[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3377-S3382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
go into executive session to consider Executive Calendar Order Nos. 12 
through 17, and No. 34, en bloc, nominations to the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission.
  The clerk will report the nominations.
  The legislative clerk read the nominations of Alton W. Cornella, of 
South Dakota; Rebecca G. Cox, of California; General James B. Davis, 
U.S. Air Force, Retired, of Florida; S. Lee Kling, of Maryland; 
Benjamin F. Montoya, of New Mexico; Wendi Louise Steele, of Texas; and 
Josue Robles, Jr., of Texas, to be members of the Defense Base Closure 
and Realignment Commission.
  The Senate proceeded to consider the nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate on the nominations is limited to 30 
minutes, equally divided between the President pro tempore and the 
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn].
  The Chair recognizes the President pro tempore.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I previously expressed my support for 
the confirmation of Mrs. Cox, General Davis, Admiral Montoya, Mr. 
Kling, Mr. Cornella, and Mrs. Steele to be members of the Base Closure 
and Realignment Commission. I want to reiterate that support and add to 
it my support of General Robles.
  Mr. President, I have no doubt that our former colleague, Senator 
Alan Dixon, can complete this process by himself, However, I believe 
both he and the Senate would rather see a group of individuals make 
decisions on the future of the Nation's military bases and our local 
economies. Therefore, I urge the Senate to confirm these nominations 
and let the 1995 Base Closure Commission proceed with its work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Thurmond in 
urging my colleagues to support the seven nominees to be members on 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
  I agree with Senator Thurmond that each of these individuals are 
well-qualified to serve as members of the Commission.
  [[Page S3378]] Mr. President, I am certain that all of my colleagues 
are aware that the 1995 base closure process is well underway, as the 
Secretary of Defense presented his list of closure and realignment 
recommendations to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
on February 28. In fact, the Commission has conducted two hearings on 
the 1995 process with the Commission's chairman,
 Alan Dixon, conducting the hearings alone. And, as Senator Thurmond 
just reminded the Senate, former Senator Dixon, now Chairman Dixon, 
could act alone, if necessary, but that is not the way this process was 
set up. That is not the way we intended it. It is not the way the 
overall Congress intended it because we wanted all the commissioners. 
And so we are here today to try to confirm the other commissioners.

  During those hearings that former Senator Dixon, now Chairman Dixon, 
just held, he stated more than once that he urged the Senate to act on 
the outstanding nominations at the earliest moment possible.
  The 1995 commission has much work to do in the next few months, and 
the Senate should not impede on the commission's progress by further 
delaying action on these seven nominations. I do not doubt that 
Chairman Dixon could handle it alone, but I do not think he wants that, 
and I do not think any of us want that. I believe it is in the interest 
of the Nation that the Senate favorably act on the nominations before 
us today.
  I urge my colleagues to approve the nominations.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not think it is any secret that I 
had some grave reservations about going forth with the nominations of 
the BRAC commissioners. I have withdrawn any objection I had. I do not 
intend to ask for a recorded vote.
  Let me tell you how it is and why it is that I was concerned.
  Two years ago, my State, New York, was a victim of one of the most 
outrageous, self-serving, manipulative, politically mean-spirited and 
inspired acts under the former BRAC commission. Not the kind of thing 
that would engender confidence in a process that was to be fair, that 
was to be open, that was to take into consideration everyone's concern. 
A process that would not lend itself to the political process as we 
know it. A process of putting forth your best case, seeing to it that 
people have an opportunity to be heard, recognizing that this was not 
easy and that, regardless of the wisdom of the decision, there were 
going to be areas in this country that would suffer.
  Let me tell Members that what the process did was close Plattsburgh 
Air Force Base and build up McGuire Air Force Base, and that one of the 
moving forces behind this travesty was none other than the Chairman of 
the BRAC Commission. That does not inspire confidence.
  In the 1993 round of closures, the Air Force proposed establishing an 
air mobility wing at Plattsburgh. They were going to put in an air 
mobility wing there. Their recommendation. It was not this Senator's. 
It was not anybody's in the community. They reasoned that the long 
runways and the vast apron at Plattsburgh were ideal for the large 
airlift aircraft.
