[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3406-H3411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burgess). Pursuant to House Resolution 
648 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 4200.

                              {time}  1152


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. LaHood (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, May 19, 2004, a request for a recorded vote on Amendment No. 
14 printed in House Report 108-499, offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) had been postponed.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, the amendments 
numbered 29, 30, 31 and 32 are in order as though printed in the report 
and Amendment No. 13 is modified.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 7 printed in House 
Report 108-499.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 8 printed in House 
Report 108-499.


          Request To Include Member As Cosponsor of Amendment

  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the name of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) be added as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. While a Member may not designate a co-
offerer of an amendment, the Record will reflect his request.


          Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
       Strike section 2821 (page 514, beginning line 19) and 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2821. PREPARATION OF REPORTS AS PART OF 2005 BASE 
                   CLOSURE ROUND REGARDING FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE 
                   REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARMED FORCES.

       Section 2912 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 3001 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 
     107-107; 115 Stat. 1342), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Infrastructure-Related Reports.--
       ``(1) Required reports.--The Secretary shall prepare the 
     following reports related to infrastructure requirements for 
     the Armed Forces:
       ``(A) A report containing the Integrated Global Presence 
     and Basing Strategy of the Department of Defense, including 
     the location of long-term overseas installations, 
     installations to be used for rotational purposes, and forward 
     operating locations, anticipated rotational plans and 
     policies, and domestic and overseas infrastructure 
     requirements associated with the strategy.
       ``(B) A report describing the anticipated infrastructure 
     requirements associated with the probable end-strength levels 
     and major military force units (including land force 
     divisions, carrier and other major combatant vessels, air 
     wings, and other comparable units) for each of the Armed 
     Forces resulting from force transformation.
       ``(C) A report describing the anticipated infrastructure 
     requirements related to expected changes in the active 
     component versus reserve component personnel mix of the Armed 
     Forces.
       ``(D) A report describing the anticipated infrastructure 
     requirements associated with the so-called `10-30-30 
     objective' of the Secretary to ensure that military forces 
     are capable of deployment overseas within 10 days in 
     sufficient strength to defeat an enemy within 30 days and be 
     ready for redeployment within 30 days after the end of combat 
     operations.
       ``(E) A report containing the results of a complete 
     reassessment of the infrastructure necessary to support the 
     force structure described in the force-structure plan 
     prepared under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) and describing 
     any resulting excess infrastructure and infrastructure 
     capacity, which were previously required by paragraph (2) of 
     such subsection. The reassessment shall be based on actual 
     infrastructure, facility, and space requirements for the 
     Armed Forces rather than a comparative study between 1989 and 
     2003.
       ``(F) A report describing the anticipated infrastructure 
     requirements associated with the assessment prepared by the 
     Secretary pursuant to section 2822 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136; 
     117 Stat. 1726), in which Congress required the Secretary to 
     assess the probable threats to national security and 
     determine the potential, prudent, surge requirements for the 
     Armed Forces and military installations to meet those 
     threats.
       ``(2) Time for submission of reports.--The Secretary shall 
     submit the reports required by paragraph (1) to the 
     congressional defense committees at the same time as the 
     Secretary transmits the recommendations for the closure or 
     realignment of military installations under section 
     2914(a).''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 648, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment I am offering with my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Snyder). The Kennedy-Snyder amendment repeals the 2-year BRAC 
delay that was included in the Defense Authorization Act reported out 
by the committee.
  Our amendment also requires DOD to report to Congress on our overseas 
basing posture and other issues raised by the committee in March of 
2005 when DOD transmits its base closure and realignment 
recommendations to the BRAC Commission.
  Under the terms of our amendment, Congress would have 6 months to 
consider the report before a potential vote to disapprove the 
recommendations of the BRAC Commission. This would give the House ample 
time to hold hearings and decide if DOD paid attention to such 
important issues as our overseas basing structure. Furthermore, 
estimates show that the 2-year delay of BRAC could waste as much as $16 
billion in lost savings.
  Mr. Chairman, this is money that would be better used to modernize 
our weapons systems and improve the quality of life for our service men 
and women.

