[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1340
 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bilbray]. Pursuant to House Resolution 
431 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 4301.

                              {time}  1341


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4301) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Durbin in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, May 23, 
1994, the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums] had been disposed of.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 431, it is now in order to consider the 
amendment printed in part 2 of House Report 103-520.


                    amendment offered by mr. hansen

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hansen: At the end of subtitle B 
     of title XXVIII, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . POSTPONEMENT OF 1995 ROUND OF BASE CLOSURES AND 
                   REALIGNMENTS UNTIL 1997.

       The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part 
     A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsections (c)(1)(B)(iii), (c)(1)(C), (e)(1), and 
     (l) of section 2902, section 2903(c)(1), and section 2909(a), 
     by striking out ``1995'' each place it appears and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``1997''; and
       (2) in section 2902(c)(1)(B)(iii), by striking out ``104th 
     Congress'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``105th Congress''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] 
will be recognized for 15 minutes in support of his amendment, and a 
Member in opposition, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], will 
be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman proceeds, I wish to 
designate my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
McCurdy], who chairs the subcommittee of jurisdiction on this matter, 
to sit in my stead in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums] has that authority, and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
McCurdy] will be recognized in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today would defer the 1995 round of 
base closures and realignments to 1997. I do not offer this amendment 
lightly or, as some would have this House believe, as a parochial 
exercise to protect unneeded bases.
  I supported the creation of the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission. I have supported the closure and realignment of some 
facilities in the State of Utah and I have opposed others. But, I 
believe the time has come to depart from the theory of BRAC and deal 
with its reality; to dispense with rhetoric and confront the facts.
  The facts are uncomfortable.
  First, despite anything you will hear from the opposition, BRAC is 
underfunded. The first three rounds--1988, 1991, and 1993--are 
estimated to cost over $17 billion. Only $12.6 billion has been 
expended. You will hear that between 90 and 95 percent of BRAC 
requirements are being funded. Yet, if you go into the field and talk 
to base commanders you will see the reality.
  The Los Angeles Times reported on April 21 on the lack of progress in 
relocating the Marines from El Toro, CA. As the Times put it, ``the 
Marines' on-again, off-again approach to the move is dictated by the 
uncertainty of the Department of Defense to pay for it.''
  Navy Times reported on May 23 that ``one Marine Corps officer in New 
Orleans familiar with base closure said plans to move Marine Corps 
Reserve squadrons from air stations in Dallas, Glenview, TX, and 
Memphis, TN, to a joint reserve base in Fort Worth have been on hold 
because there is no money.''
  Finally, I have gone into my own district. For this fiscal year, the 
Tooele Army Depot has validated requirements for $7.7 million in BRAC-
related expenses. So far, they have received $43,312. That's hardly 90 
pecent.
  Second, there is a huge BRAC backlog. Of the 147 bases slated for 
closure so far, only 46 of those closures have actually been completed. 
Of the 100 realignments, only a paltry 6 have been resolved.
  DOD apparently objects to this statement of fact. DOD complains that 
it takes time to close a base--3 to 6 years. OK. Let us look at the 
1988 round--the round that should be completed by now. Despite the fact 
that it was the smallest--and cheapest--of any prior round, about 20 
percent of the bases slated for closure in 1988 remain open and 30 
percent of all actions taken in that round have yet to be resolved.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an undeniable funding shortfall and facilities 
backlog.
  Third, BRAC costs are increasing and expected savings are not being 
realized. The General Accounting Office has reported on more than one 
occasion that the cost of BRAC-related environmental cleanup is 
increasing above prior estimates. The Congressional Budget Office 
reported earlier this month that DOD has underestimated those costs 
alone by 60 percent. GAO has also reported that revenue from land 
sales--a key component of expected savings from BRAC--has plummeted.
  DOD has revised its own savings estimates downward. For the 1988 
round--the round with which we have the most experience--DOD has cut 
its estimate of expected savings by 52 percent. According to Robert 
Bayer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, the break-even point--the 
point at which the taxpayer will get some relief--for the first three 
BRAC rounds will not be seen until fiscal year 1997--nearly 3 years 
from now at the earliest.
  Paul Johnson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, was even more 
blunt in an assessment offered on March 8. He stated, ``we have not 
saved a whole lot.''
  Into this morass, Mr. Chairman, the administration hopes to dump at 
least 15 percent of current infrastructure in the 1995 round. BRAC 1995 
would, therefore, be at least as large as all of the previous rounds 
combined.
  Yet, in spite of the fact that there are enormous up-front costs 
involved in closing or realigning a facility, Inside the Pentagon 
reported in February that DOD did not budget funds for the 1995-1999 
future years defense plan.
  Proceeding with such a large undertaking when BRAC is already 
underfunded and behind schedule is poor management and can only lead to 
longer delays--and increased costs--in the BRAC process.
  Why then does DOD insist on going ahead with a round in 1995 when 
only 2 weeks ago Secretary Perry and other senior officials were 
suggesting that another round might be needed to accommodate BRAC 
within current budget constraints? There can only be one answer.
  BRAC has become an entirely budget-driven exercise to produce paper 
savings supporting an underfunded defense budget. The irony is that a 
huge 1995 round, with its enormous up-front costs, will only worsen the 
under funding problem--not just for BRAC but for defense overall.
  Mr. Chairman, we are also told that without a 1995 round readiness 
and modernization will suffer. The fact is, as Defense News reported 2 
weeks ago, escalating BRAC costs threaten to ``overwhelm current budget 
plans, and could force the Pentagon to delay base closures or rob 
readiness funds.''
  The services may argue that a 1995 round is crucial to maintaining 
readiness and modernization. The reality is that the services have not 
seen any net real savings to date and with a 1995 BRAC they will not 
see any until the next century.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not kill the BRAC process. This 
amendment does not alter the role of the nonpartisan commission. It 
does, however, provide for a 2-year pause so the defense budget can 
catch up with the enormous up-front cost of base closures and 
realignments and communities can catch up with needed economic 
adjustment.
  This amendment would allow us to ensure that the drawdown is 
accomplished in a prudent and reasonable fiscal and military fashion. 
To do otherwise would, in the end, cheat the taxpayer and harm the 
Nation's defense.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hansen 
amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense Base closure has not worked 
as expected. It is costing too much to clean up and close the bases. We 
are having to take monies away from readiness. We are only asking for a 
2-year delay to let Defense Department get caught up. The Base Closure 
Commission has done an outstanding job. They are not the problem in any 
way. I hope the Commission will continue to operate in the excellent 
manner they have done in 1989, 1991-93.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
McCurdy].
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Andrews], a member of the committee.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let us have a 
history lesson. Why do we have the base realignment and closure process 
at all? The reason is that for years and years, this Congress refused 
to allow the Pentagon to do what was in the national defense and 
security interests of this country, and instead put parochial pork-
barrel interests ahead of national defense interests and prevented the 
Defense Department from doing what needed to be done and close obsolete 
military bases. So we created an independent base closing process, a 
process that has been difficult, has been painful, and has created lots 
of problems across this country. But it has worked in its objective of 
providing for this country's national defense first, and making those 
concerns the priority of any decision about closing military bases.
  At issue today with this amendment is will we move forward, or will 
we move backward in those old days of allowing Congress and parochial 
pork-barrel politics to veto what is in the national defense interests 
of this country? Will we do today what is politically expedient, or 
will we do today what is the right thing to do? Defense decisions, Mr. 
Chairman, will they be based on the national security and defense of 
this country, or will they be based on the short-term political 
interests of Members of Congress?
  What is in the interest of national defense? Well, the Secretary of 
Defense has told us what is in the interests of national defense, Mr. 
Chairman. I am going to quote from a letter that we wrote:

