[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 20, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S761-S763]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 258. A bill to authorize additional rounds of base closures and 
realignments under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 
in 2001 and 2003, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.


  legislation to authorize two base realignment and closure rounds to 
                         occur in 2001 and 2003

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
authorizes two rounds of U.S. military installation realignment and 
closures to occur in 2001 and 2003. I am pleased to have Senator Levin 
and Senator Robb as cosponsors of this bill.
  Mr. President, we have heard over the last 4 months of the dire 
situation of our military forces. We have heard testimony of plunging 
readiness, modernization programs that are decades behind schedule, and 
quality of life deficiencies that are so great we cannot retain or 
recruit the personnel we need. As a result of this realization, there 
has been a groundswell of support in Congress for the Armed Forces, 
including a number of pay and retirement initiatives and the promise of 
a significant increase in defense spending.
  All of these proposals are excellent starting points to help re-forge 
our military, but we must not forget that much of it will be in vain if 
the Department of Defense is obligated to maintain 23 percent excess 
capacity in infrastructure. When we actually look for the dollars to 
pay for these initiatives, it is unconscionable that some would not 
look to the billions of dollars to be saved by base realignment and 
closure. Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated 
repeatedly that they desire more opportunities to streamline the 
military's infrastructure. We cannot sit idly by and throw money and 
ideas at the problem when part of the solution is staring us in the 
face.

[[Page S762]]

  This proposed legislation offers two significant changes to present 
law. First, the process for the first round in 2001 is moved back two 
months to ensure there is no conflict of interest with a commission 
nominated under one administration but effectively working under the 
direction of the follow-on administration. Second, under this 
legislation, privatization in-place would be permitted only when 
explicitly recommended by the Commission. Additionally, the Secretary 
of Defense must consider local government input in preparing his list 
of desired base closures.
  Total BRAC savings realized from the four previous rounds exceed 
total costs to date. The annual net savings for previous rounds will 
grow from almost $3 billion last year to $5.6-7.0 billion per year by 
2001. These savings are real, they are coming sooner, and they are 
estimated to be greater than anticipated.
  Mr. President, we can continue to maintain a military infrastructure 
that we do not need, or we can provide the necessary funds to ensure 
our military can fight and win future wars. Every dollar we spend on 
bases we do not need is a dollar we cannot spend on training our 
troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an appropriate level, 
maintaining force structure, replacing old weapons systems, and 
advancing our military technology.
  We must finish the job we started by authorizing these two final 
rounds of base realignment and closure. I urge my colleagues to join us 
in support of this critical bill and to work diligently throughout the 
year to put aside local politics for what is clearly in the best 
interest of our military forces.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 258

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT BASE CLOSURE ROUNDS IN 2001 
                   AND 2003.