  Facilities at the base were new--new. Tens and tens of millions of 
dollars had been spent and the base was well laid out. To all observers 
it was the perfect match. But somehow the BRAC Commission saw it 
differently. They bullied the FAA into not objecting at the 
introduction to McGuire AFB of 70 to 80 large aircraft in the busiest 
air corridor in the world.
  Now, Mr. President, it does not take one long to figure out that when 
we have one of the busiest commercial air corridors in the world, that 
is not the place where we put 70 to 80 large transports and say that 
that is going to be the mobility airbase. Not to mention the antiquated 
facilities. Not to mention the cost would be hundreds of millions of 
dollars in new construction.
  The FAA did not object. After having created a tissue of false rumors 
and lies regarding Plattsburgh's crash zone and fuel delivery costs, 
the BRAC decided that, lo and behold, McGuire, the oldest, the most 
antiquated of the facilities, located in the middle of one of the 
heaviest traffic air corridors in the world, that that would be where 
the Air Force would move these planes.
  They decided that McGuire, which the Air Force had initially 
recommended be downgraded to a reserve facility, obviously because of 
the traffic congestion in the air, that it be chosen as the new 
mobility hub.
  Want to talk about politics in its rawest, nastiest, rottenest sense, 
that is it. That is the kind of thing that all Members have an 
obligation to avoid. The infamous proposal--by the way, because it took 
somebody with some ingenuity to suggest this--came from none other than 
one of the commissioners. That was H.T. Johnson, a former Air Force 
general. He harbored a grudge--well-known, well-known--and my 
distinguished colleagues on the floor, if they care to check into this 
will find out because there are no secrets in this business. H.T. 
Johnson did not like the then Air Force Chief of Staff Tony McPeak.
  Can you imagine, here we now have these personalities, one former 
general is on the commission, does not like the then Air Force chief, 
and he knew that the Air Force and General McPeak were solidly behind 
the Plattsburgh proposal. So when H.T. Johnson came up with this plan, 
he did not have any trouble getting the Chairman of the Commission to 
quickly second it, to follow through on this deed, the commissioner 
himself having been a former Congressman from New Jersey, representing 
that district in which this move was made.
  Now, that is not what this process is to be about. We understand that 
there will be difficult decisions. We understand that. There has not 
been anyone here who has not seen them, and we understand, and we lick 
our wounds and we go on and do the best we can, and we try to get a 
community to pick up the pieces.
  I have to say, this outrage was buried in a host of other 
recommendations to Congress. Senator Moynihan and myself raised our 
voices. If there was any solace in what took place, it was that New 
York retained Rome Lab, which was located at Griffiss Air Force Base. 
It was the premier command and control research and development 
facility in the country.
  The Air Force said, ``Well, we will keep this going for another 5 
years.'' Now, even that, in this last round, is gone. So, having been 
victimized once, the Pentagon is now recommending the closure of that 
lab, when they said ``Do not worry.'' And now they come back and put it 
on the list. And to add insult to injury, where do you think they call 
for realigning some of its work? Fort Monmouth, NJ.
  Now, look, there is a moral obligation and a commitment that this lab 
was going to be kept and the State went forward--the State of New 
York-- putting forth millions of dollars. We built a comprehensive 
scientific foundation linked with all of the universities: Rensselaer, 
Syracuse, Poly Institute, Rochester Institute, University of Rochester, 
Cornell. And now, instead of being an integral part of the Air Force's 
5-year plan, nothing. Based on those assurances, New York gave millions 
of dollars to ease the operating costs and further facilitate the 
transfer of lab products to the private sector--and we can do it, and 
we can eventually take over the entire Government cost. Give us those 5 
years and it will not cost the Federal Government anything.
  But, no, no, let me tell members how serious our State is. We are 
cutting spending. We have a deficit of $5 billion. For the first time 
in 40 years the State is actually reducing spending. We will spend less 
this year than we did the previous year. Three percent less. I do not 
think there is another State in the country that is doing that, yet the 
Governor increased the budget allotments and saw to it that the funds 
for Rome lab would be continued.
