[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 70 (Tuesday, May 18, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5569-S5573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The journal clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2400) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2005 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Services, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Lautenberg amendment No. 3151, to clarify the application
of Presidential action under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Amendment No. 3158
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3158, which is at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The journal clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for himself, Mr.
Dorgan, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Cochran, and Mr.
Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 3158.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide that the 2005 base closure round shall apply
solely to military installations located outside the United States and
to provide for expedited consideration by Congress of a proposal for a
base closure round in 2007 on military installations located inside the
United States)
At the end of title XXVIII, add the following:
Subtitle E--Defense Base Closure and Realignment
SEC. 2861. MODIFICATION OF 2005 BASE CLOSURE ROUND TO APPLY
SOLELY TO MILITARY INSTALLATIONS OUTSIDE THE
UNITED STATES.
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 by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 2915. APPLICABILITY OF 2005 ROUND SOLELY TO MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
``(a) In General.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision
of this part, the military installations covered by
activities under this part in 2005 shall consist solely of
military installations outside the United States.
``(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, for
purposes of activities under this part in 2005 any reference
to military installations inside the United States shall be
deemed to be a reference to military installations outside
the United States.
``(b) Inapplicability of Selection Criteria for 2005.--The
final selection criteria prepared under section 2913 shall
not be used in making recommendations for the closure
[[Page S5570]]
or realignment of military installations under this part in
2005.
``(c) Recommendations of Secretary of Defense.--(1) In lieu
of any information otherwise required under paragraph (1) or
(2) of subsection (b) of section 2914, the recommendations of
the Secretary of Defense under subsection (a) of that section
shall include the following:
``(A) A detailed plan for eliminating any physical capacity
at military installations outside the United States that
requires the unnecessary diversion of scarce resources for
operation and maintenance, sustainment, or recapitalization
of such capacity.
``(B) A list of the military installations outside the
United States that are proposed for closure or realignment
under this part, and a schedule for the closure or
realignment of such installations.
``(C) A list of the military installations to which
personnel or equipment will be relocated from military
installations included in the list under subparagraph (B),
including for each military installation so listed, the new
infrastructure to be required for such personnel or equipment
and the cost of such infrastructure.
``(D) An estimate of the cost savings to be achieved by the
closure or realignment of military installations under
subparagraph (B).
``(E) A certification whether or not a round in 2007 for
the closure or realignment of military installations inside
the United States is advisable.
``(2) In making recommendations referred to in paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall take into account the final report
of the Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military
Facility Structure of the United States under section 128 of
the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public
Law 108-132; 117 Stat. 1382; 10 U.S.C. 111 note).
``(d) Commission Review and Recommendations.--(1) In
addition to the requirements specified in section 2914(d),
the Commission shall include in its report under paragraph
(1) of that section the following:
``(A) An assessment by the Commission of the extent to
which the recommendations of the Secretary under subsection
(c) take into account the final report referred to in
subsection (c)(2).
``(B) An assessment by the Commission whether or not the
recommendations of the Secretary under subsection (c)
maximize the amount of savings that can be achieved by the
United States through the closure or realignment of military
installations outside the United States.
``(C) An assessment by the Commission whether or not a
round in 2007 for the closure or realignment of military
installations inside the United States is advisable.
``(2) Paragraph (5) of section 2914(d) shall not apply to
the review and recommendations of the Commission, under such
section and this subsection, of the recommendations of the
Secretary under subsection (c).
``(e) Completion of Closure or Realignment Actions.--The
closure or realignment of military installations outside the
United States under this part pursuant to activities under
this part in 2005 shall be completed not later than December
31, 2010.''.
SEC. 2862. BASE CLOSURE ROUND IN 2007 RELATING TO
INSTALLATIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Two-Year Extension of Base Closure Law for Purposes of
Round in 2007.--Section 2909(a) 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 by striking
``April 15, 2006,'' and inserting ``April 15, 2008,''.
(b) Expedited Consideration by Congress of Round in 2007.--
That Act, as amended by section 2861 of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 2916. REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS ON BASE CLOSURE
ROUND IN 2007 RELATING TO INSTALLATIONS INSIDE
THE UNITED STATES.
``(a) Expedited Consideration by Congress of Authorization
for Round.--The consideration by Congress of a joint
resolution for a round of defense base closure and
realignment under this part in 2007 relating to military
installations inside the United States shall be governed by
the provisions of section 2908.
