[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13587-13603]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report H.R. 1588 by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2004 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the 
enacting clause is stricken, and the text of S. 1050 is inserted in 
lieu thereof.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           amendment no. 847

(Purpose: To change the requirements for naturalization through service 
  in the Armed Forces of the United States, to extend naturalization 
 benefits to members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of a 
reserve component of the Armed Forces, to extend posthumous benefits to 
   surviving spouses, children, and parents, and for other purposes)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 847.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Brownback, Mr. McCain, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
     Durbin, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. 
     Clinton, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 847.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senators Brownback, McCain, Reid, Bingaman, Durbin, Cantwell, 
Leahy, Cornyn, Inhofe, Clinton, Kerry, and Schumer.
  First, I wish to express my very sincere appreciation to the floor 
managers for giving us an opportunity to address this issue which is of 
enormous importance to a number of our servicemen and servicewomen. We 
have debated matters of enormous importance in terms of our national 
security during the consideration of the Defense authorization bill. I 
appreciate the patience given by the chairmen of the committee, Senator 
Warner, and Senator Levin, and I appreciate their willingness to give 
an opportunity for the consideration of this amendment.
  I am very hopeful that after discussion of it there will be a 
willingness to accept the amendment.
  Mr. President, I understand we have a half an hour. I yield myself 
such time as I might use.
  Mr. President, the amendment we are offering is a bipartisan effort 
intended to recognize the enormous contributions by immigrants in the 
military. It gives immigrant men and women in our Armed Forces more 
rapid naturalization, and it establishes protections for their families 
if they are killed in action.
  In all our wars, immigrants have fought side by side and given their 
lives to defend America's freedoms and ideals. One out of every five 
recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest honor our 
Nation bestows on our war heroes, has been an immigrant. Their bravery 
is unequivocal proof that immigrants are as dedicated as any other 
Americans in defending our country.
  Today, 37,000 men and women in the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, 
and Coast Guard have the status of permanent residents. Another 12,000 
permanent residents are in the Reserves and the National Guard. Sadly, 
10 immigrant soldiers were killed in Iraq. The President did the right 
thing by granting those who died posthumous citizenship, but it is 
clear that we must do more to ease the path to citizenship for all 
immigrants who serve in our forces.
  This amendment improves access to naturalization for lawful permanent 
residents serving in the military. It provides expedited naturalization 
for members of the Selected Reserves during military conflicts, and it 
protects spouses, children, and parents of soldiers killed in action by 
preserving their ability to file for permanent residence in the United 
States.
  Specifically, the amendment reduces from 3 to 2 the number of years 
requires for immigrants serving in the military during times of peace 
to become naturalized citizens. It exempts them from paying 
naturalization filing fees, and it enables them to be naturalized while 
stationed abroad. Affordable and timely naturalization is the least we 
can do for those who put their lives on the line to defend our Nation.
  During times of war, recruiting needs are immediate and readiness is 
essential. Even though the war in Iraq has ended, our commitment to 
ending global terrorism will continue, and more and more of these brave 
men and women will be called to active duty. Many of them are members 
of the Selected Reserves.
  I point out, for the benefit of my colleagues, we are just looking at 
the Selected Reserves. There are a number of aspects to the Reserve 
units. We have the Selected Reserves as a part of the Ready Reserve, 
but we are just targeting this on the Selected Reserves. It does not 
apply to the individual Ready Reserves, the inactive National Guard, 
Standby Reserve, or Retired Reserve. These are individuals who must 
keep their competency up under regular kinds of training programs and 
are very much involved and integrated into the military units. Many of 
the Selected Reserves have already been activated in the Reserve and 
National Guard units, and many more expect to be called up at a 
moment's notice to defend our country and assist in military 
operations.
  Over the years, many Reserve and Guard units have become full 
partners with their active duty counterparts.
  We saw that in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where you had the highest 
mobilization of our Reserves and Guard in recent years. Their active 
duty colleagues cannot go to war without them. Being a member of the 
Selected Reserves is nothing less than a continuing commitment to meet 
very demanding standards, and they deserve recognition for their 
bravery and sacrifice. The amendment allows permanent resident members 
of the Selected Reserves to expedite their naturalization applications 
during war or military hostilities.
  Finally, the amendment provides immigration protection to immediate 
family members of soldiers killed in action. Provisions reached through 
compromise will give grieving mothers, fathers, spouses and children 
the opportunity to legalize their immigration status and avoid 
deportation in the event of the death of their loved one serving in our 
military.
  It just permits them to be a permanent resident alien. Then they take 
their chances in moving along to become citizens.

