[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10584-S10586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE 2005 BRAC PROCESS
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Base Realignment
and Closure, or BRAC, process that occurred this year. I have always
voted to authorize base closure rounds in deference to the Department
of Defense's stated need to restructure our military facilities to meet
current and future needs. Nevertheless, the ceding of significant
authority by Congress to an independent commission is an extraordinary
step that should not be undertaken frequently or lightly. When Congress
does lend its power to an independent commission, we retain the
responsibility to closely monitor the commission's deliberations and
actions. I have done so with respect to the 2005 BRAC Commission,
naturally paying the closest attention to the issues before the
Commission that affect Iowans.
My observation of the Commission's final deliberations raised some
concerns about the information and reasoning used in making its
decisions. I followed up with a letter to the Commission to clarify
these concerns and have recently received a response that did nothing
to allay my concerns. As a result, I have now concluded that I do not
have full confidence that this was a thorough and fair process.
A joint resolution to disapprove the 2005 BRAC recommendations has
been introduced in the House and has just been marked up by the House
Armed Services Committee. It will now be considered under expedited
procedures. I would urge my colleagues in the House to approve this
resolution. Obviously, if this resolution is not approved by the House,
Senate action will be meaningless. But, if the Senate does take up such
a resolution, I will vote to disapprove the 2005 BRAC recommendations.
The BRAC Commission is charged with reviewing the recommendations of
the Department of Defense and altering those recommendations if they
are found to deviate substantially from the BRAC criteria. On that
basis, the Quad Cities community in Iowa and Illinois challenged some
recommendations for the Rock Island Arsenal and did not challenge
others.
One issue on which I thought we had a clear-cut case of a substantial
deviation of the BRAC criteria was the proposed move of the U.S. Army
Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, or TACOM, organization at the
Rock Island Arsenal to the Detroit Arsenal. This proposal was
essentially a footnote to a consolidation of what is called inventory
control point functions from 11 separate organizations around the
country that would now report to the Defense Logistics Agency. The
consolidation of inventory control point functions would affect 52
people at TACOM Rock Island and was not challenged by the community.
However, the DOD recommendation then, puzzlingly, proposed to move the
rest of the approximately 1,000 employees of TACOM Rock Island to the
TACOM Headquarters at the Detroit Arsenal in Michigan.
The facilities at the Detroit Arsenal are already strained to
capacity. The base is encroached on all sides and has no room to grow.
In fact, the Detroit Arsenal is rated far lower in military value than
the Rock Island Arsenal. Moving in 1,000 new employees will require
major military construction. That includes building two parking garages
to replace the already limited parking space that would be used up.
What's more, because of higher locality pay in the area, it will cost
significantly more in the long term to pay those employees at the new
location. You also lose some unique facilities currently used by TACOM
Rock Island, like a machine shop and live fire range. In addition,
there will be no space to house the outside contractors currently
embedded with TACOM Rock Island, who would also need to move but aren't
counted in the BRAC data.
The Quad Cities community challenged this proposed move on the basis
of military value, and the enormous costs both up front and in the long
run. In fact, the move would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars
more out into the future. This point was made clear when Commissioner
Skinner visited the Rock Island Arsenal. It featured prominently in my
testimony before three BRAC Commissioners at the regional hearing in
St. Louis. My colleagues, Senators Durbin, Obama, and Harkin and
Representative Evans also made this point at the regional hearing. This
was followed by a detailed presentation by community representatives.
Members of our bistate congressional delegation reinforced this point
in follow-up phone calls to commissioners. Finally, community
representatives and congressional staff met with the BRAC Commission
staff to make sure they knew about the costs.
When it came time for the final deliberations, the Commission
considered the TACOM move with the consolidation of inventory control
point functions. I question this approach to start with since the TACOM
move was completely unrelated to the other moves in the recommendation.
It was obvious by Commissioner Skinner's questions to the BRAC staff
that considering these unrelated moves in one recommendation confused
the commissioners. Commissioner Skinner asked twice how the move being
considered would affect another move from the Rock Island Arsenal to
the Detroit Arsenal that he believed would be considered separately. He
had to be corrected twice by staff who explained that it was all part
of one recommendation.