       The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the civilian leadership of 
     the Department of Defense strongly oppose the Hansen 
     amendment. We believe that the infrastructure savings that 
     will be achieved by base realignment and closure are 
     essential to maintaining the readiness of our forces in the 
     next century. Deferring this process put readiness at risk.

  I would like to close by saying, for every Member of Congress who is 
feeling concerned and feeling the pressure at home because they may 
have a base in their district that might face closing in the next 
round, I would like to quote the Senator from Maine, Margaret Chase 
Smith, who was faced with a similar dilemma when she served in the U.S. 
Senate. I am going to paraphrase from a speech she gave on March 30, 
1961.
  Mr. President, this morning at 9 o'clock I received from the 
Department of the Air Force notification that it had been decided to 
close the Snark Missile Base at Presque Isle, ME. The far easier course 
for me to pursue politically would be to vigorously protest this action 
and, as a Republican Senator, to point out that the decision was one 
made by a Democratic President and to make political attack on the 
decision of President Kennedy. The far easier course for me to pursue 
politically would be to demand that the Presque Isle Air Force Base be 
kept operating to aid the economy of the area and to avoid the impact 
and dislocation that its closing is bound to have on the economy of 
this area. But in all good conscience, I cannot do this, for this would 
simply be playing politics with our national security, our national 
defense, and our taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, let us heed the words of Senator Margaret Chase Smith. 
Let us not play politics with our national security and national 
defense. Let us do the difficult thing, but the right thing, and vote 
down this shortsighted amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the moral tone of the debate by the 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Andrews] here. But with all due respect, I 
think there are other considerations, other than alleged pork-barrel 
morals in regards to the amendment now being considered, and that is 
our national security, which is a changing situation.
  We just heard a debate in the House by the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer], that perhaps we ought to take a stronger stand in 
reference to Bosnia. It was last spring that I attended a briefing, and 
the administration was ready to send 60,000 troops to Bosnia. Our 
allies said no. We do not know whether or not we are going to have an 
invasion in Haiti or not. We have those military exercises now ongoing. 
We do not know what is going to happen in regards to North Korea. There 
are 37,500 good reasons why we should stop and take a look. That is the 
number of American men and women in uniform over there. We do not know 
what is going to happen with the former Soviet Union. We do not know 
what is going to happen in regards to the Mideast.
  There is no consistency or predictability in the new world order, or 
the new world disorder. Moreover, there is very little predictability 
and consistency in regards to the administration's conduct of foreign 
policy.
  I say support the gentleman's amendment because of national security. 
Base closing is, in fact, robbing our readiness funds. I thank the 
gentleman for introducing the amendment.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues, we need this debate. I 
come from one of the most heavily affected areas of the base closing 
process. Philadelphia is right now losing 20,000 jobs from the closure 
of the Philadelphia Naval Base and the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
  But, Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, we 
told our colleagues years ago the savings would not be what they were 
projected in terms of base closing. We told them environmental costs 
would be higher than in fact they were projected to be, and we told 
them there would be a terrible local impact.
  Although as I do not like where we are, we are here. We are cutting 
defense dramatically. To do that, we have to continue to downsize the 
size of our installations. The height of hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman, would 
be for those colleagues of ours who support cutting defense to also 
vote for this amendment to prolong the base closing process.
  This process must continue as we downsize the military far beyond 
what I think is right. We must also allow the Pentagon to take the 
steps to close appropriate facilities.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Tucker].
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hansen amendment 
to defer the base closure scheduled for 1995 until 1997. The Department 
of Defense has found that base closure is a time-consuming and costly 
endeavor and I urge my colleagues not to act in haste to complete a 
process for which this Government is not prepared.
  The 1988, 1991, and 1993 rounds of base closures have revealed a far 
greater amount of environmental cleanup than had been expected. The 
Department of Defense has not completed any of these closure rounds 
1993.
  The first three rounds of base closures is estimated to cost the 
Federal Government $17.3 billion, with only $2.6 billion having been 
expended and we still have a lot of work to do on them.
  Base closures have a devastating impact on communities, we should not 
rush to impose that difficulty on the people who have served our Nation 
when she needed them.
  Base closure means jobs lost. When times are tough, people are out of 
work, why take away more people's jobs? When people don't work, Uncle 
Sam pays.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Hansen 
amendment and delay the 1995 BRAC for 2 years.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hansen 
amendment. I do so reluctantly, because I feel as the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen] does, the hot breath of the BRAC. But I think we have 
to stay the course.
  In 1991, Congress put in place a process to ensure that base closures 
went forward on schedule to reflect reductions being made elsewhere in 
the Department of Defense. To date, we have reduced our armed services 
by 30 percent, but we have only reduced the infrastructure by half that 
much. We cannot afford to maintain an oversized base structure, lest we 
compromise the personnel, training, and equipment needs that are at the 
core of our readiness requirements.
  The BRAC process affords us the only opportunity to downsize the 
military infrastructure to ensure that we maintain a proper balance in 
the makeup of our military forces.
  I recognize the desire of a number of our colleagues to postpone base 