  The fact is that the Air Force deceived the Rome community into 
making investments in that lab, and now under their plan the hope for 
economic recovery is removed. It is morally wrong to do that to any 
community. If I saw that taking place in another community and my 
colleague addressed that and said, ``Take a look and see what took 
place,'' where one general, former general, because of his dislike of 
another, moves to crush the plan which called for the location of 
[[Page S3379]] the air mobility center at a major installation, only to 
have that major installation--which was the best--decimated, closed 
down, with the remaining lab over at Griffiss. It was promised we will 
keep this and now we come back 2 years later and we will take that out 
as well.
  That does not inspire confidence in the integrity of the process. 
Having said that, I say I am tremendously encouraged at the 
qualifications, the candor, the ability, and the credibility first of 
all of the Chairman of the Commission, our former colleague Senator 
Dixon, and after having seen the quality of the other commission 
Members.
  Now, it is not easy for a commission to then restore a base once the 
Air Force or any of the services have put it on the list and said they 
are targeted. They do not generally do that. Not as a rule. But I 
certainly hope that we can make a case based upon the situation that 
exists today, and based upon what was morally indefensible, and what 
was done to the community by the BRAC Commission of 1993. It is a sorry 
saga, but one I believe that has to be told. I would not have come 
forth and made this public at this time were it not for what took place 
this year, following the commitments that were made, and the 
expectations that we had to save this facility. That is why I do so. It 
is a sordid, dirty, little story.
  But if anything, hopefully we can learn by that. I think we have a 
moral obligation to see to it that this facility is continued. The 
Governor has assured me that he will do everything in his power to give 
whatever aid in reducing costs to this facility and helping to move it 
into the private sector and in helping to keep it the premier lab that 
it is.
  So, Mr. President, it is on that basis that I have withdrawn my 
objection because, obviously, I understand there are decisions that 
have to be made. The taxpayers and the Members of this Congress have an 
obligation to see that our money is wisely spent and husbanded. This is 
not easy. But I thought that it was important to lay these facts out 
and, hopefully, we can avoid a repetition of that kind of thing. Nobody 
and no community should ever be subjected to it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. I wish to thank the able Senator from New York.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I did not intend to speak on this 
particular matter, but I heard the Senator from New York making some 
points. I do not know the particular situation in New York, but I know 
that the Senator and I share one thing in common, and that is the 
Pentagon's base closing nominations should not be considered as sacred 
by the Commissioners that we are about to confirm.
  I have no intention of speaking at length or trying to block any of 
their nominations. As far as I know, they are all very honorable 
people, and I come not to resist them, not even to admonish them, but 
to make a point which I hope they will seriously consider, and that is 
that the Pentagon's decisions are not perfect. They are not made in the 
cosmos. They are made by human beings who are subject to error.
  Needless to say, that I am upset about what they are doing in my 
State would be a gross understatement.
  In 1991, I daresay that my State was one of the two or three hardest 
hit States on the loss of jobs as a percentage of our people. We lost 
Eaker Air Force Base, a strategic bomber base, and we lost what we call 
the Joint Readiness Training Center in Fort Chaffee, AR, which was 
moved to Fort Polk, LA.
  Eaker Air Force Base was in Mississippi County, which is in the First 
Congressional District of my State, which happens to be one of the 10 
poorest districts in the United States. I do not have to tell you what 
closing a very significant air base in that county did to that county 
and the surrounding area. But if you look at it in pure terms of 
dollars and cents, you could not argue with it. When Senator Pryor, and 
some of the rest of us, went before the Base Closure Commission and 
pleaded for them to take into consideration the economic consequences, 
they said, ``That is not a part of our mandate.''
  That county had always had, even with the air base there, a very much 
higher unemployment rate than the rest of our State. We cannot consider 
the economic consequences, which is the same thing as saying we are not 
interested in human beings; we are not interested in the trauma and the 
tragedy that people experience when they lose their jobs and wonder how 
they are going to put bread on the table for their children.
  But it was closed. We might as well have been shouting in the rain 
barrel for all the attention we got from the Base Closure Commission.