[[Page 13588]]

  We know the tragic losses endured by these families for their 
sacrifices, and it is unfair that they lose their immigration status as 
well.
  The provisions of the amendment are identical to those in S. 922, the 
Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act, which 
also has strong bipartisan support and is also endorsed by numerous 
veterans organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air 
Force Sergeants Association, the Non-Commissioned Officers Association, 
and the Blue Star Mothers of America.
  The amendment is a tribute to the sacrifices that these future 
Americans are already making now for their adopted country. They 
deserve this important recognition. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to see that these provisions are enacted into law.
  The provisions of this amendment, reached through compromise, give 
immigration protection to the family members of some slain soldiers. 
They do not, however, offer protection to all family members, 
particularly the ones who are undocumented.
  Our duty to soldiers who give their lives does not depend on how 
their parents or spouses or children entered the United States. 
Deportation is never fair pay for the death of a family member. As we 
together enact these provisions, I will continue working to make sure 
that we uphold our duties to all of our immigrant soldiers.
  Mr. President, I have had a chance to talk to the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member of the committee and to work with 
their staffs over a period of time to respond to a number of their very 
important questions that they have had, and I am hopeful that the 
Senate will accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment will expedite the 
naturalization process for noncitizen soldiers serving on active duty, 
in the Select Reserves, and will enact safeguards to protect noncitizen 
immediate relatives of American and noncitizen soldiers who are killed 
in action.
  More than 48,900 noncitizens are currently serving in the United 
States military on active duty and in the Selected Reserves. Hundreds 
are serving from the State of Nevada. They place their lives on the 
line for our country every day.
  In recognition and appreciation of their service, they deserve a 
naturalization process that does not unnecessarily delay the grant of 
citizenship or impose other restraints because they are stationed in 
another country.
  These noncitizen soldiers love America so much they are willing to 
make great sacrifices to protect us and promote our values and even 
defend the Constitution--although they do not fully enjoy its 
protections. They deserve better treatment than they currently receive.
  Like many Americans, I am moved by the story of Airman Dilia DeGrego, 
who is a legal resident of the State of Nevada.
  Airman DeGrego's story is a tale of exemplary courage. She was born 
in Mexico and came to the United States at the age of 4. Airman 
DeGrego's family wanted so much for her to be a citizen that her mother 
relinquished her parental rights and gave full custody of Airman 
DeGrego and her two sisters to her aunt and uncle who live in the 
United States.
  Airman DeGrego joined the Air Force, in her words, because she wants 
to serve her country. Her Country. Airman DeGrego knows no other home 
than the United States.
  She is a proud member of the Air Force family and is a true patriot.
  I am honored to tell you that last night Airman DeGrego sent a short 
message to my office stating that she has been granted an interview 
within the Office of Citizenship. She completed her message with two 
simple yet overwhelmingly powerful statements. ``I have been blessed. 
God, bless America.''
  Who can say that active duty Airman DeGrego, citizen or not, is any 
less of a hero?
  These noncitizen heroes have defended our liberty in every single 
Great War in which our Nation has participated and represent over 20 
percent of the recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor.
  This amendment will provide necessary relief to current noncitizens 
serving in active duty and the selected reserves within the United 
States military by setting forth an expedited process of 
naturalization.
  The amendment will also provide protections for noncitizen spouses, 
unmarried children, and parents of citizen and noncitizen soldiers who 