``(b) Joint Resolution.--For purposes of this section and
the application of section 2908 to the joint resolution
referred to in subsection (a), the term `joint resolution'
means a joint resolution which is introduced within the 10-
day period beginning on the date in 2005 on which the
President transmits to Congress an approval and certification
described in paragraph (2) or (4) of section 2903(e) in
accordance with section 2914(e), and--
``(1) which does not have a preamble;
``(2) the matter after the resolving clause of which is as
follows: `That a round of defense base closure and
realignment is authorized to occur under 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) in 2007, with such
round to apply to military installations inside the United
States'; and
``(3) the title of which is as follows: `Joint Resolution
to authorize a round of defense base closure and realignment
in 2007 with respect to military installations inside the
United States.'.
``(c) Criteria and Schedule for 2007 Round.--Not later than
15 days after the date of the enactment of the joint
resolution, the Secretary of Defense shall publish in the
Federal Register the following:
``(1) The selection criteria to be utilized in the round of
defense base closure and realignment under this part in 2007,
which criteria shall be the final selection criteria
developed under section 2913(e), together with such
modifications of such final selection criteria as the
Secretary considers appropriate in light of changes in
circumstances since March 15, 2004.
``(2) The schedule in 2007 for actions on recommendations
and consideration of recommendations in the round of defense
base closure and realignment under this part under section
2914, which schedule shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, be the schedule for 2005 as specified under that
section together with such modifications as the Secretary
considers appropriate to take into account changes in the
calendar between 2005 and 2007.''.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first I have a couple of housekeeping items.
I am delighted to join in support of a truly bipartisan amendment. The
lead sponsors of the amendment are Senator Dorgan of North Dakota,
Senator Snowe of Maine, Senator Feinstein of California, Senator
Cochran of Mississippi, and Senator Daschle of South Dakota. We do have
broad bipartisan support as original sponsors.
I would like to begin by describing the amendment. This will take
approximately 10 minutes, and then perhaps Senator Dorgan can have 10
minutes and then Senator Cochran would like to be recognized. We will
try to get the opening statements in before we break for the policy
luncheons, and then we can discuss during the break the timing on the
amendment and how we proceed from there.
Does the manager of the legislation have a comment?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and leader for
bringing up this amendment at this time. I approached him on the floor
saying we are anxious to get the bill moving, and he accepted the
challenge. I am not sure If I am going to support him on this
amendment, but, nevertheless, we will have a good and thorough debate.
My distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, and I conferred earlier
this morning. We are both of a frame of mind that we want to move with
tremendous momentum. Today is a good day to move on. I urge Senators to
bring their amendments to the floor. We are willing to stay here into
the evening and participate in the process.
During the hearing of the Armed Services Committee tomorrow morning
at 8:30 to sometime midday, we will have members of the committee on
the floor. We will not lose a step in moving forward on this bill. It
is important to have this hearing tomorrow. We are fortunate that the
Department of Defense brought back commanders for a variety of reasons,
not just our hearing. Senator Levin and I had made the offer to do it
by telephone conferences. It is important we continue the continuity of
the hearings of our committee.
The point of this is, I would hope, if I can frankly say to our
leadership, that perhaps we could get a unanimous consent agreement
later tonight to lock in those amendments that we know are out there on
this bill. I hope we can do that. I have seen a list of 50 amendments.
Yet I think it is an incomplete list. Perhaps within the course of the
day we can explore that option with our leadership.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor. I will be glad
to yield.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Mississippi will yield, forgive me, I
join our chairman in urging all of our colleagues to bring the
amendments to the floor, share the language with us, and allow us to
move expeditiously on this bill by doing that.
We are going to proceed, as the chairman indicated, tomorrow morning
on the floor to consider amendments at the same time that we are
holding a hearing with the three generals who have been outlined. We
can do both at the same time with the cooperation of all of our
Members. We have the cooperation of all of our Members.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am delighted we are moving forward with
this amendment. I know how much the managers like to get the process
started and consider major amendments. I believe this is an issue that
deserves some consideration and some debate
[[Page S5571]]
during the day and early on. We will be prepared to work with the
managers to get a reasonable time agreement and get to a vote because I
think this is the best way to proceed on legislation such as this. We
are not interested in delaying tactics.
