[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1626-S1628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mr. Kyl, Mr. Reed, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Jeffords, 
        Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 397. A bill to amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1990 to authorize additional rounds of base closures and 
realignments under the Act in 2003 and 2005, to modify certain 
authorities relating to closures and realignments under that Act; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would authorize two rounds of U.S. military installation realignment 
and closures to occur in 2003 and 2005. I am pleased to have Senators 
Levin, Hagel, Lieberman, Kyl, Reed, Kohl, Voinovich, Feingold, Jeffords 
and DeWine as co-sponsors of this bill.
  Although I would prefer to say that this is a new idea--it isn't. In 
1970, the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel, ``Fithugh Commission'') made 
reference to ``consolidation of military activities at fewer 
installations would contribute to more efficient operations and would 
produce substantial savings.'' In 1983, the President's Private Sector 
Survey on Cost Control, ``Grace Commission'' made strong 
recommendations for military base closures. In 1997, the Quadrennial 
Defense Review recommended that, even after four base closure rounds in 
1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995, the Armed Forces ``must shed excess 
infrastructure.'' Likewise, the 1997 Defense Reform Initiative and the 
National Defense Panel ``strongly urged Congress and the Department of 
Defense to move quickly to restore the base realignment and closure, 
BRAC, process.''
  Mr. President, we have too many military bases. The cold war is over. 
We will never have a requirement for as many bases as we have today. 
Clearly we could save, according to most conservative estimates, 
somewhere between $3 and $4 billion a year of taxpayer dollars that are 
now expended unnecessarily on keeping military bases open.
  The Congressional Budget Office, former Secretaries Dick Cheney and 
William Cohen, nearly all the Service Chiefs and other respected 
defense experts have been consistent in their plea that the Pentagon be 
permitted to divest themselves of excess infrastructure beyond what was 
eliminated during the prior rounds of base closings. Through the end of 
1998, the Pentagon had closed 97 major bases in the United States after 
four previous rounds of BRAC. Since then, it has closed none. Moreover, 
the savings from closing additional unneeded bases should be used for 
force modernization purposes.
  We have heard over the last several years 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, retirement and medical benefit initiatives and the 
promise of a significant increase in defense spending.
  All of these proposals are excellent starting points to help rebuild 
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. Only 30 percent of the defense budget funds combat forces, 
while the remaining 70 percent is devoted to support functions such as 
bases. Continuing to squander precious dollars in this manner will make 
it impossible for us to adequately modernize our forces for the future. 
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.

  This proposed legislation offers a significant change to present law. 
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 closure rounds 
exceed total costs to date. Department of Defense figures suggest 
previous base closures will save, after one-time closing costs, $15 
billion through fiscal year 2001, $25 billion through fiscal year 2003 
and $6.1 billion a year thereafter. Additional needed closures can save 
$20 billion by 2015, and $3 billion a year thereafter. Sooner or later 
these surplus bases will be closed anyway. The sooner the issue is 
addressed, the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go 
toward defense modernization and greater pay raises for service 
members.
  Previous base closure rounds have had many success stories. For 
example, after England Air Force Base closed in 1992, Alexandria, 
Louisiana benefitted from the creation of over 1,400 jobs--nearly 
double the number of jobs lost. Across the U.S. about 60,000 new jobs 
have been created at closing military bases. At bases closed more than 
2 years, nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs have been replaced.
  In Charleston, South Carolina, where the number of defense job 
losses, as a percentage of the work force, was greater than at any 
other base closure location, 23 major entities are reusing the former 
Navy facilities and providing more than 3,300 jobs and another 13 more 
civilian industrial applications are pending adding soon even more 
newly created jobs to that number. Additionally, roughly 75 percent of 
the 6 million square feet of leasable space on the base is occupied. 
This is comparable to the successes in my home state of Arizona with 
the closure of Williams Air Force Base in the Phoenix East Valley. This 
is not to say that base closures are easy for any community, but it 
does suggest that communities can and will continue to thrive.
  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 believe this measure is long overdue. I believe the 
additional $3 to $4 billion a year we could save by closing unnecessary 
bases could be used for the betterment of the quality of life of our 
men and women in the military. I believe it is hard to understand why, 
when the overwhelming majority of outside opinion, whether it be 
liberal or conservative organizations that are watchdogs of our defense 
policies and programs, all agree we have too many bases. We needed 
these bases during the cold war and we needed them very badly. They 
obviously contributed enormously to our ability to win the cold war. No 
one envisions future threats that would require the

