• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

- DCN 601 BILL McCOLLUM 8TH DISTRICT,FLORIDA CHAIRMAN DISTRICT OFFICE: SUBCOMMlTrEE ON CRIME SUITE 650 Eongre~sof the Wnited Stata 605 EASTROBINSON STREET COMMITTEE ON ORLANDO.FL 32801 JUDICIARY (407) 872-1962 COMMITTEE ON TOLLFREE FROM KISSIMMEE BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES 931-3422 SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE Congressman Bill McCollum's Statement Before the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Birmingham Regional Hearing April 4, 1995 Good Afternoon. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to thank each of you for the opportunity to represent Orange County, the City of Orlando, and the Economic Development Commission of Mid-Florida and present to you some of our concerns surrounding the decisions of the Department of Defense which placed two Central Florida installations before you during the 1995 round of BRAC. The first is the recommendation to disestablish and relocate the calibration and standards function of the Naval Research Laboratory - Underwater Sound Reference Detachment (NRL- USRD) Orlando to the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, in Newport. I have had an opportunity to review the materials that were provided by DOD and will make additional data which I have requested available to you upon my receipt of it from the Navy. I believe that after reviewing this material you will conclude that in placing NRL-USRD Orlando on the closure list, the Department of Defense @OD) substantially deviated from the tests many critical Navy underwater acoustic devices at this facility and they include the TB- 16, TB-23, and TB-29 submarine towed arrays and modules and the SQR-19 surface ship towed array. The loss of the Leesburg lake in this closure will mean that testing now done there will have to be performed at some other location which can not possibly yield the accuracy now achieved and such accuracy can be crucial to the Navy's war fighting capabilities. Some may argue the Navy can get by with less accuracy in those calibrations, but why take the chance? Operational readiness is threatened by the fact that for the last fifty years the entire US Naval Fleet has depended on the warm water calibration data of NRL-USRD. If NRL-USRD is moved, water temperatures of northern test facilities vary, meaning that the Navy will no longer be able to compare fifty years of data taken at the original test site. There is no price tag that can be attached to the loss of this consistent, reliable and confident testing that has been performed in Orlando. In order to relocate staff, equipment and establish new facilities and move the Anechoic Tank Facility 11, there will undoubtedly be a severe gap in the unique testing performed at NRL- USRD. The Navy has failed to provide any information regarding the potential "down time" associated with the move or how the Department intends to continue this necessary research. In addition, there are no notations regarding the cost of such down time - not necessarily the actual dollar cost but the cost to our national security, the cost to our military readiness, and the long term cost to the Navy. I have talked to several scientists and technicians and the common consensus regarding this matter is that it would take at least one year and as much as twenty four months for the standards transducer program to be reestablished at its current level of operation. Can we afford that type of delay - all to save $409,000 in recurring BOS costs Center. However, no one I have questioned can understand the rationale of closing a technologically advanced center that has unique features like Orlando without considering some additional options first. For instance, it does not appear that the Navy analyzed the option of consolidating all transducer research and calibration from New London in Orlando while reducing excess staff in Orlando. The Orlando facility has the largest and most diverse capability for transducer calibration and experimentation among Navy labs. There are seven facilities being relocated from New London to Newport. Of those seven, several facilities and personnel deal with transducer research. It would make sense to move those personnel to Orlando to make this truly a center of transducer expertise. The remaining functions could still relocate to WC, Newport. Finally, from examination of COBRA data and materials in my possession, the return on investment conclusions appear very shaky. I cannot imagine how there can be annual savings of $2.8 million and a return on investment of three years associated with this move as stated by the DoD. However, this hearing has come too soon after the closure announcement for me to have information in my possession to corroborate my concerns regarding the return on investment criterion. There are questions outstanding to the Navy to solicit needed additional information and data. When I receive these materials, I will review the data and the check the COBRA for accuracy and advise the Commission and your staff of my findings. Mr. Chairman, while I respect and believe in ~~~*BRACprocess, it, like all other projects of this magnitude, has a flaw or two. The second issue that I raise for your consideration today embodies what I believe is wrong with the BRAC process. You have before you a proposed on the option. I urge you to make an informed decision regarding NPS by having your staff run your own COBRA and analysis on keeping NPS in Orlando. The infrastructure needed exists in Orlando already - the schools were purposely designed that way when they were built and could remain as a stand alone facility while the rest of NTC Orlando is closed. The nuclear power campus has a small medicalldental clinic to handle military personnel attending nuclear power school; an abundance of recreational activities for military personnel; a Navy Exchange which is scheduled to remain open even after NTC Orlando is closed; and more than adequate housing available in the area. The government can save millions of dollars in MILGON in Charleston or New London and use these valuable resources for other BRAC 91 or 93 projects. The Navy claims that by building the schools in Charleston, the government will avoid $162 million in MILCON and produce a return on investment of just one year! This is patently ridiculous. Using Navy figures, the only savings you derive is $15 million and this is a hypothetical savings because NPS is actually still in Orlando. The correct rationale would be to avoid $162 million in New London and at least $147 million in Charleston by leaving the facility in Orlando. There is no demonstrated need, requirement or benefit with respect to the collocation of this facility in New London and the only benefit with respect to Charleston is the anticipated savings associated with a reduction in PCS costs - which I will show your staff are minor at best since most graduates of Orlando go to Ballston Spa, not Charleston for follow on training. Since the Navy has placed NPS before you as a redirect, I strongly urge you to examine the alternative of redirecting it to Orlando, not Charleston. It is the only thing that makes any sense. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my initial review of the facts as they have been presented to 7 Document Separator REMARKS FOR JOHN KELLEY April 4, 1995 BRAC Commission Hearing Birmingham, Alabama Commission Chairman Dixon and members of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, your mission here today is sincerely appreciated by the City of Memphis, the County of Shelby, the Memphis Area Chamber of Commerce and all the people of our region. We understand the national -- even international -- importance of the commission's work, and we appreciate the fact that the decisions you must make are difficult and complex. Please know that we are here in support of your mission, and to offer our full assistance in the fact-finding process that will help you determine the military value of Defense Depot Memphis Tennessee. It will come as no surprise to you that we believe the facts we are about to present argue strongly in favor of a continued strategic role for DDMT. The unique transportation and distribution assets that Memphis and this community can deploy to support the depot will thereby support the present and future needs of American military forces at home and abroad. We are here today to speak to you regarding the military and community issues involved. In view of the considerable time restraints, we will now move to the business at hand. KELLEY REMARKS, P. 2 Making our case for the future of DDMT will be the Mayor of the City of Memphis, Dr. W.W. Herenton; Mayor Jim Rout of Shelby County; the Honorable Don Sundquist, Governor of Tennessee; the Honorable Harold Ford, U.S. House of Representatives; and Mr. Chris Clifton, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Memphis Area Chamber of Commerce. We have asked Governor Sundquist to speak first: END OF REMARKS REMARKS FOR MAYOR W. W. HERENTON April 4, 1995 BRAC Commission ~earing Birmingham, Alabama Like Governor Sundquist and Mr. Kelley, I believe that the facts about Defense Depot Memphis and the distribution infrastructure this community has in place to compliment the depot's strengths will speak powerfully for themselves. Mr. Clifton will allow them to do so in his presentation momentarily. Let me just say, briefly, that none of the Memphis delegation gathered here envies the job the om mission has before it. owns sizing the physical plant of the U.S. Armed Forces while maintaining their operational capabilites in a volatile world is an enormous task. Since we are all American citizens before we are Memphians and Shelby Countians, you have our sincere best wishes for every success in meeting your challenge.

Load more

  342

Copy Link