I rise to offer this amendment which would modify the Base
Realignment and Closure Act of 1990, BRAC, to first consider our needs
overseas before we move forward with closing more bases at home.
Let me emphasize what this amendment is not. This is not an amendment
that would eliminate or terminate the next BRAC round. This is not an
amendment that would even delay it for 2 years, as the House Armed
Services Committee language now provides. I believe they would delay
the next base closure round until 2007. No, this amendment specifically
says let's go forward with the realignment overseas. Let's look at our
force structure. Let's determine how many installations are truly
needed and required overseas, what their missions are, and what will
the future call for.
We have talked about needing a more mobile, lighter force with a lot
of prepositioning, but as we found out in Iraq, that may not be all
that we need.
Then the question is, if we decide to bring back some of these
divisions, such as the 1st Armored Division now based in Germany, where
would we put them? The question is, before we go to the next domestic
round, let's get this decision on realignment and changing of force
structure overseas, see what we are going to need over there, where we
are going to put our troops, and what are we going to do with them when
they come home. Then the BRAC Commission would go forward with the
domestic round.
I want to emphasize a couple of points about how this would work.
It would make clear that section 2913, the selection criteria, for
the 2005 round does not apply in that we would have the overseas
realignment first and then the domestic. It would keep the existing
schedule for the Pentagon's mission of a list and for a BRAC
consideration of that list. It specifies that the Secretary's May 16,
2005, submission to the BRAC Commission should include a number of
items.
The Secretary's May 16, 2005 submission to the BRAC commission should
include a detailed plan for eliminating excess physical capacity at the
overseas bases and facilities of the Department of Defense, the
operation, sustainment, and recapitalization of which diverts scarce
resources from defense capability; a list of overseas bases and
facilities that will be closed or realigned during the period 2005-2010
and a schedule for implementing each base closure or realignment; where
the personnel and equipment from each base on the list will be
relocated to; the infrastructure investments that are required at each
receiving base; an estimate of the annual net savings for each of the
military departments that will result from the closures and
realignments; and a certification whether the need exists for an
additional round of domestic base closures and realignments in 2007.
It also says in developing the overseas base closure plan, the
Secretary shall take into consideration the report of the Commission on
review of overseas military structures of the United States that is due
to report its findings by December 31, 2004. In other words, this
process is underway, but we need to get those Commission reports. They
need to take into consideration the overseas decision before they go to
the next domestic round. That is basically what this amendment does.
I want to cite, though, why I feel so concerned about this. The
record is clear that I have never thought BRAC was a good idea. I think
the way it should be done is the way it was done always up until the
1980s. The Pentagon determines where they have overlap or duplication,
they send up foreclosure recommendations to the Congress, and Congress
acts.
The argument might be that Congress wouldn't act. They did. Congress
acted in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, and up to the midpart of the
1980s and numerous bases throughout the country were closed. It is an
assumption we cannot assume our rightful role in this Government or in
that process. So that is something that is clear.
There are other factors now. As I have looked at domestic bases and
looked at overseas bases, the very idea we are now going to move
forward with a base closure round that would close up to 25 percent of
our existing bases is a real concern, if that is going to be done
domestically. As a matter of fact, CBO says the four--count them, the
four BRAC rounds we have already had resulted in little or no excess
capacity in the United States--little or no excess capacity. Yet the
Pentagon is insisting on moving forward with this BRAC at this time.
Let me assure my colleagues, too, they are doing it differently this
time. The list is not being compiled by uniformed services, but it is
being pulled up to the Office of the Secretary of Defense level. That
does worry me.
We are doing this at a time when we have our troops all over the
world, in combat situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American
people are concerned about our troops, concerned about our capacity to
have sufficient numbers there. We have National Guard and reservists
serving now and doing a tremendous job, I think, up to perhaps as much
as 40 percent of the troops are deployed in those locations. Keep this
in mind. The next BRAC round will include National Guard. We didn't
have that in the past. But National Guard facilities will probably--
will, under the definition they are going forward with, be included in
this process.
