GovernmentExecutive.com

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, Tuesday said that the impact of the 2005 round of military base closures is expected to be significantly reduced.

Following a meeting Tuesday with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Hutchison and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a release the return of at least 70,000 troops from garrisons overseas would lessen the adverse impact of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, process on U.S. military bases.

"Today's news from Secretary Rumsfeld provides concrete evidence the Pentagon is approaching the BRAC process with an updated worldview," Hutchison said. "We must look at our overseas bases first and assess the impact of their realignment" for the war on terrorism.

The Pentagon announced last year that about 70,000 troops stationed abroad would be returning to U.S. bases, including some to be reassigned to Texas installations. Previous estimates indicated the upcoming BRAC round would shutter one in four bases, according to one congressional aide familiar with Tuesday's meeting.

But Hutchison said that bleak projection must be reassessed.

"The precise impact is difficult to measure at this time, but previous estimates will have to be adjusted as the redeployment from overseas to domestic bases occurs," she said.

Despite Hutchinson's positive outlook, some BRAC observers were more cautious.

One congressional analyst noted that lawmakers and lobbyists with a stake in the upcoming BRAC round have been wringing their hands in anticipation of the Pentagon's plan to reduce excess U.S. military infrastructure.

"People are so panicked about this, anything less than the apocalypse is going to be good news," the analyst said, adding that the anticipated return of the 70,000 troops has been a contributing factor in the Pentagon's consistent assertion that the 2005 BRAC round will realign more bases than it closes.

"I think the defense secretary is calling it like he sees it, and Sen. Hutchison is calling it like she sees it," the analyst said. "They are both probably looking at the same elephant, but one sees a trunk and the other a leg."

COMMENTS

• It is ironic that Hutchinson says closures are ok but when the 1995 BRAC closed San Antonio, she and Phil Graham sided with the Democrats like Henry Gonzales and Cinceneros with close ties to President Clinton. What did they do? They helped structure several "deals" for jobs in Texas. Two of them strike many as intimately involved with the Druyun contract scandal. First was the work kept at Kelly overhauling KC-135s “supposedly won” by Boeing using many government employees. The second was the retention of engine overhaul work, which was a “public-private partnership” formed to cut up the work so some remained. In both cases the role of a local “corporation” employing former commanders of Kelly and senior civilians, put conflicts of interest in the stratosphere! I wonder how Druyun was able to defeat those who objected to her methods? GovExec.com reader Posted February 18, 2005 9:21 AM
• Dear Worker Bee: Had your Congressional Representatives shown as much interest in protecting your job and the well being of the members of our armed forces as they had with enhancing their political careers, most worker bees would have secure positions. The reality is that you were used. Look at the facilities that were saved previously. A good example is Defense Supply Center Columbus. Another, smaller more efficient base in Dayton, Ohio was shut down and their function was moved because Defense Logistics Agency had plans on the board to build new office buildings at DSCC, a much larger, older base with older, run down buildings. They even have a small golf course. A bigger faciltiy costs more to maintain. The new buildings were much more expensive than using the existing buildings at the Dayton facility. But, Senator DeWine and his friends pulled some strings and saved DSCC from an earlier BRAC. They kept the larger facility, built expensive office buildings and moved the Dayton facility there. Lots of taxpayer money was spent. But, it didn't fix the main problem: Defense Logistics Agency and it's supply centers are cold war relics. They were dated and obsolete, incredibly wasteful and ineffecient and they remain that way even after they merged two of them together in Columbus. Even the military branches they serve complain that they could get their own supplies more easily from commercial suppliers than from DLA and at a lower cost. Many mistakes are made and often covered up. Our soldiers probably suffer their incompetance. DLA is beauracracy at its worst. The Dayton facility that was shut down was sold for commercial development. I could hardly recognize the place last time I drove by. The facility was rebuilt with various high tech businesses with high paying technical jobs. DSCC was a prime piece of ground waiting to be developed before the office buildings went up. It's near a major beltway and a large airport. The old buildings were practically falling down. It could have been easily cleared and rebuilt with new industry. Now, it has a group of new, buildings sitting in front of a bunch of run down buildings. Try and sell that to a developer. A least their Congressional Representive got what he wanted. Robert M. Posted February 10, 2005 11:25 PM
• Concerning Mr. DoD Taxpayer's comment (BTW, What country are you a taxpayer of?), WE the worker bees are concerned about the BRAC and the hardships it will create in our lives and to our families from a personal perspective, as well as the disruption of critical services and consequences to our warfighters. I am sick and tired of hearing those arrogant DoD workers who've got enough years in for retirement so that they don't care what happens to their local military base or its existing workforce--so typical of their ME Generation philosophy. Yes, We Care! Posted February 10, 2005 3:15 PM