  As far as Fort Chaffee was concerned, we showed conclusively, we 
crunched the numbers time and time and time again, and presented them 
to the Base Closure Commission and said, ``You are supposed to be 
saving money. You will save a lot of money by closing Eaker Air Force 
Base, even though you are creating unspeakable, horrible consequences 
for a lot of people who are going to be thrown into the streets, but in 
Chaffee's case you cannot even justify the savings.'' The figures we 
gave them which, in my opinion, were absolutely unassailable and are 
unassailable to this day, went unheard, unheeded. We might as well, 
again, have been shouting in a rain barrel.
  Now we have this new list of bases for closing that have been 
nominated by some faceless group in the Pentagon. After we took that 
kind of a hit in our State in 1991, I daresay that with this base 
closure list we are again one of the two or three hardest hit of any 
State as a percentage of our population. Red River Army Depot and the 
Defense Logistics Agency Depot, sit side by side a few miles from 
Texarkana, which my colleagues know includes parts of Arkansas and 
Texas, as is near Louisiana; a city of 77,000 to 80,000 people, about 
30,000 of whom are on the Arkansas side of the line.
  Mr. President, since I have been in politics, I have stood with one 
leg in Texas and one leg in Arkansas 30 times. The line runs right 
through the Federal Building, half in Arkansas and half in Texas. Of 
the 4,100 people who work at the 3,600-acre Red River complex, 1,000 or 
so live in Arkansas. I know, as Deputy Secretary Deutch told me the 
other day, they do not consider economics, they do not consider red-
blooded human beings who lose their jobs. Theirs is not to ameliorate 
that. Theirs is to look at hard, cold dollars-and-cents figures.
  They did not cut these facilities in half, which would have been 
traumatic enough. They didn't try to figure out how can we eliminate 
this human drama, this tragic human drama unfolding by cutting their 
workload in half and leaving at least 2,000 people working there, or 
3,000, or whatever.
  I do not even know where they are going to transfer the work. I know 
there are two bases that do the same thing the Red River Depot does 
that are being left open that have never won the awards that Red River 
has won, such as the 1995 Presidential Quality Award. Red River is one 
of only six government facilities in the whole country to win that.
  I listened to the Base Closure Commission hearings yesterday 
afternoon in my office, and the chairman, our former colleague, Senator 
Dixon from Illinois, asked did they take into consideration all of the 
achievement awards and the meritorious awards that Red River Depot had 
won? No, they did not. I regret the chairman said he had a tendency to 
agree with that.
  Tell me, Mr. President, what is the purpose of people who have worked 
for the Federal Government trying to excel and be recognized for their 
excellent service if nobody is going to take it into consideration? 
What is that all about?
  One other thing, Mr. President. What is it about these people who 
make these nominations that make them perfect and infallible, and their 
judgments and their decisions unquestioned? Do you think somebody on 
the Army or Navy or Air Force groups that made these recommendations 
does not have a brother-in-law working someplace? Do you think the fact 
that he has a brother-in-law working someplace does not play a role in 
his thinking about whether that base is going to be closed or this base 
is going to be closed?
  That may be putting it a little strongly, but after all, we are all 
human beings, are we not? You may have a friend who gave your opponent 
money the last time, and it may have 
[[Page S3380]] shocked you and you are not ever going to feel as kindly 
toward that guy again. That happens in the Pentagon too. Decisions are 
not always based on what is best according to the facts.
  Fort Chaffee, AK, is also on the list. It stands to lose 350 jobs. It 
is near Fort Smith, which is a city of about 80,000 people. They can 
withstand it. But I can tell you, the 350 people who are going to lose 
their jobs cannot stand it. Think of a city, all of you. I hope all of 
my colleagues will think of a city in their States with 77,000 people, 
like the entire city of Texarkana, in Texas and Arkansas. And take away 
4,100 jobs. That is 5 percent of the total population. Each one of 
those jobs represents a family. Compute that. It is devastating, and it 
is unnecessary. And if it does cost a few more bucks to keep the place 
open, say, at half strength, or something of that kind, maybe the 
Pentagon should have decided to do that. But nobody in the Pentagon 
tried to work anything out. The Pentagon simply said, ``Close that 
sucker.''