[[Page S1627]]

number of bases that are part of our military establishment today.
  I hope that the chairmen of the Armed Services Committee in past 
years who have strongly opposed base closing rounds will now join with 
me and others in seeing this legislation through the Armed Services 
Committee and to the floor of the Senate.
  It makes sense. I believe that the record is replete with examples of 
bases that have been closed which ultimately after a period of a few 
years have ended up of greater benefit to the surrounding communities 
than when the bases were military bases. But more importantly than 
that, we simply can't afford some of them as we make the tough 
decisions and follow the President's guidance on the fundamental 
reevaluation of our systems technology and weapons systems that we need 
to make in order to meet the challenges of the post-cold-war era. A 
part of that is to make available as much funding as possible not only 
for the quality of life of the men and women in the military but for 
our ability to develop a viable missile defense system, and to bring to 
our military the best equipment that this Nation's technology can 
provide.
  I hope we will move on this issue. I anticipate, hopefully, that the 
administration will also, again as past administrations have, support 
another round of base closings.
  I ask unanimous consent the bill be referred to the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill 
will be appropriately referred.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill to 
authorize two additional base realignment and closure rounds be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 397

       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 2003 
                   AND 2005.

       (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 January 24, 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
       ``(v) by no later than March 15, 2005, in the case of 
     members of the Commission whose terms will expire at the end 
     of the first session of the 109th 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 2003 in clause 
     (iv) of that subparagraph, or for 2005 in clause (v) of that 
     subparagraph''.
       (2) Meetings.--Subsection (e) of that section is amended by 
     striking ``and 1995'' and inserting ``1995, 2003, and 2005''.
       (3) Staff.--Subsection (i)(6) of that section is amended in 
     the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``and 
     1994'' and inserting ``, 1994, and 2004''.
       (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 107th Congress for the 
     activities of the Commission in 2003 or 2005, 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, 2005''.
       (b) Procedures.--
       (1) Force-structure plan.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 
     2903 of that Act is amended by striking ``and 1996,'' and 
     inserting ``1996, 2004, and 2006,''.
       (2) Selection criteria.--Subsection (b) of such section 
     2903 is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and by no later than 
     December 31, 2001, for purposes of activities of the 
     Commission under this part in 2003 and 2005,'' after 
     ``December 31, 1990,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by inserting ``and by no later 
     than February 15, 2002, for purposes of activities of the 
     Commission under this part in 2003 and 2005,'' after 
     ``February 15, 1991,''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, or enacted on 
     or before March 31, 2002, 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)(1) of such section 2903 is amended by striking ``and 
     March 1, 1995,'' and inserting ``March 1, 1995, March 14, 
     2003, and May 16, 2005,''.
       (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 
     July 7 in the case of recommendations in 2003, or no later 
     than September 8 in the case of recommendations in 2005,'' 
     after ``pursuant to subsection (c),'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or after July 7 in the 
     case of recommendations in 2003, or after September 8 in the 
     case of recommendations in 2005,'' after ``under this 
     subsection,''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting ``or by no later than 
     May 1 in the case of such recommendations in 2003, or no 
     later than July 1 in the case of such recommendations in 
     2005,'' 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 
     July 22 in the case of recommendations in 2003, or no later 
     than September 23 in the case of recommendations in 2005,'' 
     after ``under subsection (d),'';
       (B) in the second sentence of paragraph (3), by inserting 
     ``or by no later than August 18 in the case of 2003, or no 
     later than October 20 in the case of 2005,'' after ``the year 
     concerned,''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``or by September 3 in 
     the case of recommendations in 2003, or November 7 in the 
     case of recommendations in 2005,'' after ``under this 
     part,''.
       (c) Relationship to Other Base Closure Authority.--Section 
     2909(a) of that Act is amended by striking ``December 31, 
     1995,'' and inserting ``December 31, 2005,''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF BASE CLOSURE AUTHORITIES UNDER 1990 
                   BASE CLOSURE LAW.

       (a) Cost Savings and Return on Investment under Secretary 
     of Defense Selection Criteria.--Subsection (b) of section 
     2903 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 
     (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2867 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Any selection criteria proposed by the Secretary 
     relating to the cost savings or return on investment from the 
     proposed closure or realignment of a military installation 
     shall be based on the total cost and savings to the Federal 
     Government that would result from the proposed closure or 
     realignment of such military installation.''.
       (b) Department of Defense Recommendations to Commission.--
     Subsection (c) of such section 2903 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
       (2) 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 2000, 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 2000 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
       (3) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``paragraph (5)(B)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (6)(B)''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``24 hours'' and 
     inserting ``48 hours''.
       (c) Privatization in Place.--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 2000 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;''.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Commencement of Period for Notice of Interest in 
     Property for Homeless.--Section 2905(b)(7)(D)(ii)(I) of the 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of 
     title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2867 note) is 
     amended by striking ``that date'' and inserting ``the date of 
     publication of such determination in a newspaper