[[Page H3407]]

  I know some of my colleagues on this floor are opposed to the BRAC 
process. They argue that now is not the time to conduct a round of base 
closures, not while the country is at war. I disagree. I believe that 
now is as important a time as ever.
  The critical nature of our war on terrorism and our military actions 
in Iraq and Afghanistan demand we go forward with BRAC. Right now, we 
have a perfect opportunity to see what infrastructure the military 
really needs for our modern-day challenges. After all, if it is not 
essential where our military is engaged in two countries 
simultaneously, in addition to all of our other responsibilities being 
undertaken by our men and women in uniform, when will it be needed?
  But that is not just my opinion. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with the Army Chief of Staff, the Air 
Force Chief of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps recently warned a delay in the BRAC amendment 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.
  For this reason, the administration has issued a statement of 
administration policy that says anything that delays, weakens or 
repeals the BRAC would trigger a veto.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford that risk. For those of my colleagues 
really concerned about BRAC, I would ask them to remember that the BRAC 
process works. Congress and the President each must act to accept or 
reject the recommendations of the BRAC Commission. They do not take 
effect until both Congress and the President accept the list. That 
means a vote for the Kennedy-Snyder amendment is not a vote to close 
any base; it is a vote for a process proven to work, free from 
political posturing, that puts the needs of the military and taxpayers 
ahead of parochial interests.
  Mr. Chairman, the BRAC process is a significant innovation that 
relies upon shared oversight to strengthen our military and produce 
significant savings in the defense budget. We have had significant 
savings in the past BRAC closings.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the 2-year delay that is in the bill is in direct 
response to widespread concern that the Department of Defense is 
experiencing too many stresses and changes to make effective base 
closure decisions by May of 2005. Our Nation cannot afford to close a 
base in the 2005 BRAC round only to discover in 2010 that the assets at 
that base were both irreplaceable and now lost forever.
  We have had this happen in the past, at Cecil Field in Florida, and 
we also lost port space down in Charleston Harbor that we could very 
well use today.
  The press releases, what I have heard from the gentleman from 
Minnesota, seems to be that he is mostly concerned about the saving of 
money. I would like to share with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kennedy) the BRAC math that we get by serving on the committee.
  The DOD's claim that BRAC will result in a savings of $3 billion are 
only half the story. It is like looking at a financial sheet and just 
seeing the assets and not the deficits. In truth, 3 years after the 
next BRAC round, we can expect DOD to have spent approximately $5 
billion more than they have saved.
  In other words, DOD will have realized a cumulative savings of $4 
billion, but they will have spent $9 billion in the process. Even 6 
years after the BRAC rounds, we can expect DOD BRAC costs to exceed 
their cumulative savings by more than $100 million.
  These figures are real. These are not my figures. They are based on 
GAO's reports on costs and savings from the past two BRAC rounds.
  Let me repeat. DOD will actually need increased budgets to implement 
base closures, and by 2011, DOD will actually have spent more than it 
has saved from base closure actions.