  Mr. President, I am emotional about it because I have been here 20 
years and have not fired very many people. The people I really had to 
let go in my office had to be let go. But I know that when you take 
somebody's livelihood away from them, you are taking away everything. 
So I am really bothered when people lose their jobs.
  The reason I am talking now, and I will close on this, is because I 
want this Commission--whom we are about to confirm--to bear in mind 
that everybody who made these closure recommendations has something in 
the back of their minds that caused them to make them, other than just 
those cold dollars-and-cents figures that were coming out of a 
computer.
  Do you think there is no politics in any of this? Do you think these 
are sacrosanct things that people with noble purposes and no other goal 
conjured up?
  So, members of the Commission, I just want to say, do not think for a 
minute that you do not have a responsibility to look at these things--
not rubberstamp them, look at them--count the figures over and over 
again, take into consideration whose lives are being affected and whose 
children are not going to be educated as a result of the loss of their 
jobs.
  I hope this Commission will look especially look at the Pentagon's 
recommendation to close Red River Army Depot and Fort Chaffee. I know 
there are other Senators--Senator D'Amato has already spoken, and 
others will. A lot of people feel put upon. But let me reemphasize, 
Arkansas took the biggest hit in 1991 of all but two other States, and 
we are being asked to take one of the biggest hits in this one. What is 
going on?
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
                    nomination of alton w. cornella

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is today 
taking up the confirmation of this important group of nominees to serve 
on the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
  In my home State of Montana, there have been some concerns expressed 
about one of these nominees, Mr. Alton W. Cornella of Rapid City, SD. 
Mr. Cornella has spent a number of years advocating for Rapid City's 
Ellsworth Air Force Base. And there has been concern that this may 
create a conflict with the interests of Malmstrom Air Force Base in 
Great Falls.
  Frankly, when I first learned about this potential conflict, I was 
deeply concerned. The base closing process must be above politics and 
parochialism. And I would strongly oppose any nominee that I believe 
would not give Malmstrom and Montana an absolutely fair hearing.
  That is why, last week, I called Mr. Cornella and spoke with him 
directly. He assured me that he would be impartial. Moreover, he agreed 
to recuse himself any decisions involving Ellsworth or any base deemed 
to be in competition with Ellsworth. These assurances are reflected in 
a letter Mr. Cornella recently sent to me. I ask unanimous consent that 
Mr. Cornella's letter be printed in the Record immediately following 
these remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BAUCUS. In closing, let me say that I found Mr. Cornella to be a 
man of integrity. I believe he aspires to serve on the Commission 
because he wants to render a public service for the entire Nation. And 
I wish him well in that endeavor.

                               Exhibit 1


                            Al Cornella Refrigeration Service,

                                Rapid City, SD, February 27, 1995.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: Thank you for allowing me the 
     opportunity to discuss with you your concerns about my 
     potential role as a Commissioner on the Defense Base Closure 
     and Realignment Commission.
       It is my understanding that I must recuse myself from any 
     matter that would have a direct and predictable effect on any 
     of my financial interests. Alternatively, I could divest 
     myself of any asset that gives rise to a financial conflict 
     or seek a statutory waiver. I have had discussions with the 
     Commission General Counsel about such potential financial 
     conflicts of interests. Based on these discussions, I have 
     announced my decision to recuse myself from any matters 
     affecting Ellsworth Air Force Base, if I am confirmed. This 
     would include recusal from any other base that is determined 
     to be a competitor with Ellsworth. For example, if the 
     recommendations of the Secretary of Defense place Malmstrom 
     Air Force Base in competition with Ellsworth, either in 
     closure or realignment of missions, then Malmstrom would come 
     within the scope of such a recusal.
       In accordance with the procedures established by the Senate 
     Armed Services Committee, my financial interests will be 
     reviewed at the time the Secretary's recommendations are 
     published, and throughout the proceedings, to determine what 
     conflicts exist and what action is appropriate to address any 
     conflict. The Commission General Counsel, in conjunction with 
     the Department of Defense General Counsel and the Office of 
     Government Ethics, will conduct such reviews.
