[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.

                          ____________________