[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 60 (Monday, May 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4284-S4285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Craig, 
        Ms. Collins, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire):
  S. 2509. A bill to amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1990 to specify additional selection criteria for the 2005 round of 
defense base closures and realignments, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee of Armed Services.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that 
addresses an issue of great concern to our Nation's current and future 
security as well as to hundreds of communities across our country.
  We have endeavored to reduce the excess infrastructure of our armed 
forces four times in the past 15 years through the appointment of a 
BRAC commission whose charter was to recommended the elimination or 
realignment of unneeded bases. Four times these commissions have made 
recommendations to the President resulting in the closure of 106 major 
bases. I would like to agree that in each instance, the best decision 
was made and the military is now better off without these facilities; 
however, this is not the case. Mistakes have been made.
  While most of these selections were proper, some have resulted in 
significant, unintended consequences. Staggering costs to clean up the 
environmental liabilities left behind is one such example. At the 
former Navy Station Long Beach, CA, post-closure clean up costs have 
consumed hundreds of millions of dollars more than had been 
anticipated. The final cost of closing that base remains unknown. How 
can the savings of closing this base be cited when even seven years 
later the costs continue to grow?
  The lack of facilities now available to properly train our remaining 
forces is another. When justifying the closure of Reese Air Force Base 
in 1995, the commission's report stated that ``the Air Force has a 
surplus of undergraduate pilot training facilities.'' However, only 
five years later, this service had a shortage of over 1,200 pilots. To 
make up for that shortfall, the Air Force was compelled to hastily 
establish another training base, at tremendous cost to the taxpayer.
  The severe economic impact that small, rural communities have endured 
is yet another unintended consequence. The '95 commission's decision to 
convey Fort Chafee to the local community was scandalous. How was a 
small, rural community like Barling, AR supposed to turn a post like 
Chaffee, pockmarked with over 700 World War II-era buildings, each 
contaminated with lead paint and Asbestos, into an economic asset to 
the community? They couldn't. While the closure of Chaffee may have 
saved the Pentagon money, it saddled a small town with an expensive, 
environmentally hazardous burden.
  I am convinced the root cause of these regrettable selections was 
vague and inefficient criteria which the commissions used in their 
efforts to select candidates for closure or realignment. To ensure we 
do not repeat these mistakes, I have worked closely with a number of my 
colleagues, particularly Senator Bingaman, to develop legislation that 
would refine the minimum criteria the commission must consider. Among 
the new criteria are: the impact on homeland security; the effects on 
co-located Federal agencies; and lessons learned in the previous rounds 
of closures. This measure also promotes greater transparency by 
requiring the weighting of these criteria be published well before a 
commission recommends any base for closure.

[[Page S4285]]

  I know the outcome of the 2005 BRAC is of utmost importance to both 
the military and the communities outside the fence. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill to ensure that the proper decisions are 
made, and that they are made for the proper reasons.
  I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2509

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Transparent and Enhanced 
     Criteria Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL SELECTION CRITERIA FOR 2005 ROUND OF 
                   DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

       (a) Additional Selection Criteria.--Section 2913 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), as 
     added by section 3002 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 
     1344), is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Additional Considerations.--The selection criteria 
     for military installations shall also address the following:
       ``(1) Force structure and mission requirements through 
     2020, as specified by the document entitled `Joint Vision 
     2020' issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including--
       ``(A) mobilization requirements; and
       ``(B) requirements for utilization of facilities by the 
     Department of Defense and by other departments and agencies 
     of the United States, including--
       ``(i) joint use by two or more Armed Forces; and
       ``(ii) use by one or more reserve components.
       ``(2) The availability and condition of facilities, land, 
     and associated airspace, including--
       ``(A) proximity to mobilization points, including points of 
     embarkation for air or rail transportation and ports; and
       ``(B) current, planned, and programmed military 
     construction.
       ``(3) Considerations regarding ranges and airspace, 
     including--
       ``(A) uniqueness; and
       ``(B) existing or potential physical, electromagnetic, or 
     other encroachment.
       ``(4) Force protection.
       ``(5) Costs and effects of relocating critical 
     infrastructure, including--
       ``(A) military construction costs at receiving military 
     installations and facilities;
       ``(B) environmental costs, including costs of compliance 
     with Federal and State environmental laws;
       ``(C) termination costs and other liabilities associated 
     with existing contracts or agreements involving outsourcing 
     or privatization of services, housing, or facilities used by 
     the Department;
       ``(D) effects on co-located entities of the Department;
       ``(E) effects on co-located Federal agencies;
       ``(F) costs of transfers and relocations of civilian 
     personnel, and other workforce considerations.
       ``(6) Homeland security requirements.
       ``(7) State or local support for a continued presence by 
     the Department, including--
       ``(A) current or potential public or private partnerships 
     in support of Department activities; and
       ``(B) the capacity of States and localities to respond 
     positively to economic effects and other effects.
       ``(8) Applicable lessons from previous rounds of defense 
     base closure and realignment, including disparities between 
     anticipated savings and actual savings.
       ``(9) Anticipated savings and other benefits, including--
       ``(A) enhancement of capabilities through improved use of 
     remaining infrastructure; and
       ``(B) the capacity to relocate units and other assets.
       ``(10) Any other considerations that the Secretary of 
     Defense considers appropriate.''.
       (b) Weighting of Criteria for Transparency Purposes.--
     Subsection (a) of such section 2913 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) Weighting of criteria.--At the same time the 
     Secretary publishes the proposed criteria under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the 
     formula proposed to be used by the Secretary in assigning 
     weight to the various proposed criteria in making 
     recommendations for the closure or realignment of military 
     installations inside the United States under this part in 
     2005.''.

                          ____________________