GovernmentExecutive.com

Defense Department officials defended Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's base closing decisions on the day before the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure and Commission votes on whether other bases should be added.

BRAC panelists questioned Pentagon officials during a public hearing called to examine why bases such as Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard were left off the list and why the Portsmouth Naval Yard in Maine was selected for closure and Maine's Brunswick (Maine) Naval Air Station was chosen for realignment.

The commission is looking at adding the Pearl Harbor site to the list of bases slated to close, despite the military's position that the 97-year-old base's location in the Pacific Ocean is strategically important. The Portsmouth shipyard is more efficient on the Pentagon's military value scale, critics argue, while Pearl Harbor has struggled to meet ship repair schedule and cost goals.

The decision to shut Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota so that a fleet of bombers could be consolidated at one base was questioned by a commission member who asked what would happen if a major catastrophe took out the base. The base's B-1B bombers--which make up half of the armed forces' fleet of that type of airplane--are slated to relocate to Dyess Air Force Base in Texas.

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Michael Moseley defended North Dakota's Grand Forks Air Force Base as the best place to station unmanned aerial vehicles, and said that the military is finding an increasing need for the remote controlled aircraft.

Michael Wynne, acting Defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the 9-member BRAC panel that the Pentagon believes its recommendations were well thought out, but would support the commission's analysis of alternative closures and realignments.

Defense officials repeatedly expressed regret at the turmoil the BRAC process has caused communities slated for base closure or realignment, but defended the moves as necessary for a more efficient military force.

For a base to be added to the list by the BRAC commission, seven of the nine commissioners must vote for the move, followed by a site visit and a public hearing.

The commission must forward a report on the recommendations to President Bush by Sept. 8, who has until Sept. 23 to accept or reject the recommendations. Congress then has 45 legislative days to reject the recommendations, or else they become final.

Comptroller David M. Walker told lawmakers that the Pentagon must continue to reduce "excess infrastructure" to generate savings.

"DoD's infrastructure costs continue to consume a larger-than-necessary portion of the DoD budget, and as a result, DoD has not been able to devote funds to more critical needs," Walker testified.

The Pentagon's management of its infrastructure has been on the Government Accountability Office's list of programs vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse since 1997.

COMMENTS

• I agree with something to think about. Why would you make this big mess with rearranging all our bases and putting them on the cost lines just so the terrorists will know exactly where to wipe them out? We are better off having them spread out all over the place than in one spot. Just think, one spot, one bomb. WAKE UP BUSH AND RUMMY. GovExec.com reader Posted July 21, 2005 8:40 AM
• Comptroller David M. Walker told lawmakers that the Pentagon must continue to reduce "excess infrastructure" to generate savings. Mr Walker needs to evaluate the savings estimates that DoD prepared. The estimates only consider savings for DoD, not the government. For exqmple, moving the employees out of the Crystal City leased space to mitary bases saves DoD from paying the lease but the lease is with GSA for ten years. Therefore, GSA has to eat the lease when the DoD leaves. Also, DoD has to pay to move all the furniture and equipment, files, etc to the proposed locations and build new space for the employees being moved - hopefully Rummy will not expect them to work in the terrible offices available today! Also, the increase commute of the employees will increase air polution that is not accounted for because DoD has no environmental statement concerning its proposals. They also do not consider the "down time" of the thousands of employees during the move as a cost! In the case of closures such as the Navy yard in Maine, they do not consider the unemployment of hundreds of people that increase income taxes lost, sales taxes lost, excise taxes lost as costs! Additionally, there probably will be an increase in unemployment benefits paid ande greater claims on other welfare outlets that cost the government but not DoD. Mr Walker needs to get real and look at the real costs of the DoD proposals and not just the DoD cost structure! The entire process is political because even a child knows that a ship yard in the Pacific is more valuable than on in Maine to support a potential conflict with China or N Korea! Remember that N Korea is part of the evil empire according to DARTH oh no sorry that is George III. Walker has us spending so much time answering his audits of the same old thing that we do not have any time to fix problems his people find and often they have no clue what they are talking about. They keep auditing the same thing every year so nothing gets fixed. Walker is no great source to listen to when it comes to decision making. taxpayer Posted July 19, 2005 6:47 AM
• It makes me wonder what type of folks run DoD. If I'm a terrorist or some other lunatic (or country), and I can find information about DoD online about its bases... I see Texas loaded with them, then I discover online international flights in and out of Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, I'm going there. But South Dakota? There's a base... so what? It would seem to me to retain bases in less populated and fewer commerical flights would make more sense. BRAC should consider this as well. something to think about Posted July 19, 2005 1:57 AM