[Fed-Talk] BRAC list can NOT be valid
[Fed-Talk] BRAC list can NOT be valid
- Subject: [Fed-Talk] BRAC list can NOT be valid
- From: "Cole, Eric L CIV" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:28:55 -0500
- Thread-topic: BRAC list can NOT be valid
I work with those on my base involved in the BRAC data call process. They are still answering the data calls (24/7 "on call") that will be used in the final selection - which will not really be finalized until Nov '05:
http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/docs/time03.pdf
"Nov 7, 05 President's Approval or Disapproval of Revised Recommendations. The
President must approve the revised recommendations and transmit approval to
Congress by this date or the process ends. The recommendations become binding
45 "legislative" days after Presidential transmission or adjournment sine die,
unless Congress enacts joint resolution of disapproval."
Anything that is posted, published, etc before 2005 is not to be believed.
Eric L. Cole
Mechanical Engineer
NSWCDD-Launcher Systems
CVN77, CVN21 & LHA(R) Armaments (missiles & guns)
540-653-4964
DSN: 249-4964
Fax: 540-653-4166
The "scientific establishment:" National Geographic, Scientific American, Discovery Channel, PBS/NOVA, etc - don't believe everything you see from them:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
-----Original Message-----
From: fed-talk-bounces+eric.l.cole=email@hidden [mailto:fed-talk-bounces+eric.l.cole=email@hidden] On Behalf Of email@hidden
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:06 PM
To: email@hidden
Subject: Fed-talk Digest, Vol 1, Issue 51
Send Fed-talk mailing list submissions to
email@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/fed-talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
email@hidden
You can reach the person managing the list at
email@hidden
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Fed-talk digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. AppleSeed program (Robert Gordon)
2. Re: AppleSeed program (Dave Hale)
3. Re: Federal conferences that Apple should be at? (Dan O'Donnell)
4. Re: Federal conferences that Apple should be at?
(Cole, John (Civ, ARL/CISD))
5. BRAC List - Just off the Press (Stephen Bates)
6. Interesting Link (Dave Hale)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:49:52 -0500
From: Robert Gordon <email@hidden>
Subject: [Fed-Talk] AppleSeed program
To: <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <BDE31640.1024%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
I too went to the AppleSeed site and was told no new applications will be accepted. Bob Gordon
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:54:49 -0500
From: Dave Hale <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] AppleSeed program
To: "email@hidden" <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Thanks, Bob. I have conflicting information about the program being
open. Trying to find out what the current state of the program is.
On Dec 13, 2004, at 9:49 AM, Robert Gordon wrote:
> I too went to the AppleSeed site and was told no new applications will
> be
> accepted.
> Bob Gordon
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:14:34 -0800
From: "Dan O'Donnell" <email@hidden>
Subject: [Fed-Talk] Re: Federal conferences that Apple should be at?
To: "email@hidden" <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <BDE31C0A.4D9B%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
As far as I can tell Apple had no presence at last week's conference on IPv6
in Reston VA. It was well attended by Federal and DOD personnel and
contractors.
<http://www.usipv6.com/speakers.shtml>
On 12/12/04 12:04 PM, "email@hidden"
<email@hidden> wrote:
> Subject: [Fed-Talk] Federal conferences that Apple should be at?
>
> I would like the group's input on conferences and events that you think
> Apple should participate in either as an exhibitor, speaker, or
> provider of an internet cafe. Naturally, we have limited resources and
> want to make sure we are at the right events getting our message out to
> the federal government.
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:51:49 -0500
From: "Cole, John (Civ, ARL/CISD)" <email@hidden>
Subject: [Fed-Talk] Re: Federal conferences that Apple should be at?
To: <email@hidden>
Message-ID:
<email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
There is the DoD Information Assurance Workshop, February 7-10, 2005 in Philadelphia (see iaevents.com). This is for DoD, some other government agencies, and government contractors by invitation of their government sponsor(s). Not sure Apple can fit in. Don't think there is vendor expo. Will ask.
Now to reverse the question: there are Apple events for DoD, but I don't know what they are. Are there some that we should try to get CIOs, IAMs to attend?
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: fed-talk-bounces+cole=email@hidden on behalf of Dan O'Donnell
Sent: Mon 12/13/2004 1:14 PM
To: email@hidden
Cc:
Subject: [Fed-Talk] Re: Federal conferences that Apple should be at?
As far as I can tell Apple had no presence at last week's conference on IPv6
in Reston VA. It was well attended by Federal and DOD personnel and
contractors.
<http://www.usipv6.com/speakers.shtml>
On 12/12/04 12:04 PM, "email@hidden"
<email@hidden> wrote:
> Subject: [Fed-Talk] Federal conferences that Apple should be at?
>
> I would like the group's input on conferences and events that you think
> Apple should participate in either as an exhibitor, speaker, or
> provider of an internet cafe. Naturally, we have limited resources and
> want to make sure we are at the right events getting our message out to
> the federal government.
