On July 7, the Norwich Bulletin published brief biographies for the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. I had not yet taken time to familiarize myself with the current Commissioners and their backgrounds. Former Secretary of Veterans' Affairs and Navy Vietnam veteran Anthony J. Principi was selected as Chairman (a good choice). The rest of the Commission will consist of former Representative James Bilbray, Air Force veteran Lloyd W. Newton, retired Air Force General Sue E. Turner, and former Secretary of Transporation Samuel K. Skinner.
The United States Marine Corps and United States Army are strikingly lacking in representation on the Commission, while the United States Air Force is clearly over-represented. That's not to say that the Commission will be unfair to Army or Marine Corps installations under consideration or that it will give special consideration to Air Force installations. However, it is relevant to note the composition today, while we watch the process in action.
Whenever the topic of base closures come up in conversation there is understandably a mixture of nervousness, angst and anger. People want to know "why my town" or "why my hospital." Having seen the process from the inside out myself while working for the Navy Team on the 1995 round of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, I caution people to take the time and educate themselves on the process.
First, the Department of Defense issues a suggested list of installations for consideration by the Commission. The Commissioners and staff review the list and may also add installations not suggested by DoD to the list. Hearings are held in communities likely to be affected by the list. At the completion of the hearing process, a final list of recommendations is sent to the Administration for review. The President can either send it back to the Commission with suggested changes or forward it on to Congress who can then either vote "yea" or "nay", but may not attach amendments or alter the list in any way.
During this process, use the internet to research and read a wide variety of sources on the topic, not just your local paper which may not necessarily be reporting the whole story with regard to local bases under consideration by the Commission.
If local installations are under consideration, make the time to attend the hearings taking place in your community. Talk to your legislators and the Commission directly. Believe it or not, your views are important to the Commission and play a role in the process. Speaking from direct observation, personal letters carry far more weight than mass generated postcards and email form letters. If the issue is important enough for you to sign your name to a form letter, than it ought to be important enough for you to put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard personally.
The Commission format for base closures was specifically adopted to minimize political gamesmanship in the process. Remember, Congress can vote "yea" or "nay" on the Commission's recommendation. They cannot attach amendments or in any way, shape or form alter the recommendations. In short, Congress can accept or reject, but not change the list coming out of the Commission.
As was commonly stated during the 1995 round of closures, the easy choices were made in previous rounds. Every installation under consideration today is bound to be controversial and few, if any, will be no-brainer closures. Stay tuned, its going to be a long and likely painful process.
This entry also posted at the weblog for Veterans for Common Sense.
Technorati Tags: BRAC.