       I have attached the statements that I provided to the 
     Senate Armed Services Committee during the confirmation 
     process.
       Please let me know if I can provide any additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,
                                                Alton W. Cornella.
 Responses of Alton W. Cornella to Questions for Defense Base Closure 
   and Realignment Nominees From the Senate Armed Services Committee


                     Possible Conflicts of Interest

       Are you aware of any circumstances that might require you 
     to rescue yourself from participating in the consideration of 
     the proposed closure or realignment of a particular base or 
     type of base? If so, please describe.
       Yes. I served as the Chairman of Military Affairs for the 
     Rapid City Area Chamber of Commerce. This included chairing a 
     subcommittee called the Ellsworth Task Force or Defense 
     Initiative. The purpose of the subcommittee was to provide a 
     proactive approach to the perservation of Ellsworth Air Force 
     Base, SD. I also own real estate in the area, and my firm has 
     done business at Ellsworth Air Force Base. I will recuse 
     myself on this base and any others determined as competitors 
     by the General Counsel of the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Commission.
       Have you ever participated on a compensated or 
     uncompensated basis in any activity directed at precluding, 
     modifying, or obtaining the closure or realignment of any 
     base during the BRAC process? If so, please describe.
       Yes. I served as Chairman of the Ellsworth Task Force on a 
     uncompensated basis. The activity was directed at precluding 
     the closure of Ellsworth AFB, SD. The base was not considered 
     for closure in past rounds.
       Have you been stationed at or resident in the vicinity of 
     any base while the base was under considration for closure or 
     realignment during the BRAC process? If so, please describe.
       Yes. I was a resident in the vicinity of Ellsworth AFB, SD 
     when the base received additional missions and personnel from 
     realignment under the 1993 BRAC process.
       Do you or, to the best of your knowledge, does any member 
     of your immediate family have any specific reason for wanting 
     a particular base to be closed, realigned, or remain 
     unchanged during the BRAC process?
       My wife or I could suffer the same financial loss as any 
     other member of the community if Ellsworth AFB, SD would be 
     closed. For this reason. I will recuse myself on Ellsworth 
     AFB and any other bases determined to be competitors by the 
     General Counsel of the BRAC.


               Conflict of Interest for Alton W. Cornella

       This is in response to Senator McCain's request that each 
     nominee review their own situation and provide a response for 
     the record on his or her plans to deal with recusal or other 
     conflict-related issues.
       I will follow the procedure developed by the Committee and 
     Executive Branch which was used by the 1991 and 1993 
     Commissions. At the time that the Secretary's March 1 
     proposed list is announced, the Commission's General Counsel, 
     working with the DoD General Counsel and the Office of 
     Government Ethics, will review my financial interests and 
     advise me if any recusal or other remedial action, such as 
     divestiture or waiver, is 
     [[Page S3381]] necessary. The Commission's General Counsel 
     will then advise the Committee of the results of this review 
     and any subsequent actions that I would take to remove myself 
     from any potential conflict. The Commission's General Counsel 
     will also establish a procedure providing for similar review 
     of my financial interests and transmittal of this information 
     to the Committee when the Commission considers action on 
     installations that are not on the Secretary's March 1 list.
       If I am advised that a conflict of interest exists and that 
     a statutory waiver is not available, I will either divest 
     myself of the interest or recuse myself from that particular 
     installation affected by the holding. If the number of 
     recusals impairs my ability to effectively participate in a 
     significant number of Commission proceedings, I agree to 
     resign my position as Commissioner.
       At the present time, the Commission's General Counsel and I 
     have determined that I have a financial interest in Ellsworth 
     Air Force Base, South Dakota. I served as the Chairman of 
     Military Affairs for the Rapid City Area Chamber of Commerce. 
     I also served as Chairman of one of its subcommittees, the 
     Ellsworth Task Force or Defense Initiative, which worked to 
     preserve Ellsworth AFB. My firm has done business with 
     Ellsworth AFB and I also own real estate in the area. My wife 
     or I could suffer the same financial loss as any other member 
     of the community should Ellsworth AFB be closed. For these 
     reasons, I will recuse myself on Ellsworth AFB and any other 
     bases determined to be competitors by the Commission's 
     General Counsel.
