Haven't I heard that Sierra Depot in CA was a nuke site? If so, contamination might make that impossible to close.
The Lima Tank Plant is, I think, the only tank production line that we have. I'll be surprised to see it close -- if that's true.
First, I suspect that panel will guard it's work extremely closely. Second, law envisions shutting down as much as 25% of all base capacity in the U. S. (that's more than all the other base closings in the past put together), and this list looks much too short to meet that goal.
That sucks for my home state - If I recall, Pease AFB was closed some time ago - now this? A lot of memories from those two bases - Pease Air Force Base is where I went on many encampments and OJT stuff with Civil Air Patrol, and Portsmouth is where I learned a lot about submarine history - that was one reason I joined the navy to begin with... bummer
GASP!
With fewer bases we'll spend less money and need fewer troops for force-protection. That will leave the military with more money and troops for actual missions overseas.
I'm sorry if some of you have sentimental attachment to bases that are closed -- that must be tough. But overall, for the common good, I think this is great news. I'm only sorry that the shut-down process is so slow and expensive.
Damn.
SCOTT EARP
07-17-2003
(Jacksonville, Alabama newspaper -- 'Jax News')
| During their meeting Monday night, council members unanimously pledged their participation in the local BRAC (Base Re-Alignment and Closure Commission) effort. Their efforts were designed to save the jobs of the 4,700 employees at Anniston Army Depot. “Our share is based on the 2000 census count,” explained Mayor Jerry Smith, responding to a question by council members as to how it was arrived at the amount they would be responsible for, “which we still believe are inaccurate, but nonetheless that is how they determined how much our part in all this would be. “I believe we will all agree that it is very important that we do all we can to keep the depot off of the BRAC list or, if it gets on there, do all we can to get it off.” The measure, which calls for the city to pay $13,583 to the Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce, was presented as a resolution stating, “Whereas, Anniston Army Depot is crucial to the economy of Jacksonville and the Calhoun County area and its closing would be detrimental to the quality of life in the area, and; “Whereas, it is important that the community begin immediately its efforts to prevent the closing of the Anniston Army Depot in the next round of base closings by the Base Re-Alignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) slated for 2005, and; “Whereas, the local governments, legislators, private businesses and organizations, and the Alabama Governor’s Officer have developed a funding plan for the effort to prevent said closing, each local government’s share of the funding to be based on it pro rata population.” In their findings, following extensive discussions and research on matter, council members noted “that the effort to prevent the closing of Anniston Army Depot is in the best interest of the City of Jacksonville and its citizens and that the funding plan of said effort is reasonable and just.” Council members agreed to pledge this amount each year for the next three years in hopes that their efforts, combined with those of their partners in this endeavor, will persuade the Army and federal government to leave the depot off any future BRAC listings. “We are going to do all we can to make sure we keep it open,” insisted Councilwoman Sandra Sudduth. Sudduth pointed to the severe hit Jacksonville and Calhoun County took from the closure of Fort McClellan in 1999. “We know what happened to the economy then,” added Sudduth, admitting that no one wants to feel the force of the economic blow that would be delivered if the depot closed on top of all that has already happened. “The depot is critical for this whole region,” concurred Mayor Smith. It is estimated that the depot contributes close to $1 billion a year to this region’s economy. During a congressional hearing last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, estimating that the domestic base infrastructure is currently 25 percent too large and costs billions of dollars each year, recommended another round of base realignments and closures for 2005. It has been noted that the four previous rounds of base closures have save the military $6.6 billion each year, especially considering the need for heightened base security in the post-911 world. “The 2005 round will begin in March 2005,” noted a spokesman for the group lobbying to keep Anniston Army Depot off the closure list, “when the President, in consultation with congressional leaders, will appoint the nine-member base closing commission. Two months later, the Secretary of Defense will submit his list of facilities to be closed. It will take seven members to add a facility to that list, but just a simple majority to remove a facility. The President may approve that list and send it to Congress, or reject it and send it back to the commission. Neither Congress nor the President can make changes to the list. If he accepts the list, it becomes law unless Congress votes against it within 45 days. This has never happened since Congressmen from districts spared closures think the list is fair. The bases currently proposed for closure or realignment in 2005 include: Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; Detroit Arsenal, Michigan; Fort Belvoir, Virginia; Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Fort McPherson/Gillem, Georgia; Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; Fort Monroe, Virginia; Fort Polk, Louisiana (to realign); Fort Richardson, Alaska; Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Fort Shafter, Hawaii; Lima Army Tank Plant, Ohio; Natick Soldier Center, Massachusetts; Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey; Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois; Sierra Army Depot, California; and Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. Naval base closures and realignments include: Ingleside Naval Station, Texas; Naval Postgraduate School, California; Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi; Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, New Jersey; Naval Recreation Station Solomons Island, Maryland; Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, Indiana; Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Virginia; Navy Supply Corps School, Georgia; New Orleans Naval Support Activity, Louisiana; Pascagoula Naval Station, Mississippi; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, New Hampshire; and Saratoga Springs Naval Support Unit, New York. Marine base closures and realignments include: Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Georgia; Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, California (realignment); Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California; Marine Corps Mountain Warfare School, California; Marine Reserve Support Unit, Kansas City; and Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, California (realign or close). Air Force base closures and realignments include: Altus AFB, Oklahoma; Beale AFB, California; Brooks AFB, Texas; Cannon AFB, New Mexico; Columbus AFB, Mississippi; Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota; Goodfellow AFB, Texas; Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota; Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts; Kirtland AFB, New Mexico; Los Angeles AFB, California; McConnell AFB, Kansas; Nellis AFB, Nevada (to realign); Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina (to realign); Shaw AFB, South Carolina; and Vance AFB, Oklahoma.