                              {time}  1200

  Let me share two additional reasons for why delaying the BRAC until 
2007 is the responsible thing to do. First, we are undergoing the most 
significant realignment of overseas forces and bases since World War 
II. And these changes may result in tens of thousands of military 
personnel returning to the United States. We do not know what this is 
going to amount to. In addition, I am concerned about the Department's 
overseas proposals. According to CBO, all the proposals under 
consideration have substantial upfront cost, as much as $9 billion; and 
several of the approaches under consideration would actually result in 
decreased operational capability.
  DOD plans to roll these overseas realignment decisions into BRAC. 
This is too significant an issue for Congress to accept without time 
for consultation, oversight, and approval.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment. 
It just maintains current law to move ahead with the process of 
necessary base closure.
  With regard to the previous statements made about BRAC math, GAO, 
CBO, the Department of Defense, and the Army Audit Agency have all 
concluded that prior rounds have indeed saved substantial sums of money 
and more savings are expected. But just as important is the 
realignment, the R in the BRAC. Our forces are currently going through 
readjustments as they come back home, as we are fighting a war. We need 
to give the authority to go ahead and do this process to enable more 
jointness and more effectiveness in crossing service lines.
  We also have to remember that both former-President Clinton and 
President Bush have supported moving ahead with another line of base 
closures. This is a bipartisan effort from both administrations.
  We also hear the argument that this is a difficult time to do this, 
that we are at war, that the military is under stress. But the world is 
not going to take a time-out for 3 or 4 years while we to this. That is 
not how the world works. It is time to move ahead with this. There is 
not going to be a perfect time to do it.
  I have great concerns about communities, as we all do. I do not see 
how another delay of 2 years, forcing these communities to be 
apprehensive about this, to hire more lobbyists, to be involved in this 
process for an additional 2 years, a prolongation of this process, how 
that helps communities. They probably are in as good shape now as they 
are ever going to be.
  The most important point I want to make is that this is a bipartisan 
effort that has gone on through multiple Secretaries of Defense from 
both Republican and Democratic administrations, from both President 
Clinton and President Bush. Now is not the time to delay another round 
of base closures.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) in his amendment before the 
Committee on Armed Services wanted six additional reports. The language 
in the Kennedy amendment retains those six reports. If his amendment 
passes, that would be added to the current base closure process.
  I encourage a vote of ``yes'' on the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to add anything to what the 
chairman said, but I have found over the years it has cost us more in 
many cases to close these bases than we have saved. But in this 
particular case, I think we have got a different problem. About a year 
ago, General Jones of NATO and the Supreme Allied Commander said to me, 
we will realign the troops in Europe. Secretary Rumsfeld not long ago 
spent some time talking to me about the realignment in Europe and in 
the United States. For us to start to look at base closing before they 
get the realignment done would be a real mistake. I think it would be 
counterproductive.
  In the first place, we do not know when these troops come back. We 
are

[[Page H3408]]