closures because their own base may be considered for closure. I 
understand this feeling, as I said, very well. My district has already 
been hit hard by two major base closures, and with the '95 BRAC, we 
continue to live under the threat of our largest closure yet, which in 
itself would affect 15,000 direct jobs. If anyone has a concern about 
BRAC, it is me.
  Even with this concern, however, I firmly believe that BRAC '95 must 
go forward. We cannot afford to forego the significant savings that may 
result from the '95 round. Secretary Perry indicates we will save 4 to 
5 million per year by the end of this decade from previous BRAC rounds. 
This is the bottom line we should all support.
  I might also say that we do have the opportunity, I think, to have a 
much lesser round than some have prophesied. I do not see this, as has 
been described, as a base closure round to be called the mother of all 
base closure rounds. Secretary Perry has indicated, and so has 
Assistant Secretary Deutch, that it will probably be a smaller round, 
one that will have less budget impact.
  I fully expect we will be asked to have further rounds beyond '95. 
But the Pentagon opposes this amendment, and I oppose it and urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment as well.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for the 
Hansen amendment to the Defense authorization bill, which would defer 
the next round of base closing until 1997.
  I support this initiative because I am extremely concerned about the 
status of base closures and realignments ordained by previous base 
closure commissions. We have now gone through three rounds of base 
closure, and the result has been huge budget and schedule problems with 
those facilities designated for closure or realignment. As of this date 
we have completed only 46 of the 147 base closures prescribed by the 
previous BRAC commissions, or 31 percent of the total. On realignments, 
the figures are even worse: only 6 percent--6 of 100--have been 
completed.
  Meanwhile, the Pentagon has indicated that it will take some $17.3 
billion to meet only the most basic closure and realignment costs. To 
date, however, only $2.6 billion has been expended. And while the costs 
of closure have been rising, the expected revenues and savings from 
base closure have been declining. Environmental remediation costs in 
particular have been miscalculated, with current projections indicating 
that the costs of such work have been underestimated by some 60 
percent.
  As a consequence of the serious underfunding of past BRAC directives, 
the services have been left with no choice but to address immediate 
requirements and meet fixed timeliness by robbing their readiness 
accounts, decreasing the amount of money available for the services' 
training, operations and maintenance. Combined with budget cuts being 
imposed on the services, we have reached a point where our military's 
capabilities are directly threatened.
  In my view we need to take pause for a short period to allow us to 
address our existing base closure and realignment requirements, to 
catch up in terms of budget and schedule problems, and to make sure 
that our military services are able to provide for our national 
security interests without having to raid readiness accounts. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Hansen amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking minority member, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence].
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Utah to defer the 1995 round of base 
closures until 1997.
  In the fog of confusion which surrounds BRAC, it is time to take a 
step back and assess where we are before proceeding with the final 
round in 1997.
  As it stands now, the base closure process is significantly 
underfunded. The cost of closing and realigning bases is increasing 
while BRAC savings are not being realized on schedule, if at all. Not 
one of the previous three rounds of base closings have been completed. 
Less than 20 percent of all closures and realignments undertaken since 
1988 have been completed. Only 46 of the 147 bases that are supposed to 
close have actually been closed--and not one of them has been 
completely cleaned up environmentally.
  Meanwhile, the cost of BRAC continues to increase well beyond any 
estimates provided by DOD. The General Accounting Office has found that 
the costs of environmental cleanup are significantly higher than 
expected and that revenues from land sales are significantly less than 
expected. The effect of both has been to erode any net savings to date.
  DOD now believes that net real savings from the first three BRAC 
rounds alone will not be seen until fiscal year 1997. Given how far off 
DOD has been in its own estimates to date, the 1997 estimate is 
probably very optimistic. But, one thing is certainly true. No real 
savings from base closure--whether the next round is in 1995 or 1997--
will be seen until sometime next century.
  Given the huge base backlog, why is there a rush to complete BRAC in 
1995? There is only one reason to proceed without taking the time to 
seriously examine the issue, and that reason is to allow the military 
services to recommend closing as many bases as possible in order to 
demonstrate paper savings necessary to meet impossibly low Clinton 
defense spending numbers. The driving force behind the base closure 
process is no longer to cut bases in an effort to reduce unneeded 
infrastructure, it is to cut bases in order to cut the defense budget.
  This is wrong. It is poor budget policy and it is even worse military 
planning. Right now, no one is able to provide any clear assessment of 
the military implications of BRAC. The Armed Services Committee has 
admitted as much by including a provision in the bill, section 2815, 
which would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by 
January 1, 1995, on the effect of base closures on future mobilization 
options.
  While such a report would be very useful, it is long overdue. It 
makes no sense, however, to require a report on the military effects of 
BRAC while in the midst of the final base closing round and proceed as 
if that report did not exist.
  We need time to consider the administration's report. We need a 
comprehensive assessment of the overall costs of base closures. We need 
reliable information on the true costs and schedule of environmental 
restoration. We need to understand the economic implications of recent 
changes to the policy by which excess Federal land and property will be 
disposed. Without detailed answers to the nagging questions surrounding 
BRAC, we are flying blind.
  Only the adoption of the Hansen amendment will give us the time to 
fully understand the economic and military implications of BRAC. We are 