       (a) Commission Matters.--
       (1) Appointment.--Subsection (c)(1) of section 2902 of 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--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new clauses (iv) 
     and (v):
       ``(iv) by no later than March 1, 2001, in the case of 
     members of the Commission whose terms will expire at the end 
     of the first session of the 107th Congress; and
       ``(v) by no later than January 3, 2003, in the case of 
     members of the Commission whose terms will expire at the end 
     of the first session of the 108th Congress.''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or for 1995 in 
     clause (iii) of such subparagraph'' and inserting ``, for 
     1995 in clause (iii) of that subparagraph, for 2001 in clause 
     (iv) of that subparagraph, or for 2003 in clause (v) of that 
     subparagraph''.
       (2) Meetings.--Subsection (e) of that section is amended by 
     striking ``and 1995'' and inserting ``1995, 2001, and 2003''.
       (3) Staff.--Subsection (i)(6) of that section is amended in 
     the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``and 
     1994'' and inserting ``, 1994, and 2002''.
       (4) Funding.--Subsection (k) of that section is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph (4):
       ``(4) If no funds are appropriated to the Commission by the 
     end of the second session of the 106th Congress for the 
     activities of the Commission in 2001 or 2003, the Secretary 
     may transfer to the Commission for purposes of its activities 
     under this part in either of those years such funds as the 
     Commission may require to carry out such activities. The 
     Secretary may transfer funds under the preceding sentence 
     from any funds available to the Secretary. Funds so 
     transferred shall remain available to the Commission for such 
     purposes until expended.''.
       (5) Termination.--Subsection (l) of that section is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 1995'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2003''.
       (b) Procedures.--
       (1) Force-structure plan.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 
     2903 of that Act is amended by striking ``and 1996,'' and 
     inserting ``1996, 2002, and 2004,''.
       (2) Selection criteria.--Subsection (b) of such section 
     2903 is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and by no later than 
     January 28, 2001, for purposes of activities of the 
     Commission under this part in 2001 and 2003,'' after 
     ``December 31, 1990,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by inserting ``and by no later 
     than March 15, 2001, for purposes of activities of the 
     Commission under this part in 2001 and 2003,'' after 
     ``February 15, 1991,''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, or enacted on 
     or before April 15, 2001, in the case of criteria published 
     and transmitted under the preceding sentence in 2001'' after 
     ``March 15, 1991''.
       (3) Department of defense recommendations.--Subsection (c) 
     of such section 2903 is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and March 1, 1995,'' 
     and inserting ``March 1, 1995, May 1, 2001, and March 1, 
     2003,'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4)(A) In making recommendations to the Commission under 
     this subsection in any year after 1999, the Secretary shall 
     consider any notice received from a local government in the 
     vicinity of a military installation that the government would 
     approve of the closure or realignment of the installation.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding the requirement in subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary shall make the recommendations referred to in 
     that subparagraph based on the force-structure plan and final 
     criteria otherwise applicable to such recommendations under 
     this section.
       ``(C) The recommendations made by the Secretary under this 
     subsection in any year after 1999 shall include a statement 
     of the result of the consideration of any notice described in 
     subparagraph (A) that is received with respect to an 
     installation covered by such recommendations. The statement 
     shall set forth the reasons for the result.''; and
       (D) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``paragraph (5)(B)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (6)(B)''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``24 hours'' and 
     inserting ``48 hours''.
       (4) Commission review and recommendations.--Subsection (d) 
     of such section 2903 is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``or by no later than 
     September 1 in the case of recommendations in 2001,'' after 
     ``pursuant to subsection (c),'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or after September 1 
     in the case of recommendations in 2001,'' after ``under this 
     subsection,''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting ``or by no later than 
     June 15 in the case of such recommendations in 2001,'' after 
     ``such recommendations,''.
       (5) Review by president.--Subsection (e) of such section 
     2903 is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or by no later than 
     September 15 in the case of recommendations in 2001,'' after 
     ``under subsection (d),'';
       (B) in the second sentence of paragraph (3), by inserting 
     ``or by no later than October 15 in the case of 2001,'' after 
     ``the year concerned,''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``or by November 1 in 
     the case of recommendations in 2001,'' after ``under this 
     part,''.
       (c) Closure and Realignment of Installations.--Section 
     2904(a) of that Act is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph (3):
       ``(3) carry out the privatization in place of a military 
     installation recommended for closure or realignment by the 
     Commission in each such report after 1999 only if 
     privatization in place is a method of closure or realignment 
     of the installation specified in the recommendation of the 
     Commission in such report and is determined to be the most-
     cost effective method of implementation of the 
     recommendation;''.
       (d) Relationship to Other Base Closure Authority.--Section 
     2909(a) of that Act is amended by striking ``December 31, 
     1995,'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003,''.
       (e) Technical and Clarifying Amendments.--
       (1) Commencement of period for notice of interest in 
     property for homeless.--Section 2905(b)(7)(D)(ii)(I) of that 
     Act is amended by striking ``that date'' and inserting ``the 
     date of publication of such determination in a newspaper of 
     general circulation in the communities in the vicinity of the 
     installation under subparagraph (B)(i)(IV)''.
       (2) Other clarifying amendments.--
       (A) That Act is further amended by inserting ``or 
     realignment'' after ``closure'' each place it appears in the 
     following provisions:
       (i) Section 2905(b)(3).
       (ii) Section 2905(b)(4)(B)(ii).
       (iii) Section 2905(b)(5).
       (iv) Section 2905(b)(7)(B)(iv).
       (v) Section 2905(b)(7)(N).
       (vi) Section 2910(10)(B).
       (B) That Act is further amended by inserting ``or 
     realigned'' after ``closed'' each place in appears in the 
     following provisions:
       (i) Section 2905(b)(3)(C)(ii).
       (ii) Section 2905(b)(3)(D).
       (iii) Section 2905(b)(3)(E).
       (iv) Section 2905(b)(4)(A).
       (v) Section 2905(b)(5)(A).
       (vi) Section 2910(9).
       (vii) Section 2910(10).
       (C) Section 2905(e)(1)(B) of that Act is amended by 
     inserting ``, or realigned or to be realigned,'' after 
     ``closed or to be closed'.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join my 
colleagues from the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain and 
Senator

[[Page S763]]