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:54:43 -0500
From: Stephen Bates <email@hidden>
Subject: [Fed-Talk] BRAC List - Just off the Press
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Subject: FW: BRAC List - Just off the Press
>
> FYI
>
> BRAC List - Just off the Press
>
> REFERENCES
>
> http://www.amc.army.mil/about_amc/pabracguidance.pdf
>
> http://pub2.bravenet.com/forum/170685044/fetch/219104/
>
> www.defenselink.mil/brac
>
> http://tricare.osd.mil/eenews/downloads/RAObulletin033004.doc
>
> http://www.mcia-inc.org/FW Base Closings Just Off-The-
> Press.htm
>
> http://www.mdvets.org/Senate_files/brac_list.htm
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/docs/time03.pdf
>
>
>
>
> Army 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
> * Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona
>
> 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
> * Vance AFB, Oklahoma
>
> The Air Force will lose 2,260 military and 2,839 civilian manpower
> positions, and 1,055 reserve drill authorizations next year, according
> to the 2004 force-structure announcement released July 23. Many bases,
> both active duty and reserve component, are affected by the
> realignment.
> In many cases, units will gain aircraft and missions, while others will
> pare down.
>
> Besides manpower reductions, the realignment formally announces the
> retirement of the C-9A Nightingale and KC-135E Stratotanker aircraft.
>
> According to Air Force officials, the 20 C-9s are being retired
> because
> of reduced-patient movement, range limitations and increasing
> maintenance and upgrade costs. The aeromedical evacuation mission will
> become a requirements-based system using all passenger-capable
> aircraft.
>
>
>
> The service will retire 44 of the Air National Guard and Air Force
> Reserve Command's 43-year-old KC-135Es next year, replacing them with
> 24
> KC-135Rs from the active-duty fleet. By the end of fiscal 2006, the Air
> Force will have retired 68 of the KC-135Es.
>
> 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,
> * 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
> * 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
> * Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, California (realign or close).
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 6:23 PM Subject: Public Affairs
> Guidance (PAG) - Transformation through
>
> Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC 2005)
> Importance: Low
> UNCLASSIFIED//
> Note for addressees -- please retransmit to your subordinate commands.
>
> 1. REFERENCES. Ref. A: SECDEF MSG, DTG 131700Z FEB 03, SUBJ: Public
> Affairs Guidance (PAG) - Transformation through Base Realignment And
> Closure
> (BRAC 2005); Ref. B: P.L. 101-510, as amended; Ref. C: Secretary of
> Defense (SECDEF) memo on transformation through BRAC, 15 Nov 02. Ref.
> A. is
> DoD PAG on BRAC 2005; Ref. B. is the legislation authorizing a BRAC
> round
> in 2005. Ref C. is SECDEF's initial directions on BRAC 2005.
>
> 2. PURPOSE: This message provides updated PAG for BRAC 2005 and
> supercedes
> Ref A.
>
> 3. BACKGROUND: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
> 2002
> authorized DoD to pursue one BRAC round in 2005. SECDEF's 15 Nov 02
> memo
> initiated the complex analysis and decision process that will involve
> virtually all levels of DoD management, from installation through major
> command and component/agency headquarters to OSD. All bases will be
> considered and treated equally. All bases can expect to respond to a
> comprehensive series of data calls. Ultimately, the SECDEF'S
> realignment
> and closure recommendations will be reviewed publicly by an independent
> commission, the President and Congress.
>
> 3.1. Because of the potential impact upon DoD components and local
> communities, BRAC is a subject of intense interest to all
> stakeholders. As
> a one-time authority, realignment and closure decisions will support
> transformation of DoD. To provide SECDEF, the commission and the
> President
> with the optimal set of recommendations, the analytical work and
> subsequent
> deliberations must occur free from opinions, internal or external,
> based on
> non-certified data and speculation. Accordingly, DoD personnel may not
> participate, in their official capacities, in activities of any
> organization
> that has as its purpose, either directly or indirectly, insulating
> bases
> from realignment or closure. Invitations to participate in such
> organizations should be discussed with appropriate ethics counselors.
>
> 4. PUBLIC AFFAIRS POSTURE: Active. Base Realignments And Closures are
> contentious and controversial. Commanders and their public affairs
> officers
> must be prepared to respond to questions and objectively communicate
> the
> details of the BRAC process to the public.
>
> 5. STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. (QUOTE) The Department Of Defense has
> received Congressional authorization for a Base Realignment And Closure
> round in 2005. BRAC is a means to achieve several goals: eliminate
> excess
> infrastructure; reshape our military; pursue jointness; optimize
> military
> readiness; and realize significant savings in support of transforming
> the
> Department of Defense.