not calling for an end to BRAC. We are calling for a pause. To do 
otherwise risks the loss of infrastructure that will never be replaced.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Hansen amendment.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the delay of the 1995 BRAC. At a 
time of downsizing the U.S. military, the only time we can come 
together with a force structure to meet our national security 
objectives is through jointness, colocation and mutuality of support. 
Trying to get the Pentagon to think that way is very, very difficult.
  To my colleagues, I have Grisson Air Force Base in my district. It 
was closed under the 1991 BRAC, realigned to a reserve base, a single-
mission base to handle 60 KC-135's. I have excess capacity there for 
40.
  In the infinite wisdom of the Pentagon, less than 50 miles away they 
have now chosen to spend $41 million to duplicate a Grisson Air Force 
Base for 8 to 10 KC-135's by the Guard Bureau. That is an incredible 
decision by the Pentagon. That is an inequity that is occurring 
throughout the United States.
  We have to allow the BRAC process to continue forward in order to 
cure the inequities that are occurring out there. To those generals in 
the Pentagon that are listening right now, you can no longer have your 
own sand boxes with your own set of toys.
  We have to move to jointness, mutuality of support, colocation to 
come up with a force structure necessary to meet national security 
objectives. Vote this amendment down.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to my good 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], a member of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I might say right off the bat that I worked very closely with the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] in the early days of passing base 
closure legislation. In fact, I warned the year before it passed that 
either it was going to be done rationally through the committee or it 
would be done on the floor.
  We, in fact, did pass base closure, and I was proud to have played a 
part in it.
  It has been, obviously, a very painful process for many Members. 
There have been some winners but a heck of a lot more losers. Most of 
the Members in this body have been touched by the loss of jobs and the 
hurt that ultimately evolves to families in this whole base closure 
deal.
  What I will tell Members is that the process, the supreme part of 
this process, it has been a nonpolitical, one of the most apolitical, 
nonpolitical operations that I have ever observed on Capitol Hill.
  One of the things that I believe the communities have been able to 
take great solace in is the fact is that the Commission has called them 
like they have seen them, and they have made the hard choices. And 
people across this country have learned to accept that when the 
decisions are made, the decisions get made properly.
  I do not know what we tell Members who have had bases closed up til 
this point, whose people have gone along with it in a great American 
spirit, and tell them now we are going to exempt a lot of other Members 
out in the future.
  Look, we have to keep the process correct. We must keep it 
nonpolitical. We must downsize the overhead of the Pentagon in order to 
provide for readiness, the kind of readiness that we need to conduct 
tough military operations.
  This is a tough vote for Members. What I want to say to them, is, 
think it out. Let us keep the train on the track and let us do it so 
that everybody gets the sense of fairness that every community in this 
country deserves. Vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Mazzoli].
  (Mr. MAZZOLI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from 
Utah. The gentleman makes a very important point in bringing out this 
debate. But it does seem to me that having made the decision some years 
ago to go with the Armey amendment which brought us this base closure 
process and having seen that base closure process work as it has under 
Chairman Courter, with a great deal of objectivity, not without pain to 
those of us who have been realigned and possibly closed, but with 
objectivity, I think to veer away from that at this point would be a 
mistake, because we may then inject this question back into the pre-
Armey setting.
  I do not think that would be useful. I believe at this point the 
gentleman's amendment ought not to be passed. We ought to proceed with 
the regular BRAC process.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy] has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy] would have the 
right to close.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the author of the original provision 
on base closure.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  My colleagues in the Chamber will notice that I have taken an 
unaccustomed position in the well. I do that to dramatize a point. The 
point is, base closing, since BRAC '88, has not been and is not today a 
partisan political issue.
  In fact, the one thing I think we in this House can feel proud about 
is that partisan politics has not entered into the process either in 
this Chamber or in the deliberations of the Commission. The nonpartisan 
implementation of a truly bipartisan legislative effort is a rare 
experience indeed.
  I would like to also express my appreciation to the gentleman who 
offered this amendment, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] in 
particular. I understand this is offered for the best of all 
intentions. I only reluctantly speak against the amendment.
  The fact of the matter is, keeping bases open 2 more years will cost 
$9 billion. The Defense Department, on May 20, said, ``Delaying the 
base closure process until 1997 would deny the Defense Department up to 
$9 billion in annual recurring savings resulting from the lost 2-year 
period.''
  Wasting that $9 billion will hurt our military readiness. The base 
closure process is not underfunded.
  According to the DOD's May 20 letter, ``The claim that the base 
closure process is `seriously underfunded' is without basis.''
  The military construction bill we just passed increases funding for 
base closures by 23 percent over last year. A vote against the Hansen 
amendment is a vote for good government.
  The Secretary of Defense opposes it, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff opposes it, the National Taxpayers Union opposes it. Citizens 
Against Government Waste oppose it. The New York Times opposes it. The 
Washington Times opposes it. The chairman of the subcommittee and the 
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services oppose it. Millions of 
American taxpayers oppose it.
  I ask the Members of this body, please vote ``no'' and do so out of 
all respect for the author of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following information.