These are communities all over America, in almost every State. I have
here a list of the bases that have been on earlier BRAC closure lists
or would probably be on the list, based on the criteria as we now
understand them. All over America, communities and States are worried
about the situation. They are employing consultants to represent the
communities or the States. It is running into the millions of dollars
because of this sheer uncertainty: Is it going forward or not? Are we
going to be affected or not? And, by the way, the Secretaries of
Defense--and I say Secretaries because I have talked to three of them
about it--refuse to set up this criterion in such a way where you look
at the places where you know you have duplication or overlap. Why put
everybody on the list, everybody in an uproar, when you know as a
matter of fact the duplication is in this place or that place? No, they
don't want to define it in that sort of limited way.
Here is the point. We need to decide what we are going to do overseas
first. We need to be careful about what we do domestically because it
could be affected by what we do overseas. At a time when we are at war
in Afghanistan and Iraq, at a time when our people are already
concerned about what the future is for their military men and women in
their communities and in fact their families, let's do this in such a
way that people will feel comfortable we are going about it in the
right way.
There have been some bases eliminated overseas since the wall came
down. In fact, I think 700 facilities in Europe have been closed. But
we still have 200,000 troops stationed overseas--80,000 in Germany
alone, and that doesn't count some of the reservists and civilians. I
suspect there are as many as 100,000 in Germany alone. Let me give
an example here with this chart of what we are talking about. This is
Germany--unified Germany, surrounded by Belgium, France, Switzerland,
Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark. I don't think they are threatened by
any of those countries.
You will see on this chart the sites where we have Army and Air Force
bases in Germany. They are, of course, right across the central part,
but they are also now in what was East Germany. There are 310
installations, an estimated 100,000 people in Germany alone. Do we need
310 installations? Some of them are small, but let me assure you on my
recent trip to Berlin it was clear they wanted to keep all these bases
and it was clear why. Because economically it is helpful--economically
helpful to Germany. Yet we are talking about closing bases here at
home, when we have 310 bases there.
By the way, this is also a country that has recently said they would
no longer provide 2,500 troops to guard our installations in Germany
while the troops ordinarily stationed there are in Iraq not even 2,500
troops.
I am saying let's take a strong look at Germany. It is not only
Germany. I don't want to pick on Germany. We have, I think, 18
installations in Belgium, 12 in The Netherlands. Let me
[[Page S5572]]
make sure I have the exact numbers--18 in Belgium, 310 in Germany, 12
in The Netherlands, 101 in South Korea, 54 in the United Kingdom. There
is a list here of what we have overseas, a total of 721 facilities
overseas.
Do we need to have a hospital or Air Force bases in Germany? Sure. Do
we need to have naval bases in Spain? Sure. Do we need to have
prepositioning at various places around the world? Absolutely. We have
heard a lot of talk about this restructuring or realignment overseas,
but we still have not gotten it done. In fact, if you look at the force
structure plan for BRAC 2005, based on the Pentagon's forecast, it
assumes the same forces as now, from 2005 to 2009. It apparently
assumes the forces that are based overseas now will remain based
overseas.
Are we going to have a realignment and bring some home or not?
I think this amendment makes good sense. It does not stop BRAC. It
allows it to go forward. But it puts the horse before the cart. Let's
look at the overseas situation. Let's assess what we need there. Let's
find out what we are going to do with them if we do bring them back
home and then go forward with the next step.
I talked with Senator Dorgan a lot about this. We thought about it
carefully. We want to do the right thing. Surely there are some bases
we could close and installations in the United States that could be
closed. But I think we should do it in an orderly way and I think the
timing of doing it now could not be worse.
I don't trust this process. Some people say if you do the commission,
it takes it out of politics. Who believes that? Commissions are beyond
politics? Take a look at the last commission. We got in a terrible
conflict based on a decision that involves the States of Texas and
California. I am not picking on those States, but it happened.
Let's take more time. Let's do the overseas situation first and then
go forward with the domestic bases a year or two from now, when we will
have a better feel for what is happening in the world.
Since we are limited on time, I would like to withhold further
comments at this time so Senator Warner or Senator Dorgan could speak
and perhaps Senator Cochran wishes to be heard on this issue, too.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. We are off to a very good start.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the hour for purposes of
discussing these opening remarks be extended to 12:45.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder----
Mr. WARNER. We could have some division between Senator Levin and
myself. Perhaps if we could----
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator would amend that to 12:40?