[[Page S1628]]

     of general circulation in the communities in the vicinity of 
     the installation under subparagraph (B)(i)(IV)''.
       (b) Other Clarifying Amendments.--
       (1) That Act is further amended by inserting ``or 
     realignment'' after ``closure'' each place it appears in the 
     following provisions:
       (A) Section 2905(b)(3).
       (B) Section 2905(b)(5).
       (C) Section 2905(b)(7)(B)(iv).
       (D) Section 2905(b)(7)(N).
       (E) Section 2910(10)(B).
       (2) That Act is further amended by inserting ``or 
     realigned'' after ``closed'' each place in appears in the 
     following provisions:
       (A) Section 2905(b)(3)(C)(ii).
       (B) Section 2905(b)(3)(D).
       (C) Section 2905(b)(3)(E).
       (D) Section 2905(b)(4)(A).
       (E) Section 2905(b)(5)(A).
       (F) Section 2910(9).
       (G) Section 2910(10).
       (3) 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 
colleague from the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, along with 
our cosponsors Senators Lieberman, Voinovich, Reed, Kyl, Hagel, Kohl, 
Feingold, DeWine, and Jeffords in introducing legislation that allows 
the Department of Defense to close excess, unneeded military bases.
  For the past four years, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen asked 
the Congress to authorize two additional base closure rounds. But 
Congress did not act.
  We have a new Congress, a new President, and a new Secretary of 
Defense, but we also have some unfinished business to attend to. Base 
closure is one of the most important examples. And as we promised we 
would be, Senator McCain and I and our cosponsors are back.
  General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the 
other chiefs have repeatedly said we need to close more military bases, 
and I expect they will once again tell us we need to realign or close 
more bases when the President's budget is submitted later this year.
  The legislation we are introducing today is intended to start the 
debate, and I hope the administration will make a similar legislative 
proposal to the Congress.
  This legislation calls for two additional base closure rounds, in 
2003 and 2005, that would basically follow the same procedures that 
were used in 1991, 1993 and 1995, with two notable exceptions.
  First, the whole process would start and finish two months later in 
2005 than it would in 2003 and did in previous rounds, to give a new 
President, if there is one in 2005, sufficient time to nominate 
commissioners.
  Second, under our legislation, privatization in place would not be 
permitted at closing installation unless the Base Closure Commission 
expressly 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 it needs, and closing 
bases saves substantial money over time, usually within a few years.
  The April 1998 report the Department of Defense provided to the 
Congress clearly demonstrated that we have excess capacity. For 
example, the report showed that by 2003:
  The Army will have reduced its classroom training personnel by 43 
percent, while classroom space will have been reduced by only 7 
percent.
  The Air Force will have reduced the number of fighters and other 
small aircraft by 53 percent since 1989, while the base structure for 
those aircraft will be only 35 percent smaller.
  The Navy will have 33 percent more hangars for its aircraft than it 
requires.
  Experts inside and outside of Government agree with the Defense 
Department on this issue. As the Congressional Budget Office stated in 
a letter to me, ``the [DoD] report's basic message is consistent with 
CBO's own conclusions: past and future BRAC rounds will lead to 
significant savings for DoD.''
  Every year we delay another base closure round, we waste about $1.5 
billion in annual savings that we can never recoup. And every dollar we 
waste on bases we do not need is a dollar we cannot spend on things we 
do need.
  The new administration is now undertaking several strategy reviews. 
It is possible that those reviews will conclude that the military we 
want for the future needs exactly the base structure we have today and 
that all our forces are in exactly the right place and none of them 
need to be realigned to different locations. It is possible that they 
will conclude Secretary Cohen and General Shelton didn't know what they 
were talking about and we really don't have any excess infrastructure.
  I will be astounded if any serious defense review reaches such a 
conclusion. But even if it did, it is important to understand that this 
legislation does not prejudge or pre-empt these reviews. What it does 
is prepare us to act whatever the result of those reviews.
  Should the new administration decide they don't want to propose any 
closures or realignments, this bill would not force them to. It 
authorizes two more rounds; it does not require them. And the Defense 
Department would have ample time to conclude their reviews before the 
first round would start in 2003, so the results of their strategy 
reviews could be fully incorporated into the force structure plan the 
new rounds would be based on.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______