         DOD Policy on the Base Realignment and Closure Process

       Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and Chairman of the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili jointly 
     issued the following statement on 1995 base closures:
       ``We will conduct the 1995 round of base closures. The 
     prudent management of our resources demands it. As in the 
     past, the number and types of facilities recommended for 
     closure will depend on our force structure needs. We shall 
     also consider the cumulative economic impact on communities 
     as well as our capacity to responsibly manage re-use of 
     closed facilities. We must proceed to close bases in order to 
     save money, managing the process in a way that recognizes 
     that base closing costs money before it saves money. Too 
     much, too soon jeopardizes our current program; too little, 
     too late jeopardizes our future program. These are the 
     considerations that will determine the size and shape of the 
     closings we will recommend to the Base Closure and 
     Realignment Commission for 1995. If closures beyond the 
     amount we can responsibly accomplish in 1995 are required or 
     force structure requirements change, we will seek authority 
     for future BRAC rounds.''
                                  ____


                  Potential Amendment to Delay BRAC 95

       Background: A ``Dear Colleague'' letter from Congressmen 
     Floyd Spence and James Hansen solicits support for an 
     amendment they intend to introduce to defer the 1995 BRAC 
     round until 1997.
       DoD Position: The Department is strongly opposed to such an 
     amendment. The ``Dear Colleague'' letter's acknowledgement 
     that DoD cannot continue to maintain its Cold War 
     infrastructure negates the letter's further assertion that 
     deferral of the BRAC 95 process makes both economic and 
     military sense.
       Delaying the BRAC 95 process two years until 1997 would 
     deny the Department up to $9.0 billion in annual recurring 
     savings resulting from the lost two year period, which would 
     severely impact readiness. Also, domestic base closures are 
     lagging way behind force structure reductions. If this 
     situation is allowed to continue, or is exacerbated by a 
     delay in the BRAC 95 process, the Department could find 
     itself in the position of maintaining military installations 
     for which there are no longer military missions. The 
     maintenance of unnecessary infrastructure is unsound policy 
     both economically and militarily.
       The letter's claim that the BRAC process is seriously 
     underfunded is without basis. The recent Congressional 
     rescission of $507 million in BRAC 93 appropriations does 
     have the potential to delay some base closure schedules, but 
     it would be misleading to hold this up as an example of the 
     BRAC process being ``seriously underfunded''. The Department 
     and the Congress, with the exception of the recent 
     rescission, have fully funded necessary BRAC costs which are 
     offset by BRAC savings that are realized during 
     implementation.
       The cited increase in environmental cleanup cost estimates 
     does not support delaying the BRAC 95 process. The Department 
     has experienced environmental cost increases at active 
     military bases also. Environmental cleanup cost increases are 
     for the most part a function of improving technology; both 
     for identification of environmental hazards and techniques to 
     mitigate or eliminate them. Regardless, delaying the BRAC 95 
     process would not reduce environmental cleanup costs as the 
     Department is obligated by law to cleanup its bases, closing 
     or not.
       The letter also cities a report that criticizes the 
     Department for disposition actions that had the ``* * * 
     potential for large monetary losses * * *'' related to the 
     transfer of a medical facility and perishable supplies to the 
     Bureau of Prisons. The report misses the point that another 
     Federal agency (Bureau of Prisons) benefited from this 
     transfer, that perishable supplies will be put to their 
     intended use and, most importantly, that the local community 
     supported and welcomed this transfer and the attendant influx 
     of jobs. This action by the Department is in complete 
     accordance with the wishes of the President as expressed in 
     his Five-Part Program to speed economic recovery in 
     communities adversely affected by base closures.
       It is an undeniable fact that the Department must close 
     more military installations. Delaying the BRAC 95 process 
     will add unnecessary costs, forgo considerable savings and 
     delay the ultimate economic recovery of the affected 
     communities. We urge the Congress to not support efforts to 
     delay the BRAC 95 process.
                                  ____

