[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1583-H1584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PROPOSED CLOSING OF COMMISSARIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes this 
afternoon to make our colleagues aware of the problems associated with 
the proposal to close some 38 commissaries around the world, including 
some in Korea. I do not think many Members are aware of this potential. 
I read in the Army Times, dated March 31, of these potential closings.
  First of all, one of these commissaries is in my congressional 
district in Oakdale, PA. This is 1 of 309 commissaries around the 
world. The problem relates to underfunding of some $48 million to DeCA, 
the Defense Commissary Commission. The Charles Kelly Support Facility 
was placed on that list by a subjective number of items that was used 
in selecting commissaries around the country and around the world that 
would be closed.
  First of all, to the Member, we all agree that the budget must be 
balanced by the year 2002, and what I am saying, first of all, is that 
we need to reprioritize our spending, and to make sure that the 
benefits that were granted to these Members will be placed high on the 
priority of lists of spending in next year's budget.
  The reason that the Charles Kelly Support Facility was selected was 
because somehow it fell under the category of 100 or more active 
members that should be on duty in order for a commissary to remain 
open. First of all, there were more than 100 at the Charles Kelly 
Support Facility, so the numbers provided by the Defense Department, 
the Pentagon, and DeCA were flawed and in error. I am hoping that they 
will consider keeping the commissary open at Oakdale in my 
congressional district.

                              {time}  1530

  In fact, if you go within a 50-mile radius of the Charles Kelly 
support facility, there are some 3,335 active members on duty in that 
district. So I have spoken to Major General Beale, Jr. about the 
matter, and we had a lengthy discussion about the problems of his 
agency.
  First of all, the agency's budget, back in 1991 or 1992, was some 
$660 million. Then as a result of some accounting nuances, as an 
accountant myself, I usually check those figures, the department, the 
DeCA was placed under a performance based organization and asked to 
accept indirect cost allocations which raised his budget from $600 
million to over $1 billion.
  So a lot of those costs were as a result of indirect costs which are 
arbitrary and, I would say, capricious being placed on DeCA. DeCA 
itself, in addition to accepting those indirect costs, cut some $200 
million over a 5-year period so it could help with balancing the 
Federal budget.
  What I am saying is that I think the department, DeCA itself, in 
looking at closings, should consider using a regional factor that is in 
Pittsburgh, in Oakdale, PA. If that commissary were closed, you would 
have to go 200 miles to Dayton or 200 miles to Carlisle, PA in order to 
have access to a commissary.
  The members of the armed services and the active members and the 
retirees, which number some 48,000 to 50,000, that use that particular 
commissary should be permitted to have a commissary. They shook the 
hands of the Federal Government and the military when they joined that 
they would have these benefits.
  So what I am asking today, Mr. Speaker, is that DeCA and the Defense 
Department look at a regional concept. I am not saying that some of 
these 38 commissaries should not be closed, but they should look at a 
regional concept, which would include areas such as the Charles E. 
Kelly support facility that could reach out to other members of the 
armed services in that area and perhaps be considered as a regional 
commissary.
  Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I want to take a few minutes to bring to 
the attention of the House the crisis that is facing our military 
commissary system.
  I do not think many Members are aware of this situation, but for 
those of you who missed it, on March 31, 1997 the Army Times ran 
several articles pointing out that the commissary system is facing a 
$48 million budgetary shortfall.
  If a solution is not found, at least 37 commissaries of the 309 
worldwide will likely be closed. Four of the commissaries on the 
proposed closure list are in Korea and 33 in the United States and are 
located in cities from Hawaii to Maine.
  One of the commissaries on the closure list is located at the Army's 
Charles E. Kelly Support Facility which is in my Pennsylvania district. 
The Defense Commissary Agency--known as DeCA--put the Charles E. Kelly 
facility on its list because the base contained less than 100 active 
duty personnel.
  Those of you who know me, know I am an accountant and the first thing 
I do when I receive any information is to check the numbers.
  To make a long story short, DeCA numbers were plain wrong. The 
Charles E. Kelly serves as many as 3,335 active duty members in a 50 
miles radius and nearly another 50,000 reservists, retirees, 
dependents, survivors, and ROTC instructors who have also earned the 
right to use the facility.
  Needless to say, I have already received assurances that should push 
come to shove, Charles E. Kelly, and others on the list which serve 
large populations of military families, will not be closed. DeCA will 
find some way to make ends meet and keep them open.
  While my own parochial problem will likely turn into good news, my 
goal today is to make Members aware that through a variety of budget 
actions, DeCA's managers hands have been tied in knots and the 
commissary systems' finances run through a meat-grinder. And that is 
putting it politely.
  If steps aren't taken to correct the situation, we may end up with 
the wholesale closure of commissaries all across the country. By 
default we could hand a victory to those who would like to do away with 
the commissary system altogether.
  On behalf of all those military personnel, retirees, dependents, and 
survivors, who I know firsthand would have a hard time feeding their 
families without these commissaries, I would submit Congress owes our 
military personnel a more constructive solution. If we are to keep 
those millions of handshakes made between military recruits and our 
Government, we have no choice but to find an answer to this dilemma and 
to find it sooner than later.

