[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11628-11630]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2514) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2003 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.


                           Amendment No. 3928

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mr. Lott, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Bunning, 
     Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Craig, Ms. Collins, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith 
     of New Hampshire, Mr. Bond, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
     Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Burns, and Ms. Snowe, proposes 
     amendment No. 3928.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To specify additional selection criteria for the 2005 round 
   of defense base closures and realignments under the Defense Base 
                  Closure and Realignment Act of 1990)

       At the end of subtitle B of title XXVIII, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 2814. ADDITIONAL SELECTION CRITERIA FOR 2005 ROUND OF 
                   DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

       (a) Additional Selection Criteria.--Section 2913 of the 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of 
     title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Additional Considerations.--The selection criteria 
     for military installations shall also address the following:
       ``(1) Force structure and mission requirements through 
     2020, as specified by the document entitled `Joint Vision 
     2020' issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including--
       ``(A) mobilization requirements; and
       ``(B) requirements for utilization of facilities by the 
     Department of Defense and by

[[Page 11629]]

     other departments and agencies of the United States, 
     including--
       ``(i) joint use by two or more Armed Forces; and
       ``(ii) use by one or more reserve components.
       ``(2) The availability and condition of facilities, land, 
     and associated airspace, including--
       ``(A) proximity to mobilization points, including points of 
     embarkation for air or rail transportation and ports; and
       ``(B) current, planned, and programmed military 
     construction.
       ``(3) Considerations regarding ranges and airspace, 
     including--
       ``(A) uniqueness; and
       ``(B) existing or potential physical, electromagnetic, or 
     other encroachment.
       ``(4) Force protection.
       ``(5) Costs and effects of relocating critical 
     infrastructure, including--
       ``(A) military construction costs at receiving military 
     installations and facilities;
       ``(B) environmental costs, including costs of compliance 
     with Federal and State environmental laws;
       ``(C) termination costs and other liabilities associated 
     with existing contracts or agreements involving outsourcing 
     or privatization of services, housing, or facilities used by 
     the Department;
       ``(D) effects on co-located entities of the Department;
       ``(E) effects on co-located Federal agencies;
       ``(F) costs of transfers and relocations of civilian 
     personnel, and other workforce considerations.
       ``(6) Homeland security requirements.
       ``(7) State or local support for a continued presence by 
     the Department, including--
       ``(A) current or potential public or private partnerships 
     in support of Department activities; and
       ``(B) the capacity of States and localities to respond 
     positively to economic effects and other effects.
       ``(8) Applicable lessons from previous rounds of defense 
     base closure and realignment, including disparities between 
     anticipated savings and actual savings.
       ``(9) Anticipated savings and other benefits, including--
       ``(A) enhancement of capabilities through improved use of 
     remaining infrastructure; and
       ``(B) the capacity to relocate units and other assets.
       ``(10) Any other considerations that the Secretary of 
     Defense determines appropriate.''.
       (b) Weighting of Criteria for Transparency Purposes.--
     Subsection (a) of such section 2913 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) Weighting of criteria.--At the same time the 
     Secretary publishes the proposed criteria under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the 
     formula proposed to be used by the Secretary in assigning 
     weight to the various proposed criteria in making 
     recommendations for the closure or realignment of military 
     installations inside the United States under this part in 
     2005.''.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of an 
amendment that 16 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have 
cosponsored. The amendment is very straightforward. It is to improve 
the minimum criteria for the 2005 BRAC Commission, that the military 
and the department must follow when evaluating the Nation's military 
infrastructure. The amendment would also make the process more 
transparent.
  I want to be clear that by offering this amendment, I do not intend 
to revisit the debate we had last year. While this Chamber remains 
sharply divided over the merits of another round of base closures, we 
can certainly agree a round of closures riddled with mistakes could be 
more costly than no closures at all.
  In fiscal year 2002, the National Defense Authorization Act unleashed 
a powerful bureaucratic process when it authorized another round of 
closures in 2005. The Pentagon has often said that there are 20 to 25 
percent excess military structures and that nine members of the 
commission may well recommend the closure of as many as 100 military 
installations in this Nation.
  Those are not decisions to be taken lightly. We have seen from the 
Vieques fiasco that once a national asset like a training range is 
closed, it cannot be replaced.
  We have also seen past commissions commit costly blunders. In 1995, 
the commission recommended the closure of Reese Air Force Base in 
Lubbock, TX. The Air Force said it had surplus undergraduate training 
capacity. Only a few years later, the Air Force reported it was nearly 
2,000 pilots short of its authorized end strength. At great expense to 
the taxpayer, the Air Force responded by standing up Moody Air Force 
Base.
  In 1995, Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico was realigned, and all of its 
housing was conveyed to the community. Two years later, U.S. Army South 
was relocated there from Panama. The Secretary was forced to come back 
to Congress to seek permission to rescind the housing conveyance.
  In 1995, Fort Greeley, AK, was realigned, its tenants relocated, and 
the housing area was relinquished. Five years later, the decision was 
made to utilize Greeley as the critical test bed for our emerging 
national missile defense system.
  As we can see, even in peacetime, correctly forecasting requirements, 
even just a few years into the future, is nearly impossible.
  The authorization bill already directs the commissioners to consider 
a handful of very broad criteria when evaluating our military 
infrastructure. But in an era where the meaning of commonly understood 
words is a matter of debate, specificity is everything.
  The amendment goes one step further. The Commissioners are authorized 
to consider additional criteria, many not included in last year's 
authorization bill. One of these is force protection. The threat posed 
by terrorists to our forces has been demonstrated too vividly to leave 
this out. Look at Khobar Towers, look at the USS Cole. We must have 
force protection wherever our troops are in the field, and it should be 
an additional criterion for any enduring installation.
  Lessons learned from previous rounds of closures include the 
disparities between anticipated and actual savings is another suggested 
criterion--who could oppose this commonsense suggestion?
  Of course, there are bases overseas as well as those in America that 
are affected by the base-closing commission, so the criteria in this 
amendment are in no way exhaustive or restrictive. The Commission may 
consider any other criteria it considers appropriate. But it is an 
attempt to enumerate a minimum number of criteria that would have to be 
addressed by the Commission when they are making their very important 
decisions potentially closing as many as 100 military installations.
  In addition to sharpening focus, this amendment would also increase 
transparency. It requires the formula to be used in assigning weight to 
the various criteria to be published in the Federal Register. By 
permitting greater insight into the workings of the Commission, we can 
reduce some of the anxiety communities will experience as we near 2005. 
Greater transparency will also help us limit the number of potential 
and very costly mistakes.
  We will place a tremendous amount of trust in the nine members of the 
Commission. Their decisions will impact hundreds of communities across 
our Nation. It is entirely reasonable to demand a degree of 
transparency into the process.
  In a recent letter, the general counsel of the Department of Defense 
wrote to express the Department's opposition to this amendment. The 
counsel justifies the Department's opposition by arguing that the 
proposed criteria ``are redundant to existing provisions,'' and ``the 
proposed requirement to weight the selection criteria is unnecessary.''
  As an example of this alleged redundancy, the counsel points out that 
our amendment requires that the selection process address ``force 
structure and mission requirements through 2020,'' and that the current 
law also requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a force structure 
plan based on, among other factors, an assessment of the probable 
threats to national security through 2025.
  This is true. However, the general counsel fails to mention that the 
current law requires the Secretary of Defense to submit the plan in 
support of the Department's fiscal year 2005 budget. That budget will 
not be submitted to Congress until February or March of 2004, months 
after the December 31, 2003 deadline for publishing the proposed 
criteria for base closing in the Federal Register. Without our 
amendment, the criteria will be established