                  A call for fairness in base closing

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from New York 
has elucidated the travesty that befell Plattsburgh and our State 2 
years ago. It was the most parochial of decisions made by that 
Commission, and one for which they will long be remembered. I still 
recall the findings of the BRAC staff on a screen overhead, showing 
clearly that Plattsburgh had greater military value than McGuire. But 
that did not trouble much of anyone on the dais.
  This year the Commissioners have the opportunity, and the obligation, 
to improve on the record of the 1993 group. The Air Force has proposed 
to move the finest laboratory in the Defense research establishment, 
Rome Laboratory, to Hanscom Air Force Base near Boston and to the 
Army's electronics laboratory in Fort Monmouth, NJ. Rome Laboratory has 
produced three generations of scientists in its 45-year connection with 
central New York. According to the Air Force, moving half of it one 
State east and half of it one State south is expected to save $12 
million per year. I have asked for an explanation of that claim, but 
say it is correct. For $12 million annually we are to give up the 
established relationships between the lab and the ellipse of 
universities and industry in the region that have helped Rome to its 
numerous successes. For $12 million annually we are to lose probably 
half the civilian staff of scientists who, by measure of similar 
situations with other labs, will leave the laboratory rather than move 
with it. This is shortsightedness of the highest order.
  The return for moving Rome Laboratory is small. Only one other 
installation on the 1995 list, of all bases that will lose over 500 
civilians, will get less of an annual and total return on the money 
saved per civilian lost. That is an Army ocean terminal. Closing it 
does not bring the immense loss of intangibles and productivity that 
moving a preeminent scientific institution does. This is not like 
moving the base laundry.
  Most egregious about the Air Force recommendation is that 2 years ago 
the assistant secretary for installations put in writing that ``the Air 
Force has no plans to close or relocate Rome Laboratory within the next 
five years.'' The people of Rome believed him. They trusted him. That 
was a mistake. They have spent 2 years planning the reuse of Griffiss 
Air Force Base, all of which was closed except for the laboratory, with 
the laboratory as the linchpin of their plans. They have lost 2 years 
in the redevelopment effort unless the commission sees the folly of the 
Air Force proposal.
  Mr. President, my colleagues from New York and Arkansas have raised 
concerns I share about this process and the new Commission. I will be 
in touch with the new Commissioners shortly, and I hope they are aware 
of the standards they must restore.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Department of Defense's 
recommendations on base closings would have a very serious impact on 
Maryland. Up to 1,700 jobs could be lost--and an additional 4,000 
potential new jobs are at stake. The effect of these job losses on 
families and communities would be devastating. I won't forget these 
families as I fight for Maryland's bases.
  But I will fight for Maryland's facilities based on their military 
value. There are three basic criteria that must be considered. These 
are the mission, merit, and value to the Nation of each base. In 
Maryland, my colleague Paul Sarbanes and I are working on a bipartisan 
basis with the rest of the congressional delegation. We are also 
working together with task forces in our local communities to make our 
best case based on those principles. When the BRAC examines the 
recommendations in Maryland, those are the principles on which we 
expect to compete. And we expect to prevail.
  I am shocked that some of the recommendations that the Commission 
will be examining do not appear to be based on merit, mission, or value 
to the Nation. The Navy's new plan to move the Naval Sea Systems 
Command [NAVSEA] to Washington, DC--overturning the last Commission's 
instructions to move to White Oak, MD--is incomprehensible.
  In 1993, the Department of Defense found that we would save tax 
dollars by relocating many of the White Oak personnel to make room for 
the Naval Sea Systems Command, which has been in leased space. Nothing 
has changed in the last 2 years to change that assessment. The 
strategic and budgetary reasons for the move have not changed. Already, 
many people have been transferred. Lives have been disrupted and new 
plans made. Now, the Navy's recommendation says that it was all just a 
big bait and switch game.
  We are now beginning a new round of defense base closures by 
reexamining the decisions of the last round. The Navy is asking us to 
overturn decisions made by the 1993 BRAC, approved by the President and 
accepted by Congress. This is a perfect example of why people are 
frustrated with their government.
  No one questions the merit of White Oak. Just yesterday, General 
Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the 
loss of White Oak's hypervelocity wind tunnel ``could eliminate a 
unique national capability, a capability that serves military research 
and development needs and that is used by other agencies such as 
NASA.'' That wind tunnel, along with a 1.75 million gallon testing 
tank, are irreplaceable one-of-a-kind facilities.
  This time, the burden of proof must be on the Navy. They must show 
that the merit of their new proposal significantly outweighs the 
findings of previous BRAC commissions. They must show that their 
mission can be performed butter, quicker, and cheaper in Washington 
instead of in White Oak. And they must show that the Nation will 
achieve real savings from this new proposal. Those are tough standards 
* * * but in 1993, those are the standards White Oak met. We will hold 
the Navy's new proposal to the same standards--and we don't think their 
numbers can add up or hold up.
  The recommendation to close the Naval Surface Warfare Center in 
Annapolis is also a serious blow to Maryland and to the military. And 
it is another attempt to revisit decisions that were made during the 
1993 BRAC.
  Some of the Navy's most important research and development is done at 
the Annapolis site. We have one-of-a kind facilities, and a world class 
workforce in place and working at peak capacity. Their mission is more 
important now than ever before--it is focused on the kinds of ship 
systems our Navy will need in the 21st century. And once again, the 
reasons and numbers haven't changed. So Paul Sarbanes and I will once 
again be leading the charge to maintain this vital facility.
  The Army's recommendations, too, must be examined by the same 
principles and standards. I am deeply concerned that the recommendation 
to close Fort Ritchie was made without fully examining all of the 
missions performed at this post, and has not taken a full accounting of 
the value to the Nation of those missions. This post is almost 100 
years old--but has proven to be one of the Army's most versatile 
facilities. It has constantly adapted and upgraded its facilities to 
fit changing communications needs. Its facilities 
[[Page S3382]] and workforce are unique--and must be maintained.
  And nowhere does the concept of a full accounting become more 
important than at the Army Publications Distribution Center in Middle 
River. This center is competitive with the most technologically 
advanced private sector operations, yet the recommendation to close was 
flatout wrong when it said that they are not automated. I will push to 
make sure that one of the BRAC Commissioners visits this site, so that 
they can see this state-of-the-art facility first hand. With the facts 
in hand, I am confident that the Commission will recommend to the DOD 
that they revisit their recommendation entirely.
  There are some silver linings for Maryland. The far-reaching and 
forward-thinking consolidation at the Naval Air Warfare Center, 
Patuxent River will continue. Pax River is the only Navy base in the 
country that can do aircraft acquisition, research, development, and 
training. This ``one-stop-shop'' is a crown jewel in the Navy. I will 
stand sentry during this BRAC process to ensure that the next century 
mission of Pax is not overlooked or undermined. And across southern 
Maryland, I am pleased that the value to the Nation of NESEA and the 
Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head was acknowledged and 
maintained.
  Another piece of good news is that additional jobs will be coming to 
both Aberdeen Proving Ground and Fort Meade. Each of these posts has a 
proud history of service and stand ready to make significant 
contributions as the military continues to reexamine the roles and 
missions they must perform in the new millenium.
  Mr. President, before a serious consideration of the fate of 
Maryland's bases can begin, we must first confirm the nominations to 
the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. I fully support these 
nominees. They will be seeing a lot of me, because I will be fighting 
tooth and nail for Maryland's unique facilities and capabilities.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back time on our side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes forty-four seconds.
  Mr. NUNN. I yield back the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nominations on 
the Executive Calendar, Nos. 12 through 17 and No. 34, en bloc, Alton 
W. Cornella, of South Dakota; Rebecca G. Cox, of California; James B. 
Davis, U.S. Air Force, Retired, of Florida; S. Lee Kling, of Maryland; 
Benjamin F. Montoya, of New Mexico; Wendi Louise Steele, of Texas; 
Josue Robles, Jr., of Texas, to be members of the Defense Base Closure 
Realignment Commission?
  So the nominations were confirmed.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
nominations were confirmed.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and that the 
Senate return to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________