                                              Council for Citizens


                                     Against Government Waste,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 1994.
     Hon. Dick Armey,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dick: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the Council 
     for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), thank you for 
     your efforts on the fiscal year 95 Defense Authorization Act, 
     H.R. 4301.
       As the founder of the Military Base Closing Coalition in 
     1988, when your bill to establish the Base Closure and 
     Realignment Commission was first enacted by Congress, CCAGW 
     fully supports the effort to block any attempt to postpone 
     the 1995 round of base closing recommendations. This is not 
     the time to repoliticize military base closures or return to 
     parochial politics. More importantly, at a time when our 
     Armed Forces are being asked to drastically reduce 
     nonessential spending, sparing obsolete bases would come at 
     the expense of the nation's military readiness.
       Some members of the Congress feel the defense budget simply 
     absorb the up-front costs of the 1995 round. This statement 
     is simply not true. The New York Times reported on May 5 that 
     Admiral Jeremy Boorda, the new Chief of Naval Operations 
     said, ``We really need this (1995 round). There's not enough 
     money to maintain infrastructure we no longer need.''
       On May 11, 1994, Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John 
     Shalikashvili jointly issued the following statement on 1995 
     base closures:
       ``We will conduct the 1995 round of base closures. The 
     prudent management of our resources demands it. As in the 
     past, the number and types of facilities recommended for 
     closure will depend on our force structure needs. We must 
     proceed to close bases in order to save money, managing the 
     process in a way that recognizes that base closing costs 
     money before it saves money. These are the considerations 
     that will determine the size and shape of the closings we 
     will recommend to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
     for 1995.''
       CCAGW strongly urges the House of Representatives to fight 
     any attempt to postpone the 1995 round until 1997. This vote 
     will be considered in our 1994 Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                              Tom.
                                  ____



                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 1994.
     Hon. Dick Armey,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Armey: The 250,000-member National 
     Taxpayer Union opposes any legislation that would delay the 
     1995 round of military base closings, and supports your 
     effort to prevent such a delay.
       Thanks in no small part to your tireless dedication, the 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission was formed in 
     1988 to address Congress' lack of will to close individual 
     military facilities located in members' districts. The 
     National Taxpayers Union actively campaigned for this 
     important reform.
       By 1991, the Commission had already closed or realigned 82 
     bases, for a total budget savings of $1.5 billion annually. 
     More than 150 industrial parks, municipal airports, and 
     educational establishments have already been created from 
     closed bases, resulting in a net gain of more than 60,000 
     civilian jobs. The latest round of base closings, approved by 
     Congress last year, could save taxpayers more than $3 billion 
     annually over five years.
       In short, the military base closure process created seven 
     years ago has been a resounding political and economic 
     success. Any attempt in this Congress to delay the process 
     only invites a return to the partisan bickering, pork-barrel 
     politics, and unacceptable taxpayer burdens that once marred 
     the debate over closing obsolete military bases. Overburdened 
     taxpayers should not, and need not, be treated to such a 
     sorry spectacle.
       Accordingly, the National Taxpayers Union strongly opposes 
     an amendment offered by Rep. Hansen (R-UT) to postpone the 
     1995 round of base closures to 1997. NTU would also strongly 
     oppose any other attempts to delay, alter, or repeal the 
     content or schedule of the 1995 round of base closings. A 
     ``NO'' vote on the Hansen Amendment, or any other amendment 
     to delay or alter the 1995 base closing schedule, will be 
     included in NTU's annual Rating of Congress as a pro-taxpayer 
     vote.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Al Cors, Jr.,
                                   Director, Government Relations.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, May 24, 1994]

                 Keeping Politics Out of Base Closings

       Congress removed politics from the painful process of 
     closing military bases in 1988 by giving the central role to 
     an independent commission. It was a smart move. In the 
     preceding decade, bluster by the Pentagon and politicking by 
     members of Congress had prevented any closings at all. But 
     since then, more than 200 large and small bases have been 
     tagged for closing, and 24 of them are already closed. When 
     they are all closed, the savings will exceed $4 billion a 
     year.
       The Supreme court ruled yesterday that the Federal 
     Government's choice of which bases to close is not subject to 
     challenge in court, thus foreclosing efforts by some states 
     to save facilities in their areas. But the carefully 
     constructed process is now threatened in Congress. A proposal 
     to tinker with it has support in the House, and will be 
     offered this week as an amendment to the defense 
     authorization bill. Its passage would be a mistake.
       Representative Dick Armey, a Texas Republican, devised the 
     process under which an independent commission reviews a list 
     of bases the Pentagon proposes to close or restructure. 
     Starting from the Pentagon's list, and after hearing 
     arguments pro and con, the commission draws up its own list. 
     That list goes to the Secretary of Defense, then the 
     President and finally both houses of Congress; any of them 
     may kill the entire list, but they may not pick and choose 
     among the candidates for elimination. No list has yet been 
     rejected.
       The first commission worked so well that Congress voted in 
     1990 to repeat the process in odd-numbered years through 
     1995--avoiding the unpleasantness of closings in election 
     years. The 1991 and 1993 rounds are history, but the 1995 
     round has some politicians nervous. The Pentagon is expected 
     to submit a long list, because this would be its last chance 
     under the current law.
       A bill co-sponsored by Representatives James Hansen of Utah 
     and Floyd Spence of South Carolina, both Republicans, would 
     postpone the 1995 round to 1997. The Pentagon estimates that 
     this would waste $9 billion. The Administration opposes this 
     bill, but is toying with the idea of letting the 1995 round 
     proceed, then adding another in 1997. This, too, would reduce 
     closings in 1995, on the eve of the 1996 Presidential 
     election.
       Military leaders oppose any stretch-out, because it makes 
     them spend money on bases they do not want instead of weapons 
     they need. Congress made the right decision in 1988, and 
     reaffirmed it in 1991. Any fiddling puts the whole process at 
     risk.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, May 24, 1994]