> At a minimum, BRAC 2005 must eliminate excess physical capacity, the
> operation, sustainment and recapitalization of which diverts
> scarceresources from defense capability. However, BRAC 2005 can make
> an even more
>
> profound contribution to transforming the department by rationalizing
> our
> infrastructure with defense strategy. BRAC 2005 should be the means by
> which we reconfigure our current infrastructure into one in which
> operational capacity maximizes both warfighting capability and
> efficiency.
> By creating joint organizational and basing solutions, we will
> facilitate
> multi-service missions, reduce waste, save money, and free up
> resources to
> recruit quality people, modernize equipment and infrastructure, and
> develop
> the capabilities needed to meet 21st Century threats.
> The Secretary of Defense has directed that the BRAC 2005 process for
> analyzing DoD installations begin immediately. After gathering
> information
> and completing a comprehensive analysis, the Secretary will submit
> recommendations for realigning or closing bases by May 16, 2005, as
> required
> by law. (END QUOTE)
>
> 6. Q&As: The following Q&As are provided for response to query only.
> Questions that cannot be answered within the scope of this guidance
> will be
> taken without comment and forwarded with proposed answers to OASD(PA).
>
> Q1: Should communities perceive military construction (MILCON) as an
> indicator of whether their installations will be realigned or closed?
> A1: The presence or absence of funding for military construction is
> not an
> indication of military service intentions or future recommendations to
> the
> SECDEF under BRAC. The Department funds its military construction
> based on
> its current highest priority requirements recognizing that it may make
> investments in installations that are ultimately selected for closure
> or
> realignment.
>
> Q2: Will encroachment issues at military bases factor into the
> decision-making process?
> A2: In accordance with the requirements of the BRAC statute, the
> department
> will base all of its recommendations upon approved selection criteria
> that
> reflect military value as the primary consideration. The law further
> requires that the selection criteria address the ability of both
> existing
> and potential receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces,
> missions and personnel. To the extent that encroachment limits an
> installation in fulfilling its mission requirements, it will be
> factored
> into military value. The proposed selection criteria must be made
> available
> for public review not later than Dec 31, 2003, and finalized by Feb 16,
> 2004.
>
> Q3: There have been concerns and questions about environmental costs.
> Will
> environmental costs be factors in recommending a base for realignment
> or
> closure?
> A3: In accordance with the requirements of the BRAC statute, the
> department
> will base all its recommendations upon approved selection criteria that
> reflect military value as the primary consideration. The law further
> requires that the selection criteria address the impact of costs
> related to
> environmental restoration as well as waste management and environmental
> compliance. The proposed selection criteria must be made available for
> public review not later than Dec 31, 2003 and finalized by Feb 16,
> 2004.
>
> Q4: What were the closure results of the last four rounds of BRAC (88,
> 91,
> 93 AND 95) from the total available to the number selected for BRAC
> action?
> A4: The four prior rounds of BRAC resulted in recommendations to close
> 97
> out of 495 major domestic installations. BRAC 88 - closed 16
> majorinstallations; BRAC 91 - closed 26 major installations; BRAC 93 -
> closed 28
>
> major installations; and BRAC 95 - closed 27 major installations.
>
> Q5: How much has the DoD saved through the previous rounds of closures
> and
> realignments?
> A5: The four previous rounds produced net savings (cost avoidance) of
> approximately $16.7 Billion through 2001 and approximately $6.5
> Billion
> annually thereafter. Independent studies have repeatedly verified that
> savings from BRAC far exceeded costs.
>
> Q6: How much excess capacity does the DoD currently have?
> A6: The Department will not know its current excess capacity until the
> completion of BRAC process. In April 1998, The Department completed a
> report for Congress that estimated that it retained approximately
> 20-25% in
> excess capacity across the department.
>
> Q7: When will the department complete the BRAC analysis and make its
> recommendations available to the public?
> A7: The National Defense Authorization Act for FY02 established the
> following milestones for the 2005 BRAC round: publish proposed
> selection
> criteria for a 30 day comment period by December 31, 2003; publish
> final
> selection criteria by February 16, 2004; and submit a report to
> Congress
> with the FY05 budget justification along with a comprehensive
> installation
> inventory and force structure plan. By May 16, 2005, the Secretary of
> Defense will forward the recommendations for closure and realignment
> to the
> BRAC commission, at which time the information will be available to the
> public. The BRAC commission must forward its report to the President
> by
> September 8, 2005. The President will have until September 23, 2005, to
> accept or reject the recommendations on an all or nothing basis and
> forward
> the recommendations to Congress. Once the President forwards the
> recommendations to Congress, Congress will have 45 legislative days
> to enact
> a joint resolution rejecting all the recommendations or they become
> binding
> on the department.
>
> Q8: Where will funds come from to perform the BRAC
> analysis/evaluations?
> A8: BRAC analysis and evaluations are performed within available
> resources.
> They are currently funded by Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funds.