[[Page S10585]]
Furthermore, despite all the briefings from the community, the BRAC
staff presented a summary of the community's concerns that omitted the
critical issue of the long-term costs of the move. The summary's only
reference to cost was a relatively minor concern that the number of
positions to move were underestimated. When Commissioner Skinner asked
how increased estimates of the military construction costs at the
Detroit Arsenal would affect the payback, the BRAC staff responded that
``Payback with the new scenario, new MILCON, is $1.8 billion savings
over 20 years, still a large savings.'' However, that figure refers to
the entire recommendation package, not just the otherwise unrelated
TACOM move. I believe that response by the BRAC staff was
intellectually dishonest and misleading.
The disturbing fact is that the TACOM move will actually squander
$128.23 in taxpayer money. I pointed out this problem in a message
delivered to Commissioner Skinner before the Commission's final vote on
the BRAC report, but no action was taken. Only after the final vote has
the Commission admitted to me in a letter that the TACOM move, taken by
itself, would cost $128.23 million over the 20 year time frame used in
their estimate. The Commission's letter also confirmed that the
Commissioners were never briefed about the cost of the TACOM move
by itself.
In its response to me, the BRAC Commission continued to justify
considering the cost of the TACOM move in terms of the net present
value of the entire recommendation. However, in reference to another
portion of the same recommendation regarding a cryptological unit at
Lackland Air Force Base, the slide used by the BRAC staff for its
presentation read, ``The extent and timing of potential costs outweigh
potential savings with no payback of investment.'' The same could have
been said about the TACOM portion of the recommendation. The Commission
then voted to overturn the portion of the recommendation to realign
Lackland Air Force Base. In this case, the Commission did consider one
portion of the larger recommendation separately, including a staff
analysis of the payback for just that portion of the recommendation,
and voted to overturn that component of the larger recommendation. The
Commission's justification for its failure to do so with respect to the
TACOM portion of that recommendation therefore falls flat.
In fact, there is evidence that the selective presentation of facts
by the BRAC staff resulted in Commissioners misunderstanding the issue
when voting. In justifying his decision on the TACOM move in an
interview with the Rock Island Argus, Commissioner Skinner said of the
BRAC staff's analysis, ``They said there's still significant payback by
doing that and that was the major objection that they (the community)
had.'' Commissioner Skinner should have known the most about this
proposed move from his site visits to both the Rock Island Arsenal and
the Detroit Arsenal, but his statement is inaccurate. It seems clear
from this quote that he was misled by relying on the faulty
presentation by the BRAC staff.
Of course, while cost is a major consideration in BRAC, it is not the
only consideration. Still, if a recommendation contains significant
costs, like the TACOM move, there must be a very compelling case for an
increase in military value to justify the costs. In this case, I think
it is clear that more is lost in terms of military value than is
gained. Moreover, the Commission never got to this point since the BRAC
staff represented that the move was justified based on cost.
I don't believe that DOD made this recommendation based on a
conclusion that consolidating TACOM in one location would increase
military value in the first place. Several smaller components of TACOM
in other locations were not proposed for consolidation. Still, if there
was a compelling case for merging the two TACOM organizations together,
then why wasn't the Rock Island Arsenal considered as a receiving site?
The Rock Island Arsenal could accommodate all the personnel at Detroit
Arsenal without major military construction, possibly even allowing
Detroit Arsenal to be closed entirely. The Rock Island Arsenal was
never considered as a receiving installation by DOD since it was
assumed to be closing during much of DOD's internal BRAC process.
In fact, the preliminary assumption that the Rock Island Arsenal
would close is why it was not considered as a receiving site for the
consolidation of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service,
Installation Management Agency, and Civilian Personnel Operations
Center. In the case of the Civilian Personnel Operations Center, the
BRAC staffer who presented this issue to the Commission pointed out
that this was not fair and equal treatment, which is a violation of the
BRAC rules. The Commission then voted to overturn the recommendation
based on the fairness issue. I asked the BRAC Commission to answer why
this same logic did not apply to their actions in each of these areas.
