You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Walter Reed woes spur new scrutiny for base-closing plan
2007-03-22
The recent move by a powerful House panel to reverse a decision to close Walter Reed Army Medical Center may open a political can of worms, inviting lawmakers to fight to save other military installations from being closed, too. The House Appropriations Committee voted unanimously last week to keep Walter Reed open, effectively removing it from the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 2005 by taking away the funding required to shutter the hospital in 2011.

The BRAC, as it is known, was an independent process completed two years ago that mandated that the hospital and more than 180 other military installations be closed, saving $36 billion over 20 years. The Appropriations Committee took the rare action to keep the hospital open in the wake of the scandal that surfaced there last month, when shoddy care and poor living conditions were made public by a report in The Washington Post. But the move to fix Walter Reed rather than close it may create an environment of me-tooism among lawmakers who will see the Walter Reed reversal as a political opportunity. "I think potentially it's a very serious precedent," says Christopher Hellman, a former congressional staffer who worked closely on the BRAC process at the time. The commission that worked on the BRAC was structured in such a way so as to keep "congressional meddling" at a minimum, says Mr. Hellman. "While members all agree that BRAC is a good idea, they don't want to see the bases in their districts touched."

In May, various committees on Capitol Hill will begin marking up authorization bills – an optimal time for members to begin requesting studies for bases scheduled to be closed, Hellman says. Some installations were removed from the BRAC list before it was ratified by Congress. Others were contested yet remained on the closure list. Lawmakers representing districts in which some of those bases, such as Fort McPherson, Ga.; Fort Monmouth, N.J.; and Fort Monroe, Va.; could step up the pressure to reconsider those bases.

Some lawmakers, like Rep. James Moran (D) of Virginia, will argue that while many of the BRAC decisions were sound, some were not. Representative Moran will fight the decision made by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as part of BRAC that forces Defense Department personnel working in leased office space in the Washington, D.C., area to move to nearby military installations. Moran argues that the decision means more than 9,000 personnel will have to leave transit-friendly office space in his congressional district to far-flung areas that are now clogged with traffic. Although most personnel are moving to areas that are still in his district, it's the kind of tinkering that could help to unravel the entire BRAC process.
Posted by:Fred

#5  I havent been to Walter Reed in several years but can't imagine the good of closing the hospital down. It seemed to me to be in great shape with the finest staff probably on the face of this earth. Some buildings around the main hospital were defintely outdated, including the medical hold facility which was pretty bad but I think this is not the main issue. The main issue is the current treatment of medical hold patients. After many are treated by great doctors and staff, they are sent to medical hold where they are treated very poorly and are mismanaged horribly. Some are trapped there for years with severe disabilities from active duty then discharged with ridiculous under-ratings for their noble service. Seems to me that someone is trying to take the real issue and spin it to look like the facilities are the main issue. Hell, most of these guys have lived in much, much worse facilities without complaint. Its their out-patient treatment thats shameful.
Posted by: johnniebartlett   2007-03-22 15:02  

#4  of course the whole mechanism for this is that the president has to approve the list submitted to him in an all or nothing basis, and this is nothing more than another democratic 'do-over.' this is not a good thing.
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2007-03-22 14:31  

#3  BRAC, the real "peace dividend". BRAC only works because of the principle of shared misery. Clinton almost killed it with the special deal on McClellan AFB that he gave Barbara Boxer. I am more familiar with the AF side of BRAC, but when you reduce the force structure by 40% you can't support the old infrastructure. Closing the old bases frees up money to recapitalize the forces and maintain the remaining bases. Same reason we sent a third of the B-1s to the boneyard: more money and spare parts for the survivors.
Posted by: RWV   2007-03-22 12:35  

#2  ...Of course, no one has yet to question the utter and complete stupidity of closing bases in the middle of a f*cking war in the first place...

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2007-03-22 09:26  

#1  So keeping it open is the solution?

And we'll re-open the BRAC fights, again - which state gets to keep the jobs - but somehow we have to cut military spending, so ... let's de-fund the war! Pretty soon the public will forget Congress had anything to do with the funding, closure, or conditions of a facility a whole six miles north of the Capitol.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-03-22 06:08  

00:00