>
> Q9: Will near-term future new force-structure bed downs be incorporated
> into the BRAC 2005 process?
> A9: Where the BRAC timeline can accommodate operational imperatives,
> new
> force structure bed downs will be incorporated in the BRAC process.
> Using
> the BRAC process offers the opportunity to make the most efficient and
> effective use of the capacity and capabilities of the department.
>
> Q10: If a base is approved for closure or realignment, how long will it
> take?
> A10: Under the BRAC law, actions to close or realign a base must be
> initiated within two years of the date the President transmits the BRAC
> commission's recommendations report to Congress, and must be completed
> within six years of that same date.
>
> Q11: Can bases/communities get an assessment of how they "scored"
> during
> the "95 BRAC"?
> A11: How an installation "scored" in a previous BRAC round is not
> indication of how it might "score" during the 2005 BRAC round. In
> accordance with the BRAC statute, when considering installations for
> closureor realignment, the department must consider all military
> installations
>
> equally, without regard to whether the installation has been previously
> considered or proposed for closure or realignment by the department.
> However, for those interested in historical information, the Office of
> the
> Secretary of Defense maintains the documentation used by the previous
> BRAC
> Commissions. The records are located at 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway,
> Crystal Square 4, Suite 105, Arlington, VA. The information is open to
> the
> public; however, we ask that individuals call the office, 703-602-3207,
> before arriving to ensure a government representative is present.
> There is
> a copier available.
>
> Q12: How will "jointness" be assessed during this next BRAC?
> A12: The BRAC law requires that closure and realignment
> recommendations be
> based on published selection criteria that must make military value the
> primary consideration. The law further provides that military value
> must
> include impacts on joint warfighting, readiness and training.
> In his November 15, 2002, memorandum, the SECDEF established the goals
> and
> priorities for the 2005 BRAC round. A primary objective of BRAC 2005,
> in
> addition to realigning our base structure to meet our post-cold war
> force
> structure, is to examine and implement opportunities for greater
> jointness.
> To reinforce the idea that we should be looking across traditional
> lines to
> examine the potential for jointness, the Secretary established an
> internal
> BRAC 2005 decision making body that is joint at every level. The
> Infrastructure Executive Council (IEC), chaired by the Deputy
> Secretary, and
> composed of the secretaries of the military departments and their
> chiefs of
> services, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and under
> secretary of
> Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) (USD(AT&L)), will be
> the
> policy making and oversight body for the entire BRAC 2005. The
> sbordinate
> Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG), chaired by the USD(AT&L) and
> composed
> of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military
> department
> assistant secretaries for installations and environment, the service
> vice
> chiefs, and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations &
> Environment) (DUSD(I&E)), will oversee joint cross-service analyses of
> common business oriented functions and ensure the integration of that
> process with the military department and defense agency specific
> analyses of
> all other functions.
>
> Q13: How can communities be involved in BRAC to enhance their support
> to
> the base population/mission and their prospects during the BRAC 2005
> round?
> A13: The Defense Base Closure And Realignment Commission will solicit
> community input once it has received the Secretary of Defense's base
> closure
> and realignment recommendations in May 2005.
>
> Q14: If the final decision is to close or realign the base, with whom
> will
> community leaders work in the transition of the base from its current
> mission to civilian use?
> A14: Although an enormously complex undertaking, involving the
> Department
> of Defense, other federal agencies, and state and local governments,
> each
> military department will have a central point of contact at the closing
> activity to assist in coordinating the involvement of the various
> organizations. Additionally, DoD's Office Of Economic Adjustment is
> chartered to assist local communities with planning for the reuse of
> closing
> and realigning installations and in that capacity will provide
> individual
> community assistance.
>
> Q15: How will property be disposed of or sold? A15: The BRAC statute
> provides the department with a variety of mechanisms
>
> for disposing of property at closed or realigned military
> installations.
> While we cannot speculate on which mechanism might be used at any given
> installation, in previous rounds of BRAC, federal real property was
> made
> available by public benefit conveyances for airport, education, and
> homeless
> assistance; federal transfers to Native American tribes; economic
> development conveyances to local redevelopment authorities; and public
> sales, just to name a few.
>
> Q16: How will you decide reuse of the base?
> A16: The Department of Defense does not decide the reuse of former
> military
> installations. Once the property is declared surplus to the needs of
> the
> federal government, it is the job of the local community, through its
> designated local redevelopment authority, to plan for the reuse of the
> surplus property.
>
> Q17: Our base has some environmental contamination. Will the DoD clean
> it
> up?
> A17: DoD has a continuing obligation to perform environmental cleanup
> at
> all of its installations, regardless of whether a base is identified
> for
> closure or realignment.
>
> Q18: During the time cleanup is taking place -- several years in many
> cases
> -- will the base property be vacant and unused until all the cleanup
> is
> completed?
