[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 139 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9289-H9293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND
REALIGNMENT COMMISSION
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 2908(d) of Public Law
101-510, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res 65) disapproving the recommendations of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The motion was agreed to.
{time} 1055
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 consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 65) disapproving the recommendations of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, with Mr. Gingrey in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
By unanimous consent, the joint resolution was considered read the
first time.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 2908(d) of Public Law 101-510,
debate shall not exceed 2 hours.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) will be recognized for 1
hour in opposition to the joint resolution and a Member in favor of the
joint resolution will be recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the 1 hour in support
of the resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) will be
recognized for 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed
to control that time. I also ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
designate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) as controlling our
time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, tonight marks the end of a long and difficult process
for selecting military installations for closure and realignment.
Under BRAC law, the realignment and closure recommendations by the
BRAC 2005 Commission will become binding, unless a joint resolution of
disapproval, such as the one before us today, is enacted.
For those of us with military installations in our districts, the
BRAC process is a trying one. And I might mention we have had four BRAC
rounds previous to this one. Every one of us spent the last 4 years
making a case to the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission with respect to
the military value of our bases. Nevertheless, both DOD and the BRAC
Commission have determined that a portion of our military
infrastructure should be closed or realigned.
As a result, the final recommendations of the Commission include 22
closures that we would designate as major closures, 33 major
realignments, and many smaller closure and realignment actions.
According to the Commission, these actions will save more than $15
billion over the next two decades with annual savings of more than $2.5
billion after implementation.
Some of my colleagues have questioned the need for a round of BRAC
and the timing of this round. While I understand and appreciate such
concerns, I believe that these issues have been thoroughly discussed
and debated. In addition, by a vote of 43 to 14, the Armed Services
Committee reported this resolution adversely to the House with a
recommendation that it do not pass. As such, I intend to vote against
House Joint Resolution 65 today, thereby allowing the BRAC Commission
recommendations to stand, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in
doing so.
On a final note, I would like to thank the BRAC Commissioners for
their service. Since their appointments this spring, the Commissioners
visited more than 170 installations, conducted 20 regional hearings and
20 deliberative hearings, and participated in hundreds of meetings with
public officials. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would particularly like to
thank the chairman of the Commission, Anthony J. Principi. Tony
Principi took on another tough one in chairing this BRAC Commission. It
is a commission in which you get beaten up lots of times, second-
guessed a lot, and cross-examined a lot. Yet, it is a necessary
position, and it is one that requires a guy or a lady with a lot of
integrity. Chairman Principi is just such a person.
Also, we had on our committee two former members of the Armed
Services Committee who were on the BRAC Commission, Jim Bilbray and Jim
Hansen, and Mr. Chairman, they have served us well as senior statesmen
in
[[Page H9290]]
again what amounted to very, very difficult roles.
{time} 1100
I would like to acknowledge the good work of all of the
commissioners. It is not an easy job and it is, to some degree, a very
thankless job. Nonetheless, it is necessary and they put a lot of time
and a lot of sweat into this process. So I want to thank them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, the reason that I introduced this
resolution is because I feel very strongly that we are in a position in
the House to send a very strong message of support to those who are
doing the hard work in Iraq, those who have done the hard work in
Afghanistan, and those men and women who we call our citizen soldiers,
and a big debt of thanks for what they have been doing in the work that
we have asked them to do.
I have been a very strong supporter of the President's position when
we went to Afghanistan because I thought we needed to bring down al
Qaeda. And no politician can take credit for what has taken place in
Afghanistan. It has been done by the hardworking men and women who
brought down al Qaeda and the 25,000 troops that are still there.
And no politician can take credit for what has taken place in Iraq. I
supported the resolution to go to Iraq. I have supported President Bush
on every request that he has made before this House for the money to
support our troops, and now we have more than 135,000 troops and many
men and women working in the State Department and the embassy there
trying to help stand up a democracy, help stand up a police force, and
help bring about democracy in Iraq.
If we go along with the BRAC Commission recommendations, what we say
to those hardworking men and women who have done the work that we have
asked them to do is that we are thinking about, not thinking about, the
BRAC recommendations would close the bases, close some of the guard
bases, say to the citizen soldiers who have done the hard work, thanks,
but we don't need you any longer.
This is the wrong message to be sending. These hardworking men and
women have done the job that we asked them to do, and that is the
reason that we have seen such great success in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
So I ask Members today to support this resolution and send a message to
those who have done the hard work that these BRAC recommendations are
not the right approach.
When the establishment of the BRAC came about, it was prior to 9/11.