[[Page 11630]]

before the Secretary has reported his assessment of our long-term 
threat, the necessary force structure, and hence the most appropriate 
infrastructure needs of the military.
  Members of this administration have said on previous occasions that 
doing a BRAC before our future force structure has been determined is 
like getting the cart before the horse.
  The general counsel also contended in the letter that the amendment's 
requirements that the criteria be weighted is unnecessary because the 
current law:

     . . . requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure that 
     military value is the primary consideration. . . .

  True. Our legislation would not change this. The real question is, 
Exactly how will the Department measure military value? Clearly, there 
are many factors that comprise this measurement. The current law 
contains at least five components of military value. Is it unreasonable 
to ask which of these is the more important? They can't all be of equal 
value. At some point the Commission will rank them, giving each 
criterion a different relative weight. All we are seeking is insight 
into the process. Without knowledge of how the Commission weights the 
criteria, we will once again be left, as we have seen in past BRACs, 
with a secretive process in which the nine members of the Commission go 
into a room with a list of bases and then reappear with a final list of 
closures. There is no public insight into the Commission's rationale at 
this point.
  Our legislation would require that the relative weighting be 
published, and thus provide the public with a greater understanding of 
the process.
  I think the general counsel's response shows a level of 
misunderstanding of the concern that people have about base closings. 
This has been a secretive process in the past, one in which there has 
been no necessity to reveal the rationale and the Commission has not.
  I do not doubt the Department will eventually start looking at these 
criteria more carefully. I certainly hope, before we go into this 2005 
round, which will probably be the last round of base closures, that the 
Department will report on what our 20-year strategy is going to be, 
what our necessary force strength will be, and what our training 
infrastructure requirements will be.
  Today we don't know that. We could not know that today for 2020. The 
Department has not put that forward. Clearly the Department has been 
focusing on the war on terrorism, as they should. But to go into the 
next round of base closings, we must determine what our threats are 
going to be for 20 years and assess just how much it is going to cost 
to close a base or how much it would cost if we need to reopen it.
  It is clear that did not happen in all cases during the 1995 round. 
Costs continue to be much more than were estimated by the Commission.
  The environmental cleanup is still costing us hundreds of millions of 
dollars in the Military Construction Subcommittee, where I am the 
ranking member, and we are paying costs that were never envisioned by 
the 1995 base-closing commission.
  I am going to withdraw my amendment because I do think the Department 
of Defense has other concerns that are clearly taking priority at this 
time, and I understand that. But I am going to keep this amendment 
alive for the future because I believe the Department needs to come 
forth with weighted criteria, with a clear 20-year strategy before they 
set the criteria for base closings.
  We need to know what the war on terrorism is going to entail over the 
next 20 years. How are we going to protect our troops wherever they may 
be? How are we going to make sure we have the training capability that 
we thought we had at Vieques, but then all of a sudden people protested 
and we withdrew? So now we do not have a good live-firing training 
range for the Navy to substitute.
  How could we possibly go forward in 2005 without this information?
  I urge the Department of Defense to work with me to come up with 
clear, weighted criteria prior to the 2005 round of base closings.
  I withdraw the amendment and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The time is controlled by the majority leader or his designee.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just wished 2 minutes for comment.
  Mr. REID. I have a problem. We have a lot of time after the cloture 
vote. Senator Stabenow has about 30 minutes of material to jam into 20 
minutes, so I think we should start with that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.

                          ____________________