> A18: In previous rounds, from the time of the base's selection for
> closure,
> several options were available for property to be used until it was
> disposed
> so that communities could begin using base facilities promptly and
> economic
> redevelopment could occur. Consistent with public health and safety,
> once a
> contractual arrangement was in place, property could be leased or, in
> certain circumstances, deeded while the property was being
> environmentally
> prepared for transfer.
>
> Q19: What comment do you have for communities impacted by closure?
> A19: Communities affected by closure and realignment decisions in the
> last
> four rounds of BRAC have successfully transitioned to productive
> economic
> development. We are committed to working with BRAC 05 communities to
> duplicate that success.
>
> Q20. There are websites on the internet that indicate that a list of
> potential base closures already exists. Does DoD maintain a list of
> bases
> it wants to close?
> A20: No, the department does not maintain a list of bases it wants to
> close. The BRAC analytical process will not result in departmental
> closure
> and realignment recommendations until May 2005.
>
> Q21. How will the realignment of military forces and bases overseas
> impact
> BRAC 2005 efforts?
> A21. On March 20, 2003, the Secretary directed the development of a
> comprehensive and integrated presence and basing strategy looking out
> 10
> years. Results of that effort, including rationalizing areas of
> potential
> excesses and identifying the utility of overseas installations, should
> be
> available to inform the BRAC 2005 process.
>
> Q22. What is BRAC?
> A22. "BRAC" is an acronym that stands for Base Realignment And
> Closure. It
> is the process DoD has previously used to reorganize its base
> structure tomore efficiently and effectively support our forces,
> increase operational
>
> readiness and facilitate new ways of doing business. We anticipate that
> BRAC 2005 will build upon processes used in previous rounds.
>
> Q23. How does BRAC work?
> A23. The process is governed by law; specifically, The Defense Base
> Closure
> And Realignment Act of 1990.
> The process begins with a threat assessment of the future national
> security
> environment, followed by the development of a force structure plan and
> basing requirements to meet these threats.
> DoD then applies published selection criteria to determine which
> installations to recommend for realignment and closure. The Secretary
> of
> Defense will publish a report containing the realignment and closure
> recommendations, forwarding supporting documentation to an independent
> commission appointed by the president, in consultation with
> congressional
> leadership.
> The commission has the authority to change the Department's
> recommendations,
> if it determines that a recommendation deviated from the force
> structure
> plan and/or selection criteria. The commission will hold regional
> meetings
> to solicit public input prior to making its recommendations. History
> has
> shown that the use of an independent commission and public meetings
> make the
> process as open and fair as possible.
> The commission forwards its recommendations to the President for
> review and
> approval, who then forwards the recommendations to Congress.
> Congress has 45 legislative days to act on the commission report on an
> all-or-none basis. After that time, the commission's realignment and
> closure recommendations become law. Implementation must start within
> two
> years, and actions must be complete within six years.
>
> Q24. What is transformation?
> A24. Transformation is shaping the changing nature of military
> competition
> and cooperation through new combinations of concepts, capabilities,
> people
> and organizations that exploit our nation's advantages, protect our
> asymmetric vulnerabilities, and sustain our strategic position, which
> helps
> maintain peace and stability in the world.
>
> Q25. Why is DoD transforming?
> A25. Over time, the defense strategy calls for the transformation of
> the
> U.S. defense establishment. Transformation is at the heart of this
> strategy.
> To transform DoD, we need to change its culture in many important
> areas.
> Our budgeting, acquisition, personnel, and management systems must be
> able
> to operate in a world that changes rapidly. Without change, the current
> defense program will only become more expensive in the future, and DoD
> will
> forfeit many of the opportunities available today.
>
> Q26. How is BRAC transformational?
> A26. BRAC provides a singular opportunity to reshape our
> infrastructure to
> optimize military readiness. The 2005 BRAC process will help find
> innovative ways to consolidate, realign, or find alternative uses for
> current facilities to ensure that the U.S. continues to field the
> best-prepared and best-equipped military in the world. BRAC will also
> enable the U.S. military to better match facilities to
>
> forces, meet the threats and challenges of a new century, and make the
> wisest use of limited defense dollars.
>
> Q27. How many bases and installations will be closed?
> A27. It's too early to say, but there are no specific numbers or
> "targets."
> Using specific selection criteria that emphasize military value, DoD
> must
> complete a comprehensive review before it can determine which
> installations
> should be realigned or closed. In 2005, an independent commission will
> review the Secretary of Defense's recommendations, hold public
> hearings,
> visit various sites, and ultimately send its recommendations to the
> President.
>
> Q28. How much has been saved through previous BRAC rounds?
> A28. The four previous BRAC rounds have eliminated approximately 20
> percent
> of DoD's capacity that existed in 1988 and, through 2001, produced net
> savings of approximately $16.7 Billion, which includes the cost of
> environmental clean-up. Recurring savings beyond 2001 are
> approximately
> $6.6 Billion annually. In independent studies conducted over previous
> years, both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget
> Office have consistently supported the department's view that
> realigning and
> closing unneeded military installations produces savings that far
> exceed
> costs.
