[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 141 (Tuesday, September 12, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   DISAPPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND 
                         REALIGNMENT COMMISSION

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, September 8, 1995
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the BRAC Commission's 1995 base closure list and in 
support of House Joint Resolution 2.
  No where in the United States has BRAC had such a devastating impact 
as it has had in the Sacramento area. In all four rounds of BRAC the 
Sacramento area has shouldered well over a quarter of all jobs lost in 
California due to BRAC.
  BRAC made a terrible decision to close McClellan AFB which I 
represent. Sacramento has been hit far more than any other community in 
this country. No where in the United States has a community been hit 
three separate times. Sacramento has already given its fair share to 
base downsizing.
  I voted for the creation of an independent base closure commission 
because it would be insulated from the politics of individual Members 
of Congress and their districts so that BRAC could make fairminded 
decisions as to which bases ought to be closed based on the basis of 
national need.
  However, I must say with great regret and dismay that this BRAC 
Commission was exceedingly political, made its decision in a vacuum, 
and in my mind deliberately inflicted undue pain on the people of 
Sacramento.
  BRAC made its decision based not on the facts, but rather the 
politics of base closures, that up until now have been void from the 
process.
  I believe that BRAC grossly distorted the process and abdicated its 
responsibility as an independent commission.
  This decision was based on data and analysis generated by the 
Commission staff that was not certified. Further, there was no 
opportunity--even when specifically requested--for the Air Force or DOD 
to review the staff analysis and determine the operational impacts of 
the recommendations. The impacted communities were not provided with an 
opportunity to respond to this analysis either.
  I believe that this approach seriously undermines what was designed 
to be an open and fair process and contradicts the spirit of the BRAC 
statute.
  I would like to discuss three areas where I feel that the BRAC 
Commission substantially deviated from the intent of the BRAC statute 
as well as its total disregard for the Department of Defense's 
recommendations. In my mind and the minds of many of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle that have been adversely affected by this 
decision, the BRAC Commission clearly subverted
 and deviated from the BRAC statute and past BRAC Commissions.


                            economic impact

  The Sacramento region has suffered two previous base closures--Mather 
AFB (1988) and the Sacramento Army Depot (1991). These closures 
resulted in the loss of 11,516 direct jobs and 28,090 total.
  The closure of McClellan will result in a loss of 13,000 direct jobs 
and over 31,000 total jobs.
  The total combined effect of all three closures results in over 
59,000 total jobs lost which represents 7.8 percent of the region's 
total employment. These three closures make Sacramento the hardest hit 
community in the entire country for all four BRAC rounds.


                           military readiness

  The recommendations to close McClellan and Kelly are simply 
unacceptable. Of all the options for eliminating excess capacity in the 
Air Force depot system, the Commission's approach will cause the most 
turbulence, will cost the most money, and will have the most negative 
impact on mission support capabilities.
  The substitution of judgment by the BRAC staff on the cost and 
savings associated with these two bases is deeply troubling. Changing 
assumptions and parameters based on anecdotal information and running 
COBRA analyses using nonbudget quality data and with no input from 
military officials are causes for great concern.
  A review of the military's BRAC budgets demonstrates that previous 
cost assessments of prior rounds understated. In fact, earlier this 
year, the Navy reprogrammed more than $700 million from operations and 
maintenance accounts to cover cost overruns in its base closure 
account. We should not risk the readiness of our troops on a cost and 
savings evaluation which did not receive the same level of budget 
scrutiny as Secretary Perry's original recommendations.
  In a letter dated June 21, 1995, Secretary of the Air Force Sheila 
Widnall and Air Force Chief of Staff Ron Fogleman wrote to the BRAC 
Commission that ``the staff generated BRAC proposal described to us 
will * * * preclude the Air Force from carrying through on vital 
readiness and modernization programs.''
  Secretary Widnall and General Fogleman further stated that ``the 
essential business of the Air Force * * * would be greatly disrupted.''


                            cross-servicing

  There is widespread agreement, including the recently published 
Commission of Roles and Missions Report, that cross-servicing and 
privatization are the smartest, cheapest, and least disruptive methods 
of downsizing large industrial facilities. Every major study in this 
area, from the Defense Science Board to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
agree that cross-servicing and privatization are the right way to 
downsize depot maintenance.
  The fact that neither the Defense Department nor the Commission were 
successful in instituting cross-servicing in a comprehensive manner to 
remove redundancies among the services is a major disappointment.
  In my view, the Commission's recommendations are not an appropriate 
or acceptable substitute for eliminating capacity in defense industrial 
facilities the right way through cross-servicing.
  This BRAC list comes up short. The enormous costs, loss of 
capabilities, and overall impact on readiness are too great a risk. 
There is a right way and a wrong way to downsize depots. This is 
definitely the wrong way.
  I understand probably better than most that we as a Congress have the 
responsibility to close bases down that are unneeded in the wake of the 
end of the Soviet Union and the cold war.
  But BRAC's decision risks readiness, will not eliminate excess 
capacity, and asks the people of Sacramento to shoulder a far higher 
proportion of pain than does the rest of the country.
  The BRAC Commission has gone too far this time, I ask my colleagues 
to support this resolution and reject the Commission's ill-advised 
recommendations.


                          ____________________