TOPICS
TOPICS
Rumsfeld sees fewer base closings in upcoming round
Far fewer U.S. military bases are likely to be closed and realigned than originally foreseen, in part because of plans to shift tens of thousands of troops from Asian and European bases back to the United States, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a conference call Thursday with newspaper editorial writers around the country.
Rumsfeld said surplus base capacity is not as great as earlier estimated, the Associated Press reported. "Without final figures, I would say the percent will be less than half of the 20-25 percent that has been characterized previously," Rumsfeld said, according to two writers who were on the call.
Rumsfeld previously had predicted the upcoming round will result in less shrinkage than 20-25 percent, but he had not previously said it might be less than half that amount.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in an interview today that in a February meeting, Rumsfeld told him and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, that about 15 percent of base capacity would be cut. Rumsfeld has until May 16 to recommend which domestic bases should be closed or realigned. His recommendations will then be considered by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
Meanwhile, the fiscal 2005 wartime supplemental spending bill awaiting action by the Senate next week includes language requiring a report on the reuse and redevelopment of military installations affected by next round of closings.
Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., originally proposed the requirement in the Senate last month. House and Senate conferees later included the language in the conference agreement. The House approved the conference report Thursday.
The redevelopment report likely will detail how the military will clear closed installations for other uses, as well as the department's plans and responsibilities for environmental clean-up and restoration.
Lawmakers have been particularly concerned about the reuse of closed bases, pressing BRAC Chairman Anthony Principi on the issue during his confirmation hearing in March. Roughly 140,000 acres slated for closure by the Defense Department during previous BRAC rounds have not been officially closed, primarily because of delays associated with environmental cleanup.
COMMENTS
- Perhaps the returning forces could re-occupy bases closed in the last BRAC with the associated MILCON's to modernize the facilities.. Fort Ord, NAS Alameda, El Toro... you get the idea. As I understand it many of the "closed" facilities from the previous closure rounds have yet to be put to other uses and are still intact. So... we use what we have. ~ALSO~ I'm hoping DoD/OPM will be more forthcoming with information for the effected civilian employees, I notice not much is out yet. GovExec.com reader Posted May 10, 2005 12:27 AM
- Of course Rumsfeld now professes fewer base closings than expected, he's applying "oil pricing messaging 101" to the bad news many communities, businesses, and federal employee dread. By inflating the number, then lowering at the last minute, he makes people feel better about what he's about to do or has already done. Just like the oil companies who jumb gas prices only to lower to a higher price than before the hike. We forget that the prices are still higher than before, but are happy that they are lower than what they just had been. This tactic also brings the heat off him from members of Congress and community groups just before the ax falls. This base closure process will be like none other felt before with the pending dome of new personnel rules for DOD workers. Without the ability of unions to negotiate soft landings for workers, changes in RIF rules and veterans preference, and a unyielding power of new "workforce shaping rules", federal employees can expect a lot of pain. Mark Gibson Posted May 8, 2005 11:11 AM
- A lot of the bases that are subject to being closed are old and run down. They don't have buildings suitable for rehabitation. Where does Rumsfeld expect to put troops, in tents maybe? There is a reason for closing 25% of our installations, they just aren't needed because they are too small, often land locked and too old. So, why make such statements? I hope that Rumsfeld isn't secretly planning some major construction project. DLA pulled that trick during a previous BRAC. Now we have a new building we don't really need on an otherwise old and decrepit facility that we don't really need. If we close overseas facilities, it means we don't need them. Not that we should move them. Robert M. Posted May 9, 2005 8:23 AM
Join Brian Friel from noon to 1 p.m. on Wed., May 11, when he will take your questions about managing, managers and other management matters. Read Friel's most recent "Management Matters" column and submit your questions now or during the discussion.