>
> Q29. What's the timeline for this BRAC round?
> A29. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
> established the following milestones for the 2005 BRAC round: publish
> proposed selection criteria for a 30-day comment period by Dec. 31,
> 2003;
> publish final selection criteria by Feb. 16, 2004; submit a report to
> congress with the FY 2005 budget justification on the following
> points: a
> force structure plan, based on an assessment of probable threats to
> the
> national security over the next 20 years; the probable end strength
> levels
> and military force units needed to meet those threats; the anticipated
> levels of available funding; a comprehensive inventory of military
> installations worldwide; a description of infrastructure necessary to
> support the force structure; discussion of excess capacity categories;
> economic analysis of the effect of realignments and closures to reduce
> excess infrastructure; and SECDEF certification of the need for BRAC,
> and
> that annual net savings would result by 2011.
> SECDEF forwards recommendations for realignments and closures to the
> BRAC
> commission by May 16, 2005; the commission forwards its report on the
> recommendations to the President by Sept. 8, 2005. The President will
> have
> until Sept. 23, 2005 to accept or reject the recommendations in their
> entirety. If accepted, Congress will have 45 legislative days to act
> on the
> recommendations.
>
> Q30. Which bases will be looked at in this round?
> A30. All military installations within the continental United States
> and
> its territories (under the control of the federal government) will be
> examined as part of this process. This includes labs, medical,
> training,
> guard, reserve, air stations, leased facilities, etc.
>
> Q31. Isn't BRAC just another example of budget priorities driving
> national
> security planning?
> A31. Absolutely not. The legislation is quite clear that military
> value is
> the primary consideration. The Secretary's guidance to the
> militarydepartments emphasizes that BRAC 2005 will make a profound
> contribution to
>
> transforming the department by bringing our infrastructure in line with
> defense strategy.
>
> Q32. How will the commission be selected, and who will serve?
> A32. The BRAC legislation specifies the selection process for
> commissioners. The President is required to consult with the
> congressional
> leadership on nominations to serve on the commission.
>
> Q33. How have local communities affected by base closures fared
> overall?
> A33. Base Realignments And Closures CAUSE near-term social and economic
> disruption. However, there are many success stories from previous
> closures.
> For example, at Charleston Naval Base, S.C., the local community,
> assisted
> by DoD, was able to create approximately 4,500 new jobs.
> Approximately 90
> private, state and federal entities are currently reusing the former
> naval
> base.
> Since the closure of Mather Air Force Base, Calif., more than 54
> leases have
> been generated at the new Mather Field Complex. Its prime location and
> one
> of the country's longest runways have made it an active air cargo hub
> for
> California's central valley and the Sacramento region. Additionally,
> the
> former base now employs nearly 3,700 personnel with its high-technical
> businesses, manufacturing operations, educational centers, government
> agencies, and recreational facilities.
> At the former Fort Devens, Mass., more than 3,000 new jobs have been
> generated and 2.7 million square feet of new construction has occurred.
> with 68 different employers on site, redevelopment ranges from small
> business incubators to the Gillette Corp., which occupies a large
> warehouse/distribution center and manufacturing plant.
> A base closure can actually be an economic opportunity, especially
> when all
> elements of a community work together.
>
> Q34. Will local commanders and others in their official capacities be
> available to help us in our task forces or other efforts to influence
> BRAC
> decisions with regard to our base?
> A34. DoD officials may attend meetings in a liaison or representational
> capacity with state and local officials, or other organizations that
> may
> seek to develop plans or programs to improve the ability of
> installations to
> discharge their national security and defense missions. DoD officials
> may
> not manage or control such organizations or efforts.
> In their official capacity, DoD personnel may not participate in the
> activities of any organization that has as its purpose, either
> directly or
> indirectly, insulating DoD bases from closure or realignment. This
> guidance
> is aimed at ensuring the fairness and rigor of the BRAC process.
>
> Q35. Is the list of closures and realignments on the g2mil.com website
> the
> official position of the Department Of Defense?
> A35. No. It is a privately operated website with no ties to or support
> from DoD.
>
> 7. TALKING POINTS: 7.1. Both Congress and DoD recognize military value
> must be the primary
> consideration in reducing or restructuring U.S. military bases.
>
> 7.2. The 2005 BRAC process will help find innovative ways to
> consolidate,
> realign, or find alternative uses for current facilities.
>
> 7.3. All military installations will be reviewed, and all
> recommendations
> will be based on approved, published selection criteria and a future
> force
> structure plan.
>
> 7.4. Through the BRAC process, we will ensure that the United States
> continues to field the best prepared and best equipped military in the
> world.