Robb, in introducing this legislation authorizing the Department of 
Defense to close excess, unneeded military bases.
  For the past two years, Secretary of Defense Cohen has asked the 
Congress to authorize two additional base closure rounds. But Congress 
has not acted.
  Secretary Cohen and General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, have repeatedly said we need to close more military bases, 
and I am confident that they will once again ask us to close more bases 
when the President's budget is submitted next month.
  The legislation we are introducing today is intended to start the 
debate, and I anticipate the administration will make a similar 
legislative proposal to the Congress.
  This legislation calls for two additional base closure rounds, in 
2001 and 2003, that would basically follow the same procedures that 
were used in 1991, 1993 and 1995, with two exceptions.
  First, the whole process would start and finish two months later in 
2001 than it did in previous rounds, to give the new President 
sufficient time to nominate commissioners.
  Second, under our legislation privatization in place would not be 
permitted at closing installations unless the Base Closure Commission 
recommends it.
  In a November 1998 report, the General Accounting Office listed five 
key elements of the base closure process that ``contributed to the 
success of prior rounds''. Our legislation retains all of those key 
elements. GAO also stated that they ``have not identified any long-term 
readiness problems that were related to domestic base realignments and 
closures, that ``DOD continues to retain excess capacity'' and that 
``substantial savings are expected'' from base closures.
  Mr. President, every expert and every study agrees on the basic 
facts--the Defense Department has more bases than its needs, and 
closing bases saves substantial money in the long run.
  The report the Department of Defense provided to the Congress last 
April clearly demonstrated these facts. As the Congressional Budget 
Office stated in a letter to me last July, ``the report's basic message 
is consistent with CBO's own conclusions: past and future BRAC round 
will lead to significant savings for DoD.''
  Every year we delay another base closure round, we deny the Defense 
Department, and the taxpayers, about $1.5 billion in annual savings 
that we can never recoup. And every dollar we spend on bases we do not 
need is a dollar we cannot spend on things we do need.
  Mr. President, I am not going to make any detailed judgments on the 
President's defense budget proposal until we see the details, but I am 
prepared to support an increase in defense spending if the money is 
spent wisely.
  However, Congress should not use defense funding increases as an 
excuse to avoid tough choices. The addition of new resources cannot be 
a substitute for the billions of dollars of savings that would be 
generated by a new round of base closures. We cannot justify spending 
more for national defense unless we show our own willingness to make 
the best use of defense dollars by reducing unneeded defense 
infrastructure.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, last year I joined Senators McCain and Levin 
in introducing legislation authorizing another base closure round. I 
argued then, as I do today, that failing to enact another BRAC round 
only makes the Congress look short-sighted and indecisive. I argued 
then that if we don't bite the bullet quickly, the cost of excess 
infrastructure will continue to drag down the readiness of our forces 
today and rob us of the resources so badly needed to modernize our 
forces for tomorrow.
  For the first time since the late 1970's, military readiness is 
suffering significantly. Ships are undermanned, pilots are flying too 
many missions, reservists are being asked to leave family and job over 
and over. It doesn't take a budget expert to realize what we could do 
for the troops with billions in savings from cutting excess 
infrastructure.
  This year we in the Congress will almost certainly add billions of 
dollars to the defense budget. This is a mixed blessing. While these 
adds will help resolve problems across the board, from recruiting to 
modernization to preparing for the future, they will also undermine any 
incentives to better manage the Department of Defense and to eliminate 
the wasteful assets and administrative inefficiencies that we the 
Congress are so determined to preserve.
  BRAC failed in the past for reasons that have much to do with 
politics, but little to do with ensuring our every defense dollar is 
spent for maintaining and equipping our armed forces for the 
battlefields of the next century. Those politics are behind us now. We 
must move forward and authorize more BRAC rounds.
  Keeping excess military posts open won't bring more firepower to bear 
in the next war. Keeping an unneeded R&D lab open won't recruit more 
talented young men and women to serve as the foundation for the world's 
finest fighting force. Keeping an underutilized training range open 
won't buy modern equipment so badly needed to replace systems now often 
older than the men and women using them.
  Mr. President, I reemphasize a point I've made time and time again in 
the past--who suffers from Congressional inaction? In the end, we only 
punish those who most need the benefits of infrastructure savings. 
First, we punish the Nation's taxpayers when we fail to make the best 
use of the resources with which they entrust us. Second, we punish 
today's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines whose readiness depends 
on sufficient, reliable resources for equipment, training and 
operations through the year. Finally, we punish tomorrow's force as we 
continue to mortgage research, development, and modernization of 
equipment necessary to keep America strong into the 21st century.
  The bill we're introducing calls for a base closure round in 2001 and 
another in 2003. Like the provision we offered last year and the year 
before that, the bill should answer concerns over the politicization of 
future BRAC rounds. Language is included to allow privatization-in-
place at a facility only if the BRAC Commission explicitly recommends 
privatization-in-place.
  The long-term savings from the first four base closure rounds already 
are generating substantial savings--about three billion dollars a year. 
Each new round will save another 1.5 billion dollars per year. It is no 
surprise that scores of studies and organizations such as the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, Defense Restructure Initiative, National 
Defense Panel, and Business Executives for National Security have all 
concluded that more base closures are crucial to the future of our 
Armed Forces.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to do what is right for our armed 
forces, what is right for the taxpayer, and support this legislation.
                                 ______