It was prior to going into Afghanistan, prior to going into Iraq, and
prior to us asking our men and women, the citizen soldiers and the
full-time military, to do the hard work that they are doing. This sends
the wrong message. This is not the message that we want to send to
those that are there, that the Guard bases and the air bases and the
military bases that are being recommended for closure or realignment
were not right.
When we are spending the kind of money that we are spending, we are
not saving an awful lot through these BRAC recommendations. I would
submit to the House that if 9/11 had happened prior to us passing this
BRAC, that BRAC would not have passed, we would not have established a
commission, because we would need a very strong military and we would
need these Guard bases.
I also want to point out to the House that there is a Federal law
that has been ignored by BRAC and ignored by the Defense Department. It
is a Federal law that says you cannot close air and Guard Reserve bases
without the authority of the Governor of the State, and this has been
ignored.
It was ignored by BRAC, and it was ignored by the Defense Department.
I think it is a law that has standing, and I think it is a law that
makes an awful lot of sense. The Governors should have a say in what
bases are closed. But it was a law that was ignored. So I say to those
in the House that today is not the day to send the kind of message that
we will be sending if we do not approve the resolution that was
considered by the Armed Services Committee and being considered here
today. We need to pass this resolution.
If we pass the resolution, we do send a strong message to our citizen
soldiers and to the military that the work that they are doing is
important, that the Guard bases that they represent, that the air bases
that they represent are important, and that our citizen soldiers have
done the good work.
There is going to be another report coming from the Defense
Department about realigning and about the kind of defenses that our
country wants. We do not know what that report will say, but I think it
is another indication that the BRAC is premature. I know what the
chairman said about those who served on the BRAC, but I am not sure
that we were quite as well served by some of those members as we could
have been in some of their deliberations.
These are people that were called upon to do very difficult work.
They have completed their work, and now it is up to Congress to speak.
The Defense Department has spoken. BRAC has spoken. The President has
spoken. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is up to the House to speak today.
I urge the House to adopt this resolution in support of those that
have done the hard work, in support of those who are citizen soldiers
who come from the communities that we represent and say to them, we
thank you for your hard work. We thank you for what you have done. We
thank you for bringing down al Qaeda. We thank you for helping stand up
a democracy in Iraq, and we are not going to eliminate the bases from
which you come or realign them.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer H.J. Res. 65, a resolution that I
introduced that would disapprove the recommendations of the 2005
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
As I have stated many times since this BRAC round began, it is
absolutely wrong that we are considering closing and realigning bases
while we are at war. We in Congress spend quite a bit of time
proclaiming that we are doing all we can to care for our troops.
Spending billions of dollars closing and realigning bases isn't caring
for our troops--it's just plain wrong.
Congress created the BRAC process so that there would be a non-
partisan, independent method of reviewing our military's post-Cold War
excess infrastructure. Unfortunately, we live in a different world
today and we face challenges that we, as a nation, couldn't even
imagine in the late 1980s. There is no more ``peacetime dividend'' to
be gained from closing bases. The Global War on Terrorism has reached
deep into our military structure and showed us that we can no longer
ask our military to do more with less.
This BRAC Commission was asked to do a very difficult task in a very
uncertain environment. Early next year the Department of Defense will
issue its latest Quadrennial Defense Review, a document that will
outline the future structure of our military as they continue their
fight against terror. We do not know what the QDR will contain, and
what sort of infrastructure will be required to support it. We are also
waiting to hear the plan for bringing as many as 70,000 troops and
their families home from Europe and Asia as the Department reduces its
Cold War footprint overseas. We do not know what that plan will
contain, either, but those 70,000 people and their dependents will have
to live and work somewhere. The BRAC Commission noted in its report to
the President that the timing of this BRAC round was not ideal because
of all of the uncertainty surrounding these upcoming major events. Even
the most well-intentioned decisions, if they are made without taking
all of the facts into account, can end up hurting those we say we are
trying to help.
The list of recommendations that were released by the Department of
Defense on May 13 contained more proposed actions than all previous
BRAC rounds combined. In its report to the President, the BRAC
Commission was very critical of the Department's methods. The Pentagon
lumped together unrelated activities into one recommendation, leaving a
mess for the Commission to try to untangle. The DoD proposed the
consolidation of many jobs and commands that had similar names, even if
they did not have the same missions. There was apparently no
interaction between the Pentagon and other federal agencies that share
assets and installation space, such as the Department of Veterans
Affairs and the United States Coast Guard, agencies that could be now
left in serious financial straits if the burden of maintaining these
facilities falls completely on them. And, most striking of all, there
was very little cooperation and interaction between the Pentagon and
the Department of Homeland Security. How can we feel
[[Page H9291]]
secure in voting on these recommendations without knowing the full
impact they will have on our homeland security? These bases are not
simply staging areas before our military goes to fight overseas. Our
military is vital to securing our homeland. We cannot make it more
difficult for them to achieve that mission.