>
> 7.5. BRAC will enable the U.S. military to match facilities to forces,
> meet
> the threats and challenges of a new century, and make the wisest use of
> limited defense dollars.
>
> 7.6. BRAC will facilitate multi-service missions by creating joint
> organizational and basing solutions that will not only reduce waste but
> maximize military effectiveness.
>
> 7.7. Consolidating facilities will save billions, allowing the
> department
> to focus funds on maintaining and modernizing facilities needed to
> better
> support our forces, recruit quality personnel, modernize equipment and
> infrastructure, and develop the capabilities needed to meet 21st
> Century
> threats.
>
> 7.8 DoD officials -- military and civilian -- will not participate in
> any
> meetings of organizations with the purpose (express or not) of
> insulating an
> installation from realignment or closure to ensure the fairness and
> rigor of
> the BRAC deliberative process.
>
> 8. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION (NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE).
>
> 8.1. RELEASE AUTHORITY: OASD(PA), in coordination with DUSD (I&E), is
> the
> sole releasing authority for information on BRAC 2005 to news media.
> Local
> commanders and their PAOs are encouraged to respond to questions
> within the
> scope of this PAG. To protect the integrity of the BRAC 2005 process
> and to
> ensure that consistent and accurate information is provided, OSD, the
> military departments, and participating defense agencies will
> designate key
> individuals to respond to community and Congressional inquiries.
> Unauthorized discussion, dissemination of information or speculation
> regarding BRAC matters by DoD personnel and contractors is prohibited.
>
> 8.2. COMMUNITY QUERIES. External stakeholders such as communities have
> an
> extraordinary interest in the BRAC process and, consistent with the
> department's need for internal deliberation, should receive timely
> access to
> data that can be made public as the BRAC analytical process unfolds.
> Timely
> And consistent information from all DoD elements will minimize
> confusion and
> foster trust. PAOs may continue to release the same type and amount of
> information on their installations as they currently do, but may not
> release, in whole or in part, data calls/information requested under
> BRAC.
> It is important to note that local commanders are not in a position to
> evaluate the entire mission requirements and cross-service
> implications of
> their individual functions as they may affect DoD, and local
> commanders are
> not in a position to answer questions requiring them to speculate
> and/ordiscuss BRAC issues which are subject to internal DoD
> deliberation. While
>
> information normally provided to the public may continue to be
> provided,
> even if it is the subject of a BRAC data call, its relationship to
> BRAC is
> not releasable.
>
> 8.3. PARTICIPATION IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY. DoD personnel may not
> participate, in their official capacity, in activities of any
> organization
> that has as its purpose, either directly or indirectly, insulating
> bases
> from realignment or closure. This guidance is aimed at ensuring the
> fairness and rigor of the BRAC deliberative process. Invitations to
> participate in such organizations should be discussed with appropriate
> ethics counselors. In a liaison or representational role, DoD
> officials may
> attend meetings with state and local officials, or other organizations
> that
> may seek to develop plans or programs to improve the ability of
> installations to discharge their national security and defense
> missions.
> DoD officials may not manage or control such organizations or efforts.
>
> 8.3.1. Many influential former officials and retired general/flag
> officers
> will be involved with many organizations attempting to insulate bases
> from
> realignment or closure. They are allowed to participate in this manner
> and
> due to their participation, the organizations are not allowed any
> greater or
> lesser information/access.
>
> 8.4. INFORMATION SOURCES. Public information about the current BRAC
> process and past experience with prior BRAC rounds is available
> through a
> web site, http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/. Contents include the text
> of
> the current Defense Base Closure Act, the reports of the Secretaries of
> Defense and the Defense Base Closure And Realignment Commissions in
> prior
> BRAC rounds, General Accounting Office reports on the status of bases
> realigned and closed in prior rounds, and information on assistance
> available to communities with bases that have been realigned or
> closed. DoD
> personnel are encouraged to refer the media, community
> representatives, and
> other interested parties to this public web site for further
> information
> about what has happened in prior rounds and the process for BRAC 2005.
> Additional public information related to BRAC 2005 will become
> available and
> posted to the DoD BRAC website as the process proceeds.
>
> 9. OASD/PA POC is Mr. Glenn Flood, cmcl 703-695-6294, DSN 225-6294,
> email
> email@hidden.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> BRAC 2005: In a report to Congress SECDEF Donald H. Rumsfeld certified
> that the military has about 24% of excess base capacity to support the
> armed forces. The Army has the most that need to be closed (about
> 29%), followed by the Air Force (about 24%) and the Navy/USMC at about
> 21%). His report states that if the 2005 round of base closures
> produces a 20% reduction, DOD would see a net savings of about $5
> billion by 2011 and reoccurring annual savings of about $8 billion.