                          Let the Bases Close

       The House may vote as soon as today on a proposal to delay 
     the fourth and final round of military base closings from 
     1995, as scheduled, to 1997. Delay would be a major and 
     costly mistake.
       The political popularity of military bases on Capitol Hill 
     is legendary. To create even the possibility of closing bases 
     that are no longer militarily necessary, Congress adopted a 
     proposal by Rep. Dick Armey to eliminate political horse-
     trading from the process. A commission would draft a list, 
     and with the approval of the administration and the Congress 
     of the list as a whole--on an up-or-down vote in which the 
     list is not subject to revision--obsolete bases would finally 
     close. The process has worked well three times, to the 
     benefit of taxpayers and the military itself, which need not 
     allocate resources to useless institutions.
       Comes now Rep. Ron Hansen, Republican of Utah, to suggest a 
     two-year delay in the final cycle. Numerous arguments for 
     delay are making the rounds. Some of them are more 
     disingenuous than others. One suggests, absurdly, that base 
     closing is ``underfunded'' in Pentagon budgets--that is, that 
     the Pentagon does not have the money to save money. It's true 
     that it costs money to shut down a military base. But if 
     Congress is serious about making necessary closures, that is 
     money that is going to have to be spent one day. Delay merely 
     compounds the cost by the amount it takes to keep unnecessary 
     bases open in the interim. The pentagon reckons the long-term 
     costs of the Hansen amendment at $9 billion. The secretary of 
     defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff both 
     want this round of closings to go forward.
       Congress did the right thing by agreeing in 1988 to a 
     formula that would, at long last, shut obsolete bases down. 
     The House shouldn't lose its nerve on the eve of the 
     successful conclusion of this process. Although some 
     legislators fear the negative economic effect, and thus the 
     electoral consequences, of a closure in their district, delay 
     now would have grave consequences as well. It would be an 
     indication that Congress is incapable of real fiscal 
     discipline. People are worried about that as well, and 
     members of Congress need to understand that risk to their 
     careers as well.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maine [Ms. Snowe].
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] 
for offering this amendment. To those who suggest there is not politics 
on the Base Closing Commission process, they are sadly mistaken. 
Unfortunately, we in Maine were targeted by the Base Closing 
Commission, and we felt the heavyhandedness of Pentagon politics when 
it targeted Loring Air Force Base for closure on the basis of quality 
of life, and not on the issues concerning military value, because that 
decision was driven by the Pentagon.
  For those who suggest that somehow this is an underfunded process, 
they are not looking at the facts. That is what this amendment is all 
about.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman because he is forcing us to look 
at the issues, and not to bury our heads in the proverbial sand. If we 
look at the facts, it is a clarion call for supporting this amendment.
  First of all, not one base closure round has been completed since 
1988. That is 6 years ago. The Congressional Budget Office has 
indicated that they have underestimated the BRAC-related environmental 
cleanup costs by more than 60 percent.
  We have also, in the State of Maine, the environmental cleanup 
associated with Loring Air Force Base. This year we are appropriating 
$265 million. Do Members know what the Congressional Budget Office is 
saying we are going to need on an annual basis for the next 5 years? 
Four billion dollars, so we have underestimated environmental cleanup 
by more than $20 billion.
  The cost is to whom? The cost is to the defense and to the national 
security interests, by taking this money out of modernization and 
readiness, because we have underestimated the costs and overestimated 
the savings.
  Finally, it is going to affect the communities and the personnel that 
will be directly affected by base closing processes, because we have 
hardly begun to address our responsibility in defense conversion 
activities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy] has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we are not keeping bases open for 2 
more years, as my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] said. We 
are trying to close them. BRAC 1993 is not funded. The military right 
now is funded in 1994 at a bone marrow minimum. All the funding for 
1995 and out is based on closing those bases, but yet this 
administration and this body will not even fund BRAC 1993.
  NTC closed, but yet the skipper had to just put out a check for 
$30,000 out of training money because this body will not fund BRAC 
1993. Now we are going to dump BRAC 1995 on top of that? Our 
communities that we are talking about, the military is going to have to 
take this out of hide, and it is going to kill defense.
  I think it is purposeful, and I think that the liberal leadership on 
the other side is attempting to do this to kill defense. They kill it 
with $127 billion defense cuts, they put peacekeeping in it, they do 
not fund BRAC, and then they dump BRAC 1995 on top of that, and they 
are killing the military.
  Mr. Chairman, let us support the amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, there is another side to this BRAC debate. 
I might note that my colleague and I, and the gentleman from San Diego, 
have fared well under BRAC. We have gained about 7,000 jobs, and the 
parochial vote in San Diego is to support BRAC and try to get Long 
Beach closed down, which would bring another several thousand jobs to 
San Diego, but there are some long-range questions about BRAC that I 
have asked over and over again in our committee hearings that the 
chairman and I have held, that DOD has not been forthcoming on.
  One of those questions is, is there a long-range mobilization plan 
that fits in with BRAC? Is there a deep thinker in the Pentagon who has 
looked at what it is going to take in terms of military structure to 
meet a mobilization requirement, because once we give away air space, 
once we give away coastline, we cannot retrieve that.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the answers that I have gotten in 
briefings have been one-liners. They have not been intellectual, they 
have not been in depth, and I have come to the conclusion that there is 
not a long-range deep thinker who has decided when this project comes 
to closure.
  Additionally, we have created an environmental monster that has taken 
$30 billion out of DOD since 1988. That money has come out of 
readiness. We should flesh out the first three rounds of BRAC and then 
move forward.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate. I appreciate both 
sides talking about this very important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this 90-percent figure 
that my friend, the gentleman from Texas, talked about is funding the 
request, not the cost. If people will really take a look at this, no 
one has addressed the cost of closing these bases.
  As the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] just pointed out, we 
have a huge backlog. I ask the Members to call their base commanders, 
do not take my word for it. They are going to have 15 minutes or so. 
Give him a call and ask him. I can guarantee what he is going to say. 
He is going to say, ``I am taking the money from O&M, I am taking away 
readiness, I am taking away training, because the Pentagon is not 
giving me the money.'' That is the reality of this thing.
  If we want to tear the military down this way, by all means, let us 
go pell-mell into 1995, take this huge backlog we have from 1988, from 
1991, from 1993, and dump it right on top of them.
  Does that make any sense to anybody? Three lessons on how to kill the 
military. We did it after the First World War, the Second World War, 
and we win one over in the Persian Gulf and we want to tear it down 
again.
  Where do people believe it is all safe in the world? Can anybody in 
this hall, anybody over in that five-sided building over there, tell me 
where we are going in America? I do not know where we are going.
  The Director of the CIA says there are 50 poison snakes out there. I 
would urge Members to take a close look at this and let us keep our 
military solvent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy] has 4 minutes 
remaining to close debate.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hansen amendment, 
which would delay the last authorized base closure round from 1995 to 
1997, It defies logic to offer an amendment which would so directly 
affect and decrement our readiness of our forces.
  Nobody has ever claimed that base closure would be easy. That is why 
Congress passed legislation which created the Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission in the first place. Passage of this amendment 
would show a complete lack of political courage and would tell an 
already skeptical Nation that Congress cannot keep its commitment to 
this process. The House spoke when we passed comprehensive base closure 
legislation and should not be second guessed at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, nobody has ever claimed that this legislation would be 
perfect or that it would bring about immediate savings, particularly in 
the area of proceeds anticipated from land sales. The reality is that 
we're not going to achieve revenue from sale of facilities and land as 
long as we give these properties to communities to mitigate the impact 
of a closure. Nonetheless, DOD still forecasts steadily increasing 
annual savings figures beginning in fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, we have known from the outset that this process would 
have up-front costs. It will cost money to implement decisions made by 
the Base Realignment and Closure Commission to realign forces as 
installations in fact close. The Congress has been supportive of these 
efforts, fully funding the base closure accounts to ensure that we are 
good stewards of the BRAC's recommendations.
  If this amendment passes, it sends a signal to our military 
leadership that we are not committed to achieve the readiness levels so 
greatly needed in preparing to meet the threats and challenges facing 
our forces today and in the future. Keeping unneeded infrastructure 
begs the question, ``for whose benefit?'' Do we keep unnecessary 
installations for short-term political gain or do we let the process 
continue as authorized so that the military can get the most efficient 
use of declining resources?
  If I believed that the defense budget would again reach its 1985 
peak, I too would question the legitimacy of conducting the next 
closure round. But reality tells us otherwise. Delay of the next round 
will ultimately force our military leadership to cut readiness accounts 
to keep the lights on at installations that do not have a mission. If 
we vote for this, I seriously doubt we will be able to afford any 
modernization of our equipment and forces. Even if we keep forces at a 
level to meet the Bottom Up Review requirements, we run the risk of a 
30 percent shortfall in acquiring systems to replace rapidly aging 
forces.

                              {time}  1420

  Furthermore, all over the country both strong and vulnerable 
installations would experience reductions in force of civilian 
personnel just to sustain unneeded infrastructure. In that scenario, 
all military installations and their neighboring communities around the 
country would lose. We already face a $14.5 billion backlog on 
maintenance and repair of real property in the system today. And in the 
end, we would still face the inevitable closure of unneeded military 
bases.
  Mr. Chairman, last year Congress passed legislation to assist 
communities affected by base closure. Its ultimate aim is to ensure 
that the closing base can act as an economic engine, not a burden, for 
local communities. Public benefit conveyance is but one avenue that 
provides this opportunity for impacted communities. No longer can it be 
said that the base closure is simply chaining the gates and walking 
away.
  Unfortunately, the proponents of this amendment are creating even 
more dire circumstances than they assumed. The department will use fast 
paying accounts to continue to breathe life into installations that 
have no mission and unduly impact the readiness of our forces.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose the Hansen amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that he was in 
doubt.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 68, 
noes 362, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 194]

                                AYES--68

     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bartlett
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Burton
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Coble
     Combest
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Farr
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Jacobs
     Kim
     Lancaster
     Lewis (CA)
     Livingston
     McCollum
     McDade
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myers
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Ravenel
     Roberts
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Swett
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Williams
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--362

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Grandy
     Horn
     Matsui
     Ortiz
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1448

  Messrs. INHOFE, STRICKLAND, and BEVILL changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KIM changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Mollohan) having assumed the chair, Mr. Mazzoli, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4301) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________