The one aspect of this year's BRAC round that brought this issue home
to many of my colleagues was the inclusion of Air National Guard bases.
I am proud to say that I represent 2 flying units of the Illinois Air
National Guard in my district, and I have seen first-hand the vital
roles they play in our nation's defense. We ask our Guard to make
extraordinary sacrifices and become masters of a wide range of issues,
from fighting against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan to rescuing
victims and providing relief to those who are impacted by natural
disasters here at home. They do so willing and heroically, leaving
behind their families and their jobs as soon as they get the call.
These Guard units, under the purview of the governors of the states,
are now being closed or ``enclaved'' without the consent of the
governors and without proper consultation of the State Adjutants
General. This is how we support those who serve both their states and
the federal government? These men and women are not going to uproot
their entire lives to follow their units to other states. We will lose
them, their knowledge, and their expertise. This is a price we cannot
afford to pay.
Title 10 of the United States Code prohibits the closure or
relocation of Army and Air National Guard units without the consent of
the governors of the states in which those units are located. A number
of governors have gone on record and refused to give their consent for
the movement of their National Guard units. Many states have filed
lawsuits in federal court demanding that the Pentagon and the BRAC
Commission follow federal law. The Speaker, Senator Durbin and I
brought this provision to the attention of the Secretary of Defense in
a letter dated March 24. To date, the Pentagon still has not been able
to answer that letter. On July 14, the BRAC Commission's own Deputy
General Counsel issued an opinion that not only are the proposed Air
Guard moves in violation of federal law, they may be unconstitutional.
The Commission ignored its own lawyer! This BRAC round is going to
leave us with flying units that no longer have planes, and for what
reason? These Air Guard moves do not save money. They will weaken the
Air Guard in many states and make recruiting and retention of these
dedicated Airmen next to impossible. Not only is this wrong, it is
illegal, a clear violation of Title 10 of the United States Code.
Lawsuits are still pending.
Much has been said about the proposed ``savings'' if this round of
BRAC is enacted. A figure of $35 billion in savings over 20 years seems
to be popular in the media. However, this $35 billion figure includes
assumed personnel cost savings; savings that both the BRAC Commission
and the GAO have stated should not be included. Once those personnel
savings are removed, the total savings falls to approximately $15.1
billion over the next 20 years. We cannot forget that this round of
BRAC will cost $21 billion to enact. That kind of math simply does not
make sense.
This round of BRAC has strayed far from Congress' original intent. We
aren't reducing excess infrastructure to save money. This BRAC is the
beginning of implementing major force structure changes without the
consultation of Congress. Sweeping changes like this require more than
just one up or down vote.
I have heard a number of my colleagues state that they will support
this round of BRAC even though they do not agree with it, simply
because this is the process that Congress established. This is not
something we can close our eyes and blindly support. We are a nation at
war, the timing is wrong, the savings are not there, and Guard units
are being moved out of their states in violation of federal law. The
process did not work this time, and we need to stand up and say
``Stop''.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have long supported the base closure process as a way
to eliminate excess infrastructure in the Department of Defense. This
is an important and very noble goal. We need all of our resources to be
devoted towards supporting our fighting men and women. This includes
having the best and most efficient facilities.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I will today vote to uphold the list
recommended by the BRAC Commission and against the resolution of
disapproval.
Even though I support the BRAC, I would like to take this opportunity
to comment on the process that was used in this round of BRAC. In the
last three BRAC rounds, the Defense Department demonstrated that it
could successfully close bases and reduce infrastructure through a
measured and deliberative process.
In this round, however, neither the Department of Defense nor the
BRAC Commission, in my opinion, has lived up to the high standards that
we set for them. The execution of the process and the final outcome has
suffered. The end result is that I doubt we will see another round of
base closures due to missteps along the way.
This is it, Mr. Chairman. This is it for BRAC. But even with the BRAC
shortfalls, I feel that the Congress created a law that we are
obligated to follow. While it missed some opportunities, the commission
made some closures that will benefit the Nation. There are some
outstanding prospects for jointness included on the list.
I sincerely hope that the Department of Defense will work to maximize
their effect, while it works to assist communities that will be
affected by closures with redevelopment.
Mr. Chairman, we must vote upon the product that is before us and the
good that it can do. This BRAC may not be perfect, but we must take the
opportunity presented to us to streamline our military infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member
Skelton in opposing House Joint Resolution 65.
I was not a fan of us doing this BRAC round. The gentleman from
Illinois said that if 9/11 had happened before the approval of this
round, we probably would not have had a BRAC round. But the truth is
that we have reaffirmed this BRAC round time and time again since 9/11.
Each year I would offer an amendment in the Armed Services Committee
to put off the BRAC for many of the reasons that the gentleman from
Illinois has stated: to put off the BRAC for 2 years until we could see
where we are about bringing troops home, to see where we are on our war
against terror.
Each time it would pass overwhelmingly in committee, it would pass
overwhelmingly in this House, and we would be shot down in the
conference committee by the Senate and the White House. We lost that
battle. That would have been my choice.
But once we have gone through this process, I think we should proceed
with it at this point. Just 5 months ago, the House voted down an
amendment that would have delayed BRAC, the 2005 BRAC, indefinitely. I
argued then, as I do today, that we must allow the BRAC process at this
point to run its course.
As it turned out, that course took several unexpected twists and
turns along the way. On the positive side, the BRAC Commission removed
several significant bases from the closure list. In doing so, they
validated our belief that our military should not give up the ability
to surge to meet future crises in times of war and peace, allowing this
ability that is fundamental to our Nation's security.
On the negative side, the commission's actions on some issues like
the commission's directive relating to the Naval Air Station Oceana,
for example, raise a number of questions about the credibility
underlying the BRAC process.
Considering that credibility is the foundation upon which BRAC is
built, such questions are troubling. While I do not believe the BRAC
2005 outcome to be sufficiently flawed to vote to disapprove it, I have
reached the conclusion that any future use of the existing BRAC laws to
close or realign bases would be a mistake.
In balance, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this may have been the best
BRAC process that we have had in all of the BRAC processes we have had.
There are problems with it. It has never been perfect. It was not
perfect this time. But I think it was perhaps the smoothest and best
process that we have had.
To those of my colleagues who still may be on the fence about today's
vote, I would point out that disapproval of the BRAC 2005
recommendations would guarantee yet another round of base closures in
the very near future.
Bases on today's closure list would likely appear again on the future
list. And those bases that escaped closure
[[Page H9292]]
this time would again be at risk of closure or realignment. Whether or
not you support any given closure or realignment within BRAC 2005, I
hope that all of my colleagues will recognize that the alternative,
which is another round of BRAC in the near future, would be even worse.
My friends, I do not want to go through this again. Any of us who
represent bases across this Nation do not want to continually go
through this kind of agony. For all of these reasons, I will vote
against H.J. Res. 65 and vote to allow the BRAC process to run its
course.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me just speak for a minute or two. I
thought there were going to be some other Members that wanted to speak
in favor of the resolution; but until they arrive, let me just talk for
a minute or two about some of the costs.
The BRAC Commission estimated that $35 billion would be saved over a
20-year period, but the $35 billion figure includes assumed cost
savings due to military personnel actions. Both the BRAC Commission and
the GAO believe the military personnel savings should be excluded from
the overall savings figure.
Once those personnel savings are removed, the overall savings fall to
approximately $15 billion over 20 years. There is a one-time up-front
cost of $21 billion to implement the BRAC round, and the DOD claimed
that the savings from military personnel are not savings at all. These
costs do not disappear; they simply shift from one base to another, and
those folks are still in the military, and we still have to pay for
them.
For some Air Force recommendations, the military personnel cost
savings represents 90 percent of the total savings. And in the case of
the Air National Guard end strength, it remained mostly the same.
Obviously, no savings come from simply moving positions around the
country.
If we keep the same number of personnel, DOD spending levels will not
actually be reduced. The BRAC Commission concludes that DOD savings
estimates were vastly overstated and overestimated. And there is also a
quote from the commission on page 330 of their report: ``In fact, the
commission is concerned that there is a likelihood that the 2005 BRAC
round could produce only marginal net savings over the 20-year
period.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1115
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my two very good
friends, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for yielding me time, and I thank the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for bringing forth this
resolution, which I support because it is a resolution of disapproval.
Now, you should know where I am coming from, Mr. Speaker. In my
congressional district there are almost 23,000 people being displaced
because of BRAC. It is the equivalent of four major military bases. But
we could accept that, and Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, has said as well we can accept that
decision, but for the fact that it is inconsistent with the BRAC
authorizing legislation which was designed to save money and to improve
military effectiveness. It does neither.
Initially, its was supposed to save $48.8 billion over 20 years. The
latest analysis tells us that it is actually going to save only $15.1
billion over 20 years, about $700 million per year, which,
incidentally, is about as much as we spend in a day in Iraq now.
So the question is, why we would be disrupting the lives of so many
thousands of people if we are going to save so little money. And, in
fact, even this savings estimate is suspect because as the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has explained, it is based upon personnel
savings, and all we are doing is moving the personnel around the
country. That does not save any money.
In fact, what is going to happen based upon the surveys we have taken
of the personnel that are going to be displaced from northern Virginia,
as many as 50-75 percent of the employees are going to decide not to
move, to leave the government. And who are these people?
Well, it turns out they are the most experienced, they are the most
skilled, they are the very people that we need the most to lead our
defense agencies. In other words, this is going to cause a brain drain,
and it is one that we can ill afford at the Federal level. As many of
you may know, because it applies to most urban metropolitan areas, with
the cost of housing, both spouses have to be in the workforce, and it
is very disruptive to tell families that one of the wage-earners has to
move hundreds of miles away.
In this case, the Missile Defense Agency is a good example. About 2-
to 3,000 people are going to be moving down to Alabama. Now, I like
Alabama, I like the gentleman who represents that district, but the
reality is not all of them are going to move, because they like our
schools, their children are in the school system, their spouses have
jobs here, and most of them have security clearances, which means they
are going to be picked up by the private sector in a New York minute.
Is this in the national interest? I do not think so. I do not think
it is in the national interest. I could see if we were going to save
the money. I could see if we were going to follow the intent of the
BRAC process, which was to improve military preparedness, but I do not
know how we achieve that. We were supposed to take people that were in
facilities that were overcrowded and move them to surplus facilities in
other parts of the country. That is not being achieved.
Now, Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, did a very extensive analysis, of the BRAC legislation
because he happened to be the architect of it, and he shows that these
decisions, are inconsistent with the intent of that authorizing
legislation. That alone is reason to oppose the BRAC conclusions and
support this resolution.
We are going to, in fact, have to spend billions of dollars on
building new facilities, and the fact that that money is going to have
to come out of the Military Construction, Quality of Life
appropriations subcommittee where we need to be conserving money to pay
for veterans health care for the thousands of veterans that are coming
back from the Iraq and Afghanistan war, defies common sense.
I do not think this is in the national interest, Mr. Speaker. I think
that this body should support this resolution of disapproval until we
get recommendations that show us how we are actually going to save
money and improve military effectiveness.
Now, Secretary Rumsfeld has improved new building standards, and that
was the justification that the BRAC Commission used to move these
people. And the building standards necessitate that you cannot be
within 100 feet of the sidewalk where the public is allowed. You cannot
be near a public transit station. You cannot have public underground
parking. You cannot do any of the things that you have to do in a
metropolitan area like northern Virginia or the Washington metro area,
even though we have buildings that are right on the sidewalk that are
just as important in Florida and Texas that were not touched. But in
northern Virginia they made the decision to implement these building
standards as they apply to any DOD agency no matter how unlikely a
terrorist target that agency might be.
But there are very different building standards that apply to the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI,
all of these other agencies that would be just as likely a terrorist
target, so it does not seem to make sense. In fact, I question why we
would have published the location of all of these defense agencies when
terrorists did not know where they existed, could not even figure out
the acronyms for the agencies.
But we have very different, inconsistent building security standards,
one by the General Services Administration, which has the authorizing
responsibility for building Federal buildings; and another by DOD,
which is not supposed to be building its own buildings,
[[Page H9293]]
but are requiring enormous restrictions that preclude a location in a
metropolitan area anyplace in the country, and that are going to cost
such a premium to build, they are going to make them prohibitive for
any other activity to be in those buildings.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on at greater length on why I do not think
that these recommendations make sense from a cost standpoint, from a
military effectiveness standpoint, from just a common-sense standpoint.
I will not do that, but I will summarize by again pointing out that
these recommendations are going to cost billions of dollars to build
new buildings for DOD money that we do not have, that we are going to
have to take from veterans health care. It is not going to improve our
military preparedness. It is going to cause a brain drain in terms of
many of the agencies that we rely so much on for technological
superiority and intelligence. And when you have a recommendation that
causes such additional cost and is going to make it so much more
difficult to implement our military mission, I think the right thing to
do is to reject it.
That is what this resolution does. That is what I would urge my
colleagues in this body to do, to vote for the resolution of
disapproval that has been offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
LaHood) so as to have the administration go back and tell us ways they
can, in fact, save money, ways they can, in fact, improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of our military mission.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley) assumed the chair.
____________________