> The four previous base closure rounds now save our military $6.6
> billion dollars each year. Nevertheless, there is a movement to derail
> the next round of base closures by convincing people it is cheaper to
> keep all bases open and lease land to earn money; thus expanding what
> is known as Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) facilities.
> This robs local communities of business property taxes and rarely
> produces net profits as cozy relationships result in contracts in
> which the government still pays for property maintenance. Small
> military bases are inefficient to operate since each base usually has
> a housing office, equal opportunity office, public affairs, chapel,
> library, auto shop, medical clinic, dental clinic, commissary,
> exchange, base headquarters, base security, decal office, fitness
> center, reception center, swimming pool, child care center, enlisted
> club, officer club, teen club, family support center, temporary
> lodging, education center, dining hall, maintenance office, golf
> course, theater, post office, and various recreational facilities.
> Therefore, shifting "tenant" units to larger bases with room for
> growth saves a great deal of money and manpower in the long run,
> although moving units require money for relocation and some new
> construction. Reserve, National Guard, and federal civilian activities
> at closed bases can continue as they do elsewhere without a military
> landlord. Base closures also allow the elimination of outdated organiz
> ations which have been preserved as jobs programs by members of
> Congress
>
> The 2005 round will begin in March 2005 when the President, in
> consultation with congressional leaders, will appoint the nine-member
> base closing commission. Two months later on 16 May, the defense
> secretary 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.
>
> Army bases currently proposed for realignment or closure in 2005
> include:
> Carlisle Barracks PA, Detroit Arsenal MI, Fort Belvoir VA, Fort
> Buchanan PR, Fort McPherson/Gillem GA, Fort Monmouth NJ, Fort Monroe
> VA, Fort Polk LA (to realign), Fort Richardson AK, Fort Sam Houston
> TX, Fort Shafter HI, Lima Army Tank Plant OK, Natick Soldier Center
> MA, Picatinny Arsenal NJ, Redstone Arsenal AL, Rock Island Arsenal IL,
> Sierra Army Depot CA, and Yuma Proving Ground AZ. Arizona
>
> Air Force bases currently proposed for realignment or closure in 2005
> include:
> Altus AFB OK, Beale AFB CA, Brooks AFB TX, Cannon AFB NM, *Columbus
> AFB MS, Ellsworth AFB SD, Goodfellow AFB TX, Grand Forks AFB ND,
> Hanscom AFB MA, Kirtland AFB NM, Los Angeles AFB CA, McConnell AFB KS,
> Nellis AFB NV (to realign), Seymour Johnson AFB NC (to realign), Shaw
> AFB SC, and Vance AFB OK.
>
> Naval bases currently proposed for realignment or closure in 2005
> include:
> Ingleside Naval Station TX, Naval Postgraduate School CA, Naval Air
> Station Meridian MS, Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst NJ, Naval
> Recreation Station Solomons Island MD, Naval Surface Warfare Center
> Crane IN, Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division VA, Navy
> Supply Corps School GA, New Orleans Naval Support Activity LA,
> Pascagoula Naval Station MS, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard NH, and
> Saratoga Springs Naval Support Unit NY.
>
> Naval bases currently proposed for realignment or closure in 2005
> include:
> Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany GA, Marine Corps Logistics Base
> Barstow CA (to realign), Marine Corps Air Station Miramar CA, Marine
> Corps Mountain Warfare School CA, Marine Reserve Support Unit, Kansas
> City MO, Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego CA (realign or close).
>
> For more information about the DOD position concerning BRAC refer to
> www.defenselink.mil/brac [Source: NAUS Update 26 MAR 04, S&T Resources
> and Program Development, ++]
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
>
>
> REFERENCES
>
>
>
> http://www.amc.army.mil/about_amc/pabracguidance.pdf
>
> http://pub2.bravenet.com/forum/170685044/fetch/219104/
>
> www.defenselink.mil/brac
>
> http://tricare.osd.mil/eenews/downloads/RAObulletin033004.doc
>
> http://www.mcia-inc.org/FW Base Closings Just Off-The-
> Press.htm
>
> http://www.mdvets.org/Senate_files/brac_list.htm
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/docs/time03.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:05:32 -0500
From: Dave Hale <email@hidden>
Subject: [Fed-Talk] Interesting Link
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed
New Apple web site devoted to the IT Professional. Feedback welcome.
Apple - IT Pro
<http://www.apple.com/itpro/>
>
> Combining the power of UNIX with industry-leading ease of use, Apple
> offers a unique value proposition for IT managers. It begins with our
> commitment to open source technologies and open standards, making it
> easy to fit Apple products within your existing environment.
> Versatile, scalable, and surprisingly affordable solutions help you
> maintain and extend your infrastructure on a limited budget. And
> making it all work is no sweat, thanks to innovative management tools
> and Apple's unmatched hardware/software integration.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fed-talk mailing list
email@hidden
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/fed-talk
End of Fed-talk Digest, Vol 1, Issue 51
***************************************
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden