the list much easier
than adding new ones — a reaction from lawmakers angry at previous commissions
adding bases to the Pentagon’s list. While removing a base requires only a
majority of the nine-member panel, seven votes were needed to add bases for
consideration at the July 19 hearing, and another seven will be required to
include those bases on the final list. The seven-vote requirement likely saved
some bases from potential closure. Five commissioners voted to include Pearl
Harbor’s shipyard for possible closing, falling short of the seven needed.
Hellman said other bases likely were not even targeted for addition because of
time constraints and the super-majority required.
On the list
The
Base Realignment and Closure Commission added these bases to its list July 19
for review and possible shuttering:
• Master Jet Base, Oceana NAS, Va. Commissioners want staff to analyze possible options for relocating a base squeezed by encroaching development.
• NAS
Brunswick, Maine.
The Pentagon wants to remove planes but leave the base open; the panel will
consider closing it entirely.
• Pope AFB, N.C. The Pentagon wants to merge Pope with Fort Bragg, but continue to base Air Force C-130s there; the panel will review that proposal.
• Navy
Broadway Complex, San Diego.
The panel wants to look at selling off valuable downtown office space.
• Galena Forward Operating Location, Alaska. The panel will consider moving this little-used air defense alert facility to Eielson AFB.
• Defense
Language Institute, Naval Postgraduate School, Air Force Institute of
Technology. Commissioners will consider putting these California and Ohio
schools in one location.• Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
The panel will review plans to consolidate 26 offices across the country into
three.• Navy, Army, Air Force medical commands. Three offices in the Washington,
D.C., area, plus Tricare Management Activity headquarters, could be merged
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributed,
YNCS Don Harribine, USN(ret)