going to increase the size of the forces. We have already increased the 
Army by 30,000. They want to increase the brigades by about 25 percent. 
All those things have to be stationed someplace. Until they get the 
global strategy, the global footprints set up, I do not think there is 
any way we should make a decision like this.
  When it comes to savings, we spent in the Presidio, they talk about 
how much money we will save when we close the base. We spent $100 
million in cleaning up that base afterwards. In Southern California, we 
spent almost $100 million cleaning up the base.
  We have ammunition depots, ammunition targets where we spend. The 
Navy Yard in Philadelphia, they figure to clean it up it would cost $1 
billion. So it leaves a hole in Philadelphia where if you do not clean 
it up, you lose the jobs; and in addition to that you spend an awful 
lot of extra money.
  I think as all the chiefs say in the letter dated 18 November 2004, 
this is not the time to do a BRAC. Naturalization of our domestic 
infrastructure as conducted by BRAC must closely follow the global 
posture review. I agree with that. I would urge Members to vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Kennedy-
Snyder amendment. This is an area that is inherently controversial, but 
we have finally put a process in place that helps depoliticize it. The 
bill, in its current form, represents an unfortunate step backward.
  I want to speak to a point my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) 
raised because I have talked to him repeatedly about what I think is a 
scandal. We do not deal with the unexploded ordnance and the military 
clean-up. Yes, there will be some costs that are associated with base 
closures, but they are costs that are our responsibility now. If we did 
a better job of cleaning up after ourselves with the toxics, the 
unexploded ordnance and the pollution, we would save money in the long 
run and we would not have communities go ballistic. In fact, they would 
have a resource that could be recycled.
  Ultimately, we will have to pay the cost for the military clean-up. 
Delaying another round of BRAC is not going to save money; it is going 
to cost money. It is going to delay returning that land to productive 
use, and it is going to have us engage in politics that will be 
unseemly and very difficult.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
chairman, and I want to say that this debate is always very 
interesting; and I want to rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy-
Snyder amendment. I want to say as a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services that this was debated and discussed in the committee, and I do 
not remember anyone raising any opposition in the committee about this 
language that is in the bill today.
  I want to say also that I believe and disagree with the gentleman 
that just spoke that actually what this one year will do, this 1-year 
extension will make the process less political and make it more of a 
streamlined business process where the Congress can really analyze the 
needs, working with the military, the needs of our defenses. Because 
this world we live in is very unsafe, and I can say that we will not 
know until we analyze the needs overseas, the needs here in this 
country as to what we should do that will be the right decision for the 
American people and the future defense of America.
  Mr. Chairman, again I am in opposition to this amendment, and I hope 
that we can defeat it at the proper time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a Reserve member of 
the U.S. Navy.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, a base in my district was the poster child 
for the first base closings bill. People back home demanded that the 
base be saved, but it was closed and our civilian economy took off. 
Over $300 million was invested in that community by the new housing and 
activity at the closed base.
  We lost another base in the second base closings bill. New investment 
there was not $300 million; it was $800 million in new investment. Over 
20,000 soldiers are needed for the war on terror, but instead soldiers 
guard bases we do not need. We are at war, and it is time for the 
Congress to treat the military budget as a defense bill and not a jobs 
bill. Base closings save the taxpayer $1.7 billion and the next round 
will save $3 billion.
  This amendment supports the policy of President Bush, Secretary 
Rumsfeld, and Joint Chiefs Head General Myers. We need more beans and 
bullets for Americans in uniform, not pointless guard duty outside an 
empty building at a base that died long ago.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military 
Readiness which oversees base closures.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, this is a time to step back and see what is 
being done, to look at, like we say, the whole ball of wax.
  The base closure legislation was created back in 1989. We are now 
involved in two very serious wars. We are going to increase the troop 
level by 39,000 people. We have now begun to rely so much on the 
National Guard and Reserve. We have got 40,000 contractors all over the 
place.
  Is it not time to step back and look at what is happening? When the 
service Secretaries appear before us, we ask them, Which base do you 
want to close? They have yet to name one base.
  Savings? If there were so much savings, how come we have got a $419 
billion budget?
  Let us do the responsible thing and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy-
Snyder amendment. I urge its adoption.
  This debate we are having right now points up the importance of 
having a nonpolitical process. That is why the BRAC came about. That is 
why we have to stick to the schedule.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff representing all the chiefs 
want the Congress to continue the 2005 rounds of the base alignment and 
closures as authorized by Congress. They do not want us to leave this 
issue in because of the savings they want to accrue. This will be 
essential for the restructuring of the military forces. To delay all 
the efforts of the military, to accomplish this restructuring, to leave 
our bases and local communities in doubt for another 2 years is not 
doing either the military or the community any favor.
  Delaying the transformation of military bases overseas and at home, 
it ties the hands of our military at the same time they are fighting 
the war on terrorism.
  We owe it to our Armed Forces to give them the savings and the 
structuring reprocess that they need. I urge strong adoption of this 
amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House 
Committee on Armed Services, I stand in strong support of the BRAC 
provision in the committee report, and I oppose the Kennedy amendment 
because it is the wrong time. It sends the wrong message to our men and 
women in uniform to close bases at a time when we are at war. When this 
round of BRAC was signed, Congress had no idea that we would be 
fighting a war against terrorism, and our Armed Forces need our support 
now more than ever.
  My colleagues who offered this amendment have said we need it to save 
money. But the estimated cost to implement BRAC is somewhere between 10 
and $20 billion, and any savings would not be seen until after 2011. We 
are at war right now. Our men and women need the money now. And we are 
not even sure what those savings would be.
  The GAO report completed on Monday on the need for a BRAC found that 
while the potential exists for substantial savings from the upcoming 
round, it is difficult to conclusively project the expected magnitude 
of the savings because there are too many unknowns at this time.

[[Page H3409]]

  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and to support our men and 
women in uniform today. Vote ``no'' on the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the very distinguished member and 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, former Navy 
Reservist and Vietnam veteran.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment 
to delete the provision that would delay the BRAC process for 2 years.
  Some people say if you are for that you must not have any military 
bases in your district. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have 
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Fort Huachuca, the 162nd Fighter Wing of 
the Arizona Air National Guard which is the largest air guard unit in 
the United States, and the Western Army Aviation Training site near 
Marana. But I support the BRAC process in 2005 because I think the BRAC 
is good public policy.
  A delay in BRAC postpones a savings that would be gained from 
shuttering unneeded facilities. Clearly, we are wasting money on 
unneeded capacity. BRAC rounds conducted in 1988, 1991, and 1993, 1995 
closed 97 major installations, reducing DOD infrastructure by 21 
percent. But we have reduced the size of the military by 36 percent and 
DOD maintains it still has more than 23 percent excess infrastructure.
  Maintaining excess bases is very expensive. Closing unneeded bases 
produces long-term savings. It is a key component in the military 
transformation, and it reshapes the military to respond to new global 
missions.
  BRAC is good public policy. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment and to vote in favor of the underlying bill.
  I oppose any delay to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process 
and support the amendment offered by Representative Mark Kennedy of 
Minnesota.
  H.R. 4200 is an excellent bill. I commend Chairman Hunter, Ranking 
Member Skelton, the Members of the committee and the staff on both 
sides of the aisle. I am, however, opposed to the provision in H.R. 
4200 that delays the BRAC process for two years. We should not endanger 
H.R. 4200 to a possible Administration veto by retaining this 
provision.
  Some people may think I must not have any bases in my district if I 
support BRAC. Nothing could be further from the truth. My district is 
home to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base; Fort Huachuca; the 162nd Fighter 
Wing of the Arizona Air National Guard at Tucson Airport (the Nation's 
largest Air National Guard unit); and the Western Army Aviation 
Training Site near Marana. These bases are operationally interdependent 
with other Arizona bases, including Luke Air Force Base, Yuma Proving 
Grounds, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, and the Barry M. Goldwater 
Range. Arizona bases provide over 83,000 jobs and contribute over $5.6 
billion annually to the State's economy. Yet, I support the BRAC 
process in 2005 because BRAC is good public policy.
  A delay in BRAC postpones the savings to be gained from shuttering 
unneeded facilities. The Department of Defense (DoD) estimates that the 
2005 BRAC round will yield net savings of $21 billion over 10 years and 
$3.6 billion annually thereafter. A GAO study of BRAC dated just three 
days ago states, ``We believe the potential for significant savings 
exist,'' and ``We found no bases to question the [Defense] Secretary's 
certification of the need for an additional BRAC round. . . .'' These 
savings can be better spent elsewhere; for example, increasing 
soldiers' pay, improving health care for military families, modernizing 
equipment, or fixing buildings on the bases that are not closed.
  Clearly, DoD is wasting money on unneeded capacity. BRAC rounds 
conducted in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 closed 97 major installations, 
reducing DoD infrastructure by 21 percent. At the same time, however, 
the size of our military has declined by 36 percent. DoD maintains it 
still has approximately 23 percent excess infrastructure.
  Maintaining these excess bases is very expensive. We criticize DoD 
constantly for not being as efficient as a private sector corporation, 
but delaying BRAC would not allow the department of perform the most 
essential business management action of shedding unnecessary 
infrastructure.
  Closing unneeded bases produces long term savings. Previous BRAC 
rounds generated net savings--that is, savings after accounting for the 
cost of closure--of about $16.7 billion through fiscal year 2001 and 
about $6.6 billion in annual recurring savings expected 
thereafter. Failure to close unneeded facilities wastes taxpayer 
dollars and impedes DoD's efforts to allocate resources in the most 
effective manner. BRAC is a key component of transformation and is 
essential to reshape the military to respond to new global missions. 
BRAC helps realize significant savings by cutting excess infrastructure 
and enables the armed forces to maximize opportunities to train, deploy 
and fight jointly. Yesterday I received a copy of a letter supporting 
the 2005 BRAC round signed by the chairman and each of the joint chiefs 
of the military services.

  Some people argue we should not close bases while we are fighting a 
war and while we are uncertain of future force structure changes. I 
disagree. Excess bases are not needed for the war on terrorism; in 
fact, they waste scarce dollars needed for our battle against 
terrorists. Furthermore, the BRAC process will fully consider potential 
force structure growth, ``surge capacity,'' and repositioning of forces 
stationed overseas.
  In closing, I wish to impress upon my colleagues that delaying BRAC 
is not good public policy. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment and to vote in favor of the underlying bill.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the 
committee and to support the 2-year delay in the BRAC process and 
oppose the Kennedy amendment.
  Why? Number one, BRAC's estimated costs are $15 billion and savings 
are not expected to be realized until at least 2011. These funds can be 
better used to equip our Humvees or pay hazard duty pay for members of 
our military or any other function today in winning the war on terror.

                              {time}  1215

  Furthermore, the dynamics of the 2005 BRAC process are very different 
from previous rounds. There will not be a requisite force structure 
reduction as before. Our military will have to do the same or more in 
the future on a smaller footprint, with a smaller industrial base and 
with fewer critical assets. These assets cannot be reconstituted. BRAC 
will result in the permanent loss and knowledge of skills and 
industrial capacity.
  I urge my colleagues to support the committee and oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final minute to 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time, and I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment, and not easily.
  I think it is a very important amendment. This is a very important 
debate, but as we look at BRAC as we go into it, and I want to say also 
I have five military installations in my district. I think I have more 
military than any other Member of the House, I am not certain about 
that, but I am in there, we have got to let the Pentagon, we have got 
to let the Defense Department run the military.
  We cannot do it in Congress. This is not our job. We get involved in 
it. It is very, very important to support their efforts and work with 
them, but we also have other issues, Medicare, education, Social 
Security, taxes, that we have to delve into, and right now, we have a 
lot of Members delving into the military.
  BRAC was set up to be nonpolitical, to be fair. In our office, we 
work on military issues at our bases, not during BRAC years, but every 
single year. We work on issues of the cost return on the bases, 
environmental issues, encroachment issues, military construction 
issues, community support. We work with our military all the time.
  If Members of Congress want to help the bases in their districts, 
they need to be doing it year around, not just during an election year 
and on the eve of BRAC.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kennedy 
amendment and in support of the common-sense and consensus and 
bipartisan committee mark that wisely and reasonably and with common 
sense postpones the next round of BRAC for 2 years.
  This week, I went to Walter Reed Hospital, and I met with 
Mississippians who have been the victims of IEDs as they drove their 
Humvees, as they

[[Page H3410]]

served their country, and I asked this question: Do we want to spend $5 
billion more over the next 5 years to close bases or do we want to give 
the young men and women who are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq today 
the body armor and the Humvee armor that they need to protect 
themselves so that their legs and their ability to walk and to go 
through rehab will be avoided for other men and women? It is a clear 
choice of priorities.
  The world has changed since 9/11. BRAC was called for before 9/11. We 
are now at war; we need all resources for that effort. We need to 
wisely wait for the realignment internationally before we choose how to 
go forward with the transformation domestically. This is a wise course, 
a reasonable course for a 2-year delay.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out very quickly that the 
committee that works with this issue and struggles with it every day 
overwhelmingly supports the defeat of the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a very fine member of our committee.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution of the 
United States gives the elected Members of Congress the responsibility 
to provide for an Army and a Navy. Every person in this body was 
elected to fulfill those requirements.
  I did not come here to delegate my responsibility to some bureaucrat 
to decide where or when bases should be closed. If Members want to give 
away their responsibilities, they should not seek this job.
  For that reason, I encourage my colleagues to vote against the 
Kennedy amendment, to keep that responsibility here in Congress and to 
do our jobs.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr Chairman, what a horrifying message 
to send to our troops and to our adversaries right now to close bases 
during a time of war. It is not prudent to shut down these bases at 
this time. I support postponing BRAC until the defense needs of the 
nation are more settled than they are at present.
  Particularly during this time of economic crisis, we do not need to 
close bases. There should never have been any discussion about this in 
the first place. Base closures are devastating to communities. Our 
resources should be used to improve our current defense system, not for 
arbitrarily closing bases because of political decisions.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Representative Kennedy.
  Our nation is a war against terrorism; our military is deployed 
across the globe in 139 different countries with close to 160,000 
fighting in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Simultaneously, 
the Department of Defense is contemplating some of the most significant 
changes to its force and overseas posture since World War II. Now is 
not the time to rush to close our military bases. The responsible 
approach to base closing would be to delay the next round of BRAC until 
2007.
  By moving forward before resolving major infrastructure issues, a 
2005 BRAC decision would increase a significant level of risk that DOD 
will close a base only to discover that it needs that same base just a 
few years later. Once a base is closed, it's gone forever.
  The language as it stands now would not eliminate BRAC. Rather, it 
reflects widespread bipartisan concern that DOD should close no bases 
until several issues effecting base infrastructure requirements have 
been resolved and reviewed by Congress.
  During my time in Congress I have been focused on preparing Louisiana 
for BRAC, and have helped secure more than $76 million for Belle Chasse 
in New Orleans. As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations 
Subcommittee I vigorously worked to secure $160 million more for 
infrastructure improvement to protect both Fort Polk and Barksdale Air 
Force Base.
  I cannot underscore the importance of delaying the next round of 
BRAC. A 2-year delay will greatly reduce the risk of making an 
irreversible mistake in the BRAC process.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Kennedy Amendment 
to H.R. 4200.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I must rise to oppose this 
amendment. We are now increasing the number of troops because the U.S. 
military is stretched too thin to meet its ongoing military 
commitments. In recognition of this fact, H.R. 4200 authorizes the DOD 
to increase military end-strength by 39,000. In addition, the DOD 
recently announced that it is considering rotating 3,800 troops from 
South Korea to augment the U.S. forces in Iraq.
  DOD's estimate of the level of excess capacity that exists in 
military infrastructure was determined in 1998 by then Defense 
Secretary Bill Cohen. Many significant events that have occurred since 
1998, i.e. September 11, 2001, the global war on terrorism, and 
military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti. In pursuing the 
2005 BRAC, the DOD fails to recognize the profound impact that these 
events are having upon the United States military's ability to fulfill 
its national security obligations. Under Secretary of Defense for 
Installations and Facilities Raymond DuBois has stated that the 2005 
BRAC will cost the taxpayers between $10 billion to $20 billion over 
next 7 years. Savings, if any, are not expected until 2011. Those funds 
could be used now for the equipment needed by our military personnel. 
Important decisions affecting military force structure and 
infrastructure should not be left to an un-elected commission. Article 
1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution entrusts Congress with the 
responsibility to make these decisions.
  It is for these reasons that I oppose this amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, after careful consideration I have decided 
to support a 2-year delay in the BRAC process. Let me be clear that I 
remain a supporter of BRAC and my vote against this amendment is not a 
vote against base closures.
  BRAC plays a vital role in ensuring that we have a modern military 
that is prepared to fight the next war, not re-fight the last war. It 
is critically important that the tooth-to-tail ratio of the armed 
services be reduced, with unnecessary facilities eliminated and 
resources directed to where they will be most effective in fighting the 
war on terror. However, I believe there are several reasons why a stay 
in the process would be the most sensible course at this time.
  First, our military forces are currently stretched to the limit as 
they fight the war on terror on more than one front. We have asked our 
forces to fight a global war and they have risen to the occasion and 
performed admirably. But as they fight the global war on terrorism, 
they are encountering uncertain circumstances and unforeseen obstacles. 
The real-time lessons that we are learning in the war on terror will 
help the BRAC determine what our military priorities should be in the 
future.
  The BRAC law was adopted before September 11, 2001. The terrorists 
attacks on this country significantly altered U.S. national security 
priorities. Our armed forces are responding to these new demands, but I 
am afraid that if BRAC moves forward with the next round of base 
closures as planned, it will be during a period when the U.S. military 
is undergoing critical changes in tactics and organization. As a 
result, any reduction will be done without knowing what kind of base 
structure will be needed in the future.
  Second, I am extremely concerned by the way this Administration is 
funding the war in Iraq and the global war on terror. This President 
has funded the entire Iraq war by supplemental and, by all accounts, he 
plans to continue funding in this manner in the future. The funding-by-
supplemental-only process prevents Congress from determining the exact 
costs of the war. It also makes it impossible for Congress to 
determine, by proper oversight, whether the President's priorities are 
the right priorities for our military to win the war on terror. If 
Congress has difficulty determining what our armed forces' needs and 
requirements are, the next round of BRAC commissioners will find it 
even more difficult to decide which facilities are vital to winning the 
war on terror.
  I am also concerned that the current BRAC guidelines do not 
accurately reflect the military's priorities for fighting the next war. 
For instance, the BRAC guidelines should include recognition of the 
value of intellectual capital and the synergy between the skilled 
civilian workers in various communities. Especially the critically 
important roles and missions the civilian workers support at our 
military bases.
  In the post-9/11 environment, I would like to see the BRAC guidelines 
broaden the concept of joint operations to include base functions and 
installations currently or potentially critical to the Department of 
Homeland Security. BRAC should also consider the costs of base closures 
as they relate to finding new sources for supplies and professional 
expertise at military bases.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the disproportionate 
contribution California has already made to the streamlining of the 
military's base infrastructure. Obviously, no state wants to have bases 
closed. Bases mean jobs and increased income for states and local 
municipalities. In the past BRAC rounds, California has experienced 29 
base closures, including the closure of Ft. Ord--the largest closure in 
history. This is a factor that should be considered in the next round 
of closures.
  For all of these reasons, I believe it would be prudent for Congress 
to postpone the next round of BRAC to allow for a study of the needs of 
our post-9/11 military and the guidelines that best reflect those 
priorities.

[[Page H3411]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 
15-minute vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Kennedy) will be followed by 5-minute votes on amendment No. 4, 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and amendment 
No. 14, offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) as the 
designee of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 259, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                               AYES--162

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     English
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     Miller (NC)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--259

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nunes
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Ballance
     Beauprez
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Deutsch
     Dooley (CA)
     Fattah
     Johnson, Sam
     Leach
     Matsui
     Norwood
     Tauzin


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1246

  Messrs. TURNER of Ohio, FARR, STUPAK, PLATTS, NADLER, EVERETT, OWENS, 
and HALL, Ms. KILPATRICK, and Messrs. RYUN of Kansas, BASS, SULLIVAN 
and TIAHRT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. OBERSTAR, SMITH of Washington, ROHRABACHER, OBEY, GOODE, Ms. 
McCOLLUM, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. RUSH and Mr. WAXMAN 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
   Stated for:
   Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, on May 20, 2004, during rollcall vote 200, 
I was unavoidably detained. If I had been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall vote 200.
   Stated against:
   Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 200, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
   Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote 200, regarding the Mark 
Kennedy Amendment to H.R. 4200, the Department of Defense Authorization 
bill, I inadvertently voted ``yea'', but intended to vote ``nay''. I 
ask for unanimous consent that the Record reflect my intentions to have 
voted ``nay'' and that I can place a statement in the Record at the 
appropriate place.

                          ____________________