Posted on 09/01/2014 4:36:52 PM PDT by SkyPilot
The Pentagon's budget sets up an uphill battle with Congress by requesting further domestic base closures and realignment, but the Defense Department's top official could try to give members the slip.
As part of the department's fiscal 2015 budget request, the Pentagon wants a round of base closures and realignment—known as BRAC—for U.S. bases in 2017.
"We think BRAC is a smart position to have, as you know we have called for it again, we're going to continue work through all this," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said at an Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday. "I've got some options as secretary of Defense in law … through a section of Article 10."
The secretary didn't specify what options he could have in regard to reducing overhead, but a House staffer suggested last month that under a provision of federal law dealing with the Defense Department, Hagel could close bases and only have to notify Congress beforehand—rather than ask its permission.
If the secretary wants to close a base with at least 300 civilian employees or cut more than 1,000, or more than 50 percent, of civilian jobs at a base, he must notify the Armed Services committees as part of the department's annual budget request, according to federal law.
That notification must include an "evaluation of the fiscal, local economic, budgetary, environmental, strategic, and operational consequences of such closure or realignment."
What Congress could do to stop Hagel is unclear, but Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., has pressed Pentagon officials—including Bob Work, the president's deputy Defense secretary nominee—to clarify where any legal authority the Pentagon could have comes from.
"I believe that Congress should be in the position to approve BRAC, and there should not be a runaround done," Ayotte said last week.
(Excerpt) Read more at govexec.com ...
you can delete this thread - it is from March.
Evidently, this administration can do whatever it likes, Congress and the Constitution be damned.
I have never understood why they don’t close bases outside the U.S. There are bases in 130 countrys, surely some of them are not needed.
“I have never understood why they don’t close bases outside the U.S. There are bases in 130 countrys, surely some of them are not needed.”
Geez, if they’re closed where will congress and military brass go for their “inspection” boondoggles?
Congress is more than prepared to support the President’s plan to gut the military. More money to feed into the incumbent protection program. But, they don’t want anyone touching their precious bases. They think that you can cut the military by 30% without reducing the size and numbers of bases. They have spent the last 10 years trying to BRAC proof these installations by authorizing multi-million dollar building programs. We are likely to see brand new barracks left empty because we have eliminated the troops that were meant to fill them.
It’s going to be an ugly fight and the big loser will be our national defense.
Here in San Francisco, there are at least 8 to 9
thousand homeless who have no place to sleep except
doors, subway (Bart) etc. Why can’t these poor folks,
many are veterans, be housed in these vacant military
bases. Fort Ord would be Nirvana for them.
Free apartments? I hope not, why move out the military if you are going to move in the homeless?
“Free apartments? I hope not, why move out the military if you are going to move in the homeless?”
An endless cycle. Move the military out and the homeless in. Then the military are homeless. Move the homeless out and the homeless military back in. Then move the homeless back in and the non-homeless military back out. Only the movers will make big bucks.
Ft. Ord has been closed for years, it was turned over to the State of California. The housing that was more than adequate for the military and their families was deemed inadequate for the homeless. It was bulldozed. Next question.
We have already done that. We have very few troops permanently stationed overseas anymore, two brigades in Europe, one in Korea, and a Marine Regiment on Okinawa (moving to Guam). Our overseas bases are there to support air and naval operations, provide logistics support, and to store prepositioned equipment.
The people that manage and maintain the apartments would love it.
OK, make the homeless sleep only in Pacific Heights.
Yes, I understand; just because it’s good enough for
the military, that doesn’t qualify fit for the homeless.
centurion316 said Fort Ord was not fit for the homeless.
So, free is not the problem, since most benefits for the
homeless are free already. They do like the Bart stations
so maybe just shut down Bart and turn the stations into
sleep dormitories.
What is your deal about now wanting to support free housing to people?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.