The response stated that each recommendation was developed and briefed
separately by DOD supporting different initiatives. This does not
answer my question as to why the Commission did not overturn each of
these recommendations on the basis of fairness as they did, rightly,
with the Civilian Personnel Operations Center.
For instance, like the Civilian Personnel Operations Center at the
Rock Island Arsenal, the Defense Finance and Accounting site was ranked
No. 1 in military value of all such sites. Given the low labor costs
and room to expand, it would be an ideal location to which to
consolidate other sites if it were given fair and equal consideration.
The Commission even questioned the sites chosen by DOD as receiving
sites based on higher costs and lower value. Yet, in the end, the
Commission chose to rearrange the sites to receive the consolidation
and keep open two smaller sites with lower value than Rock Island. At a
minimum, the Commission should have voted to keep open the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service at the Rock Island Arsenal based on the
same fairness consideration as the Civilian Personnel Operations
Center. Ideally, it should have chosen the Rock Island Arsenal as a
receiving site.
I knew going into this BRAC process that the Rock Island Arsenal
could lose jobs. In fact, I am relieved that DOD did not recommend full
closure as first contemplated. Moreover, as I testified before the BRAC
Commission, if it was determined that an organization would be more
efficient and less expensive somewhere else, then I could have lived
with that. On this basis, I was even prepared for the BRAC Commission
to disagree with my assessment about the proposals for the Rock Island
Arsenal that I didn't think made any sense.
However, what I saw in the BRAC Commission's final deliberations took
me by surprise. The Commission did not refute the concerns raised by
the community. No evidence was produced that the TACOM move made
economic sense or would be more efficient. Instead, the staff gave a
misleading presentation that gave the impression that the move made
economic sense when it did not, based on the data used by the
Commission. That doesn't mean I absolve the Commissioners from
responsibility in this either. Four of them had seen a presentation by
the community and all of them had been contacted by Members of
Congress. They had a responsibility to challenge the staff when the
staff analysis didn't match what they had heard previously. In this
respect, both the BRAC staff and the Commissioners failed in their
responsibilities. In the end, what I have seen has caused me to lose
confidence in the work of the BRAC Commission. As a result, I cannot
endorse their final product.
I ask unanimous consent to have the Rock Island Argus article to
which I referred printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Skinner: Arsenal Dodged a Bullet
(By Edward Felker)
Washington--BRAC Commissioner Samuel K. Skinner on Thursday
said the Rock Island Arsenal ``dodged a major bullet'' in the
base closing process by losing jobs but not closing
completely.
During a brief interview, Mr. Skinner, who visited the
Arsenal on behalf of the commission, defended the panel's
vote to send 1,129 Quad-Cities jobs to the Detroit Arsenal.
The panel approved the move despite protests that the
transfer will cost too much and not further Army integration.
Mr. Skinner said that he looked into arguments that the
Detroit Arsenal did not have
[[Page S10586]]
the space for the incoming workers, but was satisfied that
additional construction costs will not hamper expected
savings to the taxpayers.
``They said there's still significant payback by doing
that,'' he said of the BRAC staff's review of the move, ``and
that was the major objection that they had.''
He said the commission felt it was only fair to keep open
the Arsenal's 251-job Civilian Personnel Office and Civilian
Human Resource Agency. It was originally slated to move to
Fort Riley, Kan., as part of a sweeping consolidation of
defense personnel offices.
But Mr. Skinner urged the panel to delete it because it was
targeted as part of a complete closure of the Rock Island
Arsenal, and the move was never re-examined after the
Pentagon decided to keep the Arsenal open.
``They had no chance to be heard, it wasn't even
considered, and on that basis it wasn't fair. So we got a
little life,'' Mr. Skinner said.
He also defended the closure of the Arsenal's 301-job
Defense Finance and Accounting Service office. The commission
voted to keep other offices open that the Pentagon targeted
for closure, but Mr. Skinner said they were on bases of
higher military and had the worst economic closure impact
among DFAS locations.
He said the overall result for the Arsenal was better than
it could have been. ``They dodged a major bullet. Not
perfect, but it could have been a lot worse.''
____________________