|
The Defense Department’s proposed $379.9 billion fiscal 2004 budget suggests the Pentagon will close or realign as many as 25 percent of all bases during the next round of base closures in 2005.
The proposed budget lays out a six-year spending plan that calls for spending $2.97 billion on base closures in fiscal 2006, $5.26 billion in fiscal 2007, and $2.25 billion in fiscal 2008. Defense budget officials says they arrived at those figures by doubling the combined cost of the last two round of base closings in 1993 and 1995, when about 12 percent of all bases were closed.
Lawmakers approved holding another round of base closures in 2001, but the 2004 budget proposal marks the first time money has been set aside to pay for it.
Raymond Dubois, deputy undersecretary of Defense for installations and environment, said in December that Defense could close or realign as many bases in 2005 as in the previous four rounds combined. In those rounds, 97 bases were closed, 55 major bases were realigned and 235 minor installations were either shut down or relocated. It takes about six years to close or realign bases. The recommendations to do so come from an independent commission appointed by Congress.
Defense budget officials says the hefty price tag for closing bases, which could ultimately reach $20 billion, is justified by a projected annual savings of $6.5 billion. Previous base closure have led to about $6 billion in annual savings, although the proposed 2004 budget includes $459 million for environmental cleanup and maintenance at bases closed over the last decade.
Overall, the proposed budget includes a $15.4 billion increase in defense spending over fiscal 2003. Specifically, the Air Force would see the biggest increase of any of the services with its budget rising $5.7 billion to $113.7 billion, the combined budget of the Navy and Marine Corps would rise $3.5 billion to $114.7 billion, the Army would receive a $3 billion hike to $93.7 billion, and other Defense agencies would receive $3 billion in increases for a total $57.9 billion.
The Defense Department would also continue to trim its civilian workforce, from 680,000 workers in fiscal 2003 to a proposed 673,000 employees in fiscal 2004. Most of those cuts will result from headquarters reductions and retirements, Defense budget officials said. While the cuts continue the downsizing of the civilian workforce that began nearly 15 years ago, they are occurring at a much slower rate than during the 1990s when tens of thousands of civilians were sent packing annually. By fiscal 2009, about 666,000 civilians are slated to be on Defense’s payroll.
Additionally, the budget proposes 10,000 new Defense jobs be opened to federal job competitions, under rules outlined in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. Those rules require a competition between federal workers and a contractor before any work is outsourced with the jobs going to the lowest bidder.
Procurement dollars used for developing and buying new weapon systems and replacing old ones would increase $2.7 billion from $70 billion to $72.7 billion, including $7.7 billion for national missile defense; $1.2 billion to develop the Navy’s next-generation of ships and $12.2 billion to buy seven new ships; $1.7 billion for the Army’s Future Combat System and $456 million to field a replacement for the Crusader field artillery system that was cancelled last year; and $1.4 billion to buy and develop a variety of unmanned aerial aircraft.
The Defense Department’s Special Operations Command emerges as a big winner in the budget with an increase of nearly 50 percent over last year’s spending to $4.5 billion. Defense budget officials said the increase is a reflection of the growing role special operators have played in the war on terrorism and expanding roles they will likely have in future operations. The increase will cover the cost of new equipment as well as the construction of more than $80 million in new facilities for special operators.
Military construction accounts are proposed at level funding, $9 billion in fiscal 2004, although Congress traditionally tacks on billions of dollars for construction projects. Defense budget officials said $9 billion is enough money to ensure that Defense will be on track by fiscal 2008 to achieve its goal of repairing and replacing military buildings every 67 years.