  The commissaries' budget problems can be directly traced to a change 
in its budget system ordered in 1992 by the Department of Defense which 
suddenly charged the commissary system with millions of dollars in 
indirect costs that had previously not been assigned to its budget. In 
subsequent years, DeCA has been asked to bear millions of dollars of 
hard budget cuts.
  Now DeCA is to become a performance based organization, in laymen's 
terms an agency that operates more like a private business which tries 
to make money and meet its customers needs, Unfortunately, as part of 
the process, DeCA is probably going to be asked to bear at least 
another $200 million in cuts.
  I am an accountant. I know my numbers and from my professional 
perspective, these repeated financial assaults on DeCA have put it in 
an untenable position, making it nearly impossible for the agency to 
carry out its duties.
  In the short-term, I have implored Pentagon officials to find a way 
to reprogram funds to keep these commissaries open.
  In the long run, I think the Pentagon and Congress has to seriously 
consider regionalizing the commissary system and raising the commissary 
surcharge by 1 percent.
  At the present time, the Pentagon apparently only counts active duty 
personnel when

[[Page H1584]]

determining the need for a commissary. The reality is there are 
millions of other military-connected citizens, reservists, retirees, 
dependents and survivors who also have commissary privileges.
  If these groups are counted and clusters drawn where the highest 
concentration of eligible shoppers occur, the Pentagon could easily 
establish regional commissaries, a system I predict which would 
function much more efficiently and cost-effectively.
  The second step would be to raise the commissary surcharge which has 
not been raised since 1983, A 1-percent increase would generate 
approximately $53 million annually. I know this is not popular to say, 
but commissary shoppers, with an average basket cost of around $50 
would hardly notice the .50 cents added to their bill.
  Taking these two steps would give DeCA leaders the flexibility their 
sorely need to improve services, upgrade stores, and show the rest of 
the Government that a performance based organization can really work.
  Finally, I think it is important to make the point that the men and 
women directly impacted by these possible commissary closures freely 
chose a military career serving their country, oftentimes knowing they 
will make considerably less in terms of pay than they would in a 
civilian occupation. Part of the reason they dedicate their lives to 
protecting our country's liberty is because they are told that in 
return they and their families will receive medical care and access to 
a commissary. If these commissaries are forced to close, we will be 
breaking the promise made to them and denying these heros of our 
society the adequate compensation they clearly deserve in return for 
their dedication to our country's military.

  As you may know, I am a member of the House Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs and serve on its Subcommittee on Benefits. I come from a family 
with a long history of serving in the military. I myself am an Army 
veteran. I have four brothers who served in World War II and my 
immigrant father earned a Silver Star for valiant and heroic service in 
World War I. Thus, it is no secret that I strongly feel that our 
country owes a deep obligation to all active duty military personnel 
and veterans and must do everything possible to see that they receive 
the health care and other benefits they so rightfully deserve. It is my 
intention to work with all appropriate Members to see that these 
closings do not occur and that the commissary systems long-range 
problems are resolved.
  This isn't an argument over who can sell the cheapest groceries. The 
question is how do you want to compensate the troops? Is the Pentagon 
going to raise pay to offset for closing commissaries? Even if each 
military personnel was given an extra $75 per month to compensate, the 
cost would be prohibitive. In the end, we would spend more than it 
costs to keep the commissaries open and running.
  I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in this 
effort. We owe the fine men and women in our military no less.

                          ____________________