1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 86 of 222
This legal document is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
U
PageSaver
DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE COMMISSION - OPEN MEETING:Friday, May 21, 1993I
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22Page 702 of 880 Pages
I reviewed.
2 COMMISSIONER BYRON: I guess what I was driving
3 at, if there was a strategic reason to relook at it because
4 of the proximity to Europe, because of its being the
5 Northern most base, I would have assumed that the Air Force
6 would have taken that into consideration when they were
7 looking at creating mobility bases.
8 MR. DICAMILLO: Yes, ma'am.__________________________________________________________________________ .1.
basically, attributes of the air mobility command facility
that's going to remain on the East Coast.
Is there anything among those attributes, in your
opinion, that are different or are strikingly different than
would have been reviewed in analyzing a bomber base?
MR. CIRILLO: No, sir. Bomber base or a tanker
base, and they were also evaluated as such.
COMMISSIONER BYRON: I would make an observation,
because I think when the list was put together by DOD, fully
aware of what the Commission did in the last BRAC process,
understanding that there was a change in philosophical views
from a tanker base to the new concept of a mobility base, I
would have assumed that they would have taken into
consideration, had they decided that Loring, once again, was
a player in that mobility base arena, as they did when they
looked at Tustin to be mentioned again in the '93 process.
Is that a fair assessment?
MR. CIRILLO: Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. I
believe they did not --
MR. CANTWELL: The Air Force considers the '91
decision as a permanent decision. I did not see any
consideration of Loring at all in any of the data we9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22Page 703 of P - ages
1 CHAIRMAN COURTER: Well, we'll go on, unlessW
2 there's other discussions with regard to that. Let's go on
3 and continue to talk about -- unless you had something to
4 say, Rick?
5 MR. CIRILLO: No, sir. I would be glad to discuss
6 any of these issues as related to three bases.
7 CHAIRMAN COURTER: I do have a couple of
8 questions, and they have to do with Plattsburgh. They have
9 been a victim of a double team here; there's no doubt about
10 that. But that's the reality of this whole process.
11 There has been a great deal of discussion with regard to
12 fuel capabilities at Plattsburgh.
13 MR. CIRILLO: Yes, sir, there has been.
14 CHAIRMAN COURTER: From what you know now -- and,
15 once again, it's not on the list. You're not cha, rh
16 the responsibility to review it. But is there at least aDiversified Reporting Services, Inc. - (202) 295-2929
COMMISSIONER STUART: And you have the example of
Tustin, where they didn't hesitate to take a look.
MR. CIRILLO" I would assume they looked at it
didn't overrule it, but I don't know that for a fact. It
wasn't listed in the chart that was on your right earlier,
CHAIRMAN COURTER: To add additional flesh on
this, we can conclude that, in many instances, the service
secretaries reexamined decisions of their own and were not
reticent about making recommendations for redirects.
MR. CIRILLO: Yes, sir. We had about seven
redirects, six in the Air Force alone, that came back to us.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: And obviously, in this
particular case, they did not.
MR. CIRILLO: It did not come back.Pane 1,34 of 201 Paves
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 10 places within this document that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legal Document.
United States. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993, legal document, February 17, 2006; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc25520/m1/86/?q=food+rule+for+unt+students: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.