Mr. WARNER. You have 12:40. Why don't we reserve, say, 5 minutes
within that period, or 6 minutes for the Senator from Michigan and
myself and allocate the remainder of the time to our other two
colleagues.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Time has
been extended until 12:40.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. It sounds to me as though we are left with 3 or 4
minutes, as I understood it. I don't think that accomplishes it. I will
speak only 2 or 3 minutes at the moment. I know I have two colleagues
who perhaps would like to speak for a couple of minutes. I would be
glad to come back after our caucuses----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we certainly could come back after the
caucuses. I am trying to help to get a little bit of time.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me do 3 minutes, and then I will yield the floor so
my colleagues might also say a word or so. My colleague, Senator Lott,
explained the reason for this.
Let me explain what this bill is not. This amendment is not an
amendment that would obliterate or abolish next year's BRAC Commission.
It does not do that. It does say next year's BRAC Commission should
make judgments and recommendations to the Congress on the overseas base
structure.
It makes good sense that we would understand and try to think through
what our basing structure should be internationally before we decide
what our needs are here at home. If, for example, at some point we do
not have 100,000 troops in Germany and we bring home 50,000 of those
troops to this country--incidentally, we ought to consider that because
it is very expensive to keep 100,000 troops in Germany--if we did that,
where would we put 50,000 troops? At which base? What set of bases?
So we propose something that would make good sense, make judgments in
next year's BRAC Commission about the overseas bases, where we should
retain overseas bases.
Since we authorized the BRAC round, we have had the continuing war on
terrorism, a war in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq. We have had a
series of things that have altered in many ways what our
responsibilities are around the world. The cold war is over. We have
new challenges and new responsibilities.
The question we should answer first is, What should our base
structure be internationally and from that, then, what kind of needs do
we have to house troops at home?
My colleague mentioned several other features of this bill. Let me
leave it at that. I will come back this afternoon after the caucus
lunch and discuss in greater detail why we have offered this amendment.
We do not intend to trip up the Pentagon or trip up the managers of the
bill. We intend to see if we cannot have the base-closing process
happen in an orderly way, figure out what the overseas structure should
be, and from that, then if the Congress considers a 2007 round, have an
affirmative vote to do that and make that judgment with respect to
domestic bases.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I will defer my statement until after the
policy luncheon at 2:15, but I want to say I truly appreciate the
leadership of Senator Dorgan and Senator Lott in this matter. It is
critical we concentrate on this particular issue in terms of the impact
for the future.
Senator Lott indicated so eloquently that there is no question there
is a problem with this process. It is not transparent. We are in a
different threat environment than we have ever been. Clearly, we have
to reevaluate, reassess the base-closing process in that light.
I will defer all of my comments until 2:15.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. This is a very significant amendment, in light of the
history of the Senate now for consecutive years, deciding to go forward
with the BRAC process that is well underway.
I share the viewpoints expressed by Senator Lott, Senator Snowe, and
the Senator from North Dakota, the need to address the overseas
situation. When time permits later on, I will explain what has been
done to date by the Department of Defense in conjunction with the
ongoing BRAC Commission regarding these bases. It is very significant.
The Department of Defense has moved forward. I think shortly they
will submit to the Congress drawing down forces and bases in both the
areas referred to by Senator Lott and others; I might add also
significant drawing down of forces inside Korea. That is underway.
Part of this proposed legislation in this amendment is the 2-year
delay. I draw on the very comment made by my distinguished colleague,
the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, of the turbulence in the
communities engendered by the existing law as they are struggling to
get high-powered assistance and expert advice from every possible
source, depending on the community budget, to try to preserve their
military installation. That process is now continued for another 2
years. This is a somewhat heavy burden on many of these small
communities to try to do the best they can to fight the existing law.
That is the key question Members have to consider: Are they going to
extend these hardships under the existing law for 2 more years as we
address the overseas situation, which I can assure Members later this
afternoon is being thoroughly addressed by the Department of Defense in
the context of the existing law.
[[Page S5573]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have received now a letter from the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff representing all of the chiefs
urging the Senate to continue their unequivocalness to continue the
2005 round of base realignment and closures as authorized by Congress.
They are pleading with us not to leave this issue unresolved because
the savings which are essential for the transformation of our military
are savings they want to achieve. They are working very hard on the
transformation of our military. They clearly intend there be a global
posture review, and there will be a global posture review, taking into
account the closing of bases overseas.