are killed as a result of their service, to file or preserve their 
application for lawful permanent residence.
  This amendment is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the 
National Guard Association of the United States, the Air Force 
Sergeants Association, the Air Force Association, the Non-Commissioned 
Officers Association, the Blue Star Mothers of America, the National 
Council of La Raza, the National Asian Pacific American Legal 
Consortium, the National Federation of Filipino American Association, 
the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, the Mexican 
American Legal Defense Fund, and the American Immigration Lawyers 
Association.
  I rise today in support of action that will recognize and honor 
current noncitizen soldiers serving in the United States armed forces 
and will honor the legacy of all of our soldiers who have been killed 
in action by providing fair and sympathetic treatment of their 
immediate relatives seeking legal permanent residency.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter written by 
Airman Dilia DeGrego, who portrays exactly what the Senator from 
Massachusetts is saying about the tremendous sacrifice made by these 
people who are willing to fight for our country--and they should be 
treated accordingly--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     To Whom It May Concern:
       My name is Airman Dilia DeGrego, I am a United States 
     permanent resident presently active-duty military trying to 
     become a U.S. citizen. I was born in Mexico June 3, 1984 and 
     have been in the U.S. for about 15 years. I was brought here 
     by my aunt Martha Ayala, who is a U.S. permanent resident as 
     well, and my uncle, Antonio Ayala Jr. who is a U.S. citizen. 
     I lived with them until I left for the Air Force. When I was 
     12 my biological mother gave full custody of myself as well 
     as custody of my two younger sisters to my aunt and uncle. 
     The adoption was complete approximately two years later. My 
     parents sponsored my sisters and I and we received our 
     permanent residency about three years later in April of 2002. 
     I applied for my citizenship May 30, 2002. I have not 
     received a response from the immigration office. My dates are 
     not exact, but the INS has record of it all. February of this 
     year I got married in El Paso, TX to Brian Andrew DeGrego, 
     whom I love dearly and is also active-duty Air Force, 
     currently serving a remote tour in Osan Air Base, Korea. My 
     sisters received a permanent ``green card'' in October of 
     2002 and I did not receive anything. When I asked all I was 
     told was that because my citizenship was pending I would not 
     receive it. My original temporary permanent residency card 
     expired April 21, 2003. I currently have a duplicate that 
     expires December 21, 2003. I hope to receive some word about 
     my citizenship before then because if not I will have to take 
     leave and fly to El Paso, TX where my records are currently 
     being held. I have mailed in a change of address form with a 
     copy of my orders to the immigration office letting them know 
     that I am currently assigned at Nellis AFB, Nevada. I did not 
     receive word that they received my information. I currently 
     do not know my status. Pardon me for complaining, but I don't 
     think it's fair that I will have to keep renewing my ``green 
     card'' and not actually getting a permanent card. I went to 
     the Air Force and asked if I could apply through them to help 
     my situation. I was told I could not and would have to wait 
     until I get a reply from the INS office before the Air Force 
     could do anything. I have called the immigration office in El 
     Paso and received nothing more than a machine I have left 
     messages. As far as I know I have to wait three years of 
     being in the service or three years of being married to my 
     husband. If the bill is passed I will be able to apply for my 
     citizenship again August 2004. I don't understand where I am 
     now in my situation. Anything you could do to help would be 
     greatly appreciated.
       I joined the Air Force to serve my country like many other 
     permanent residents and U.S. citizens. To me this is the 
     family that status did not matter, but I have experienced

[[Page 13589]]

     difficulty in my career as Public Affairs. I am unable to get 
     an e-mail account or finish my security clearance thus unable 
     to go on the flight line. I am unable to perform my job 
     effectively. I am the base only staff writer for the base 
     paper ``The Bullseye'' it is my job to work with people on a 
     daily basis as well as all kinds of information. I cannot 
     attend certain meetings if there is any unclassified 
     information mentioned. I understand their reasons, but my job 
     is communication and because I am not a U.S. citizen I cannot 
     do my job the way it is suppose to be done. I am part of the 
     Air Force family and I will fight to do all I can to do the 
     best I can. It's unfortunate that I am in this situation, but 
     sometimes you have to get tossed around to finally settle in 
     somewhere. I love the Air Force and hope to be a proud member 
     for the years to come, because despite what any paper says in 
     my heart, I am a citizen. Serving as a member of the U.S. Air 
     Force only makes me a prouder one. I know my situation may be 
     common and that is why I can sincerely say that it would only 
     help my brothers and sisters if this bill is passed. Thank 
     you for your time and concern. God bless America!

                                           Amn. Dilia DeGrego,

                                       Air Warfare Public Affairs,
                                                   U.S. Air Force.

  Mr. REID. So I commend and applaud the Senator from Massachusetts for 
offering this amendment. And, of course, as he indicated, I am a proud 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues on this timely and 
very compassionate initiative. I particularly thank, on my side, 
Senator Sessions, Senator Cornyn from Texas--who momentarily will 
address this issue--and Senator Kyl, who talked to me this morning. He 
expressed that the two of you had reconciled, in large measure, some 
concerns that he had.
  So I say to Senator Kennedy, we thank you for taking this initiative. 
We have all worked diligently as a team to provide this situation. Each 
of us knows the distinguished service by those who come from lands 
abroad in the Armed Forces of the United States. It is a part of our 
history, and it is a traditional means of demonstrating the allegiance 
and commitment to the ideals of this Nation to which these individuals 
have come to join our society.
  I believe this amendment--which would shorten the waiting period from 
3 years to 2 years for noncitizen service members, both Active Duty and 
Reserve, and which eliminates fees for processing, and which extends an 
accelerated naturalization process to certain spouses and parents and 
children of deceased alien members--has great merit and should be 
supported.
  At this time, Mr. President, I yield such time as the distinguished 
Senator from Texas desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee on which I 
serve, for his courtesy as well as that of Senator Levin, the ranking 
member. And I especially state my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and 
those others who have cosponsored this amendment. I am proud to be one 
of them.
  Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about this amendment, 
the Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act of 
2003.
  In every war our Nation has fought, from the Revolutionary War to 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, brave immigrants have fought alongside 
American-born citizens. They have fought with distinction and courage. 
Twenty percent of the recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, 
our Nation's highest honor for war heroes, have been immigrants.
  One in 10 active duty military personnel call my home State of Texas 
their home. And as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am 
dedicated to doing everything I can to look out not only for their 
interests but for the interests of all military personnel, including 
immigrants.
  That is why earlier this year I introduced the Military Citizenship 
Act that will expedite the naturalization process for 37,000 men and 
women serving in our Armed Forces who are not U.S. citizens. I believe 
there is no better way to honor the heroism and sacrifice of those who 
serve than to offer them the opportunity for American citizenship they 
deserve.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment because I believe it 
fulfills a crucial responsibility to welcome those who fight for our 
Nation and to help immigrants become naturalized citizens, providing 
their families easy access to naturalization and family immigration 
protections.
  All you need to do is look at this chart which sets out the scheme 
for an alien military service member to seek naturalization under 
current law. As you can tell, it is a sea of redtape and needless 
bureaucracy and is overly burdensome on those who want nothing more 
than to earn the opportunity of American citizenship and who have 
demonstrated their commitment to this Nation's ideals and values by 
their very service.
  I believe it is time to do away with this sort of thing once and for 
all. This amendment and the provisions of this bill streamline the 
process and make it one that welcomes immigrant service members for 
their bravery and sacrifice and not one that sets up unnecessary 
obstacles to their becoming citizens.
  I thank my distinguished colleagues for supporting the bill. I again 
express my appreciation to Chairman Warner for including language in 
the Defense authorization bill that directs the Department of Defense 
to determine if any additional measures can be taken to assist in the 
naturalization of qualified service members and their families.
  I also strongly support the action of the President, retroactive to 
September 11, 2001, to exempt military members from the requirement to 
serve 3 years on active duty before applying for citizenship. We must 
always remember that our own freedom was not won without cost but 
fought and paid for by the sacrifices of generations who have gone on 
before us. We must honor the heroic dead for their courage and 
commitment to the dream that is freedom, and we must honor the worthy 
heroes who fight today and embrace them as our fellow citizens.
  In 1944, Winston Churchill spoke at Royal Albert Hall to the combined 
British and American troops and reminded them of a greater cause they 
served, regardless of the bounds of nations or cultures. He said:

       We are joined together in this union of action which has 
     been forced upon us by our common hatred of tyranny, shedding 
     our blood side by side, struggling for the same ideals, until 
     the triumph of the great causes which we serve shall be made 
     manifest. . . . Then, indeed, there will be a day of 
     Thanksgiving, one in which all the world will share.

  In Iraq, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces and the 
coalition forces fought against those who hate our Nation's values. 
They hate us because we believe that all men are created equal 
regardless of their nation of birth, regardless of their religious 
faith. They hate us because we believe in the God-given rights to life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights that extend to all 
mankind. They hate us because we still say: Give me your tired, your 
poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
  These brave immigrant soldiers are taking on the uniform of our 
Nation, serving under the flag of our Nation, and fighting the enemies 
of our Nation and our values. It is only right that they should be 
welcomed as citizens of this great Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to my knowledge, there are no other 
speakers on this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend