[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.
____________________