There is a commission that must be created this year and is required
to report to us on the review of the overseas military facility
structure. This is referred to in the amendment. As I understand it,
they have not yet been appointed, but it is required that the
leadership appoint that commission, and it is required, obviously, that
the Secretary of Defense and Department of Defense next year, in making
their recommendations, take into account the very report this amendment
says should be taken into account.
So we have a global posture review which is underway. It will be
completed. We have a commission to review overseas military facilities.
That is all in place. It is all ongoing. It is all in order. There is a
logic to it all in terms of looking at the overseas bases first.
I could not agree more with the Senator from Mississippi and the
Senator from North Dakota. Of course, you will look at overseas bases
first. That is what is going on now. That is the global posture review.
That is the commission on the review of the overseas military facility
structure which is in the process of being appointed and will report
this year.
But to disrupt all that and to leave every base in the United States
in limbo for another 2 years is not doing a favor either to our
military structure or to the bases around our country. We all have
bases. Are we going to leave them nervous? Are we going to leave them
in limbo for 2 more years? That is not doing them a favor and it is
doing a significant disfavor to our military posture and the
requirement that we transform, as the chief said, the combat capability
of the Department of Defense.
I hope this amendment would be rejected.
Mr. WARNER. I simply add that right in this letter, and I ask
unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record at this point, a
comprehensive overseas basing review is nearly complete. It is
significant.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2004.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing this letter to emphasize
our continued and unequivocal support for conducting a 2005
round of base realignment and closure (BRAC), as authorized
by the Congress. The convergence of ongoing strategy and
overseas basing actions, the transformational direction in
all the Services and force structure changes together afford
us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to truly transform the
Department's combat capability in an enduring way. A delay of
this BRAC round, or a modification of the legislation that
limits the Department's flexibility to execute it, will
seriously undermine our ability to fundamentally reconfigure
our infrastructure to best support the transformation of our
forces to meet the security challenges we face now and will
continue to face for the foreseeable future.
A comprehensive overseas basing review is nearly complete.
The continued concentration of forces in Cold War locations
highlights the need for a global repositioning to locations
that best support our strategic goals. In order to ensure
that the Department examines its entire infrastructure, the
rationalization of our domestic infrastructure as conducted
by the BRAC process must closely follow the Global Posture
Review. Both efforts are necessary for a genuine
capabilities-based infrastructure rationalization and to
further transformation of our warfighting capabilities.
We ask for your careful consideration of the importance we
place on conducting a 2005 BRAC round as currently
authorized. BRAC has proven to be the only comprehensive,
fair, and effective process for accomplishing this
imperative. We assure you that the Department will conduct
BRAC 2005 in a way that ensures it maintains force structure
and infrastructure that is flexible enough to surge and
respond to changing threats to our national security.
Peter Pace,
General, USMC, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Richard B. Myers,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Peter J. Schoomaker,
General, U.S. Army, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.
Vern Clark,
Admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations.
John P. Jumper,
General, USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force.
Michael W. Hagee,
General, U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. I will respond, of course.
I must point out, to proceed as current law anticipates, we should
anticipate it will cost us money in the short term. We are struggling
around here to find money but we will actually expend more money in the
short term with respect to the 2005 BRAC round, and we do not propose
we obliterate this entire process.
What we propose is to establish an order that makes sense. The order
that would make sense would be to evaluate where we would house
overseas troops, given the new realities of the world, and then from
that understand what our domestic needs are. That seems to me to be the
logical and right approach. I don't think it poses any additional risk
for anyone.
The current 20-year plan, the unclassified portion of the 20-year
forecast for the threat and for basing, apparently assumes the same
size force as we now have and apparently assumes the same forces that
are based overseas, which largely remain based overseas. I don't think
that is likely to be the case.
We are proposing a structure which would put the horse in front of
the cart. That is the amendment we have offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5
minutes, not on this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
Mr. WARNER. First, Mr. President, I yield back all time on our side.
I believe that completes the debate, at this point, on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). All time has expired.
Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my dear colleagues for allowing
me this time. I apologize for taking a little extra time today, but I
think it is important.
(The remarks of Mr. Hatch are printed in today's Record under
``Executive Session.'')
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I appreciate your patience and I
appreciate this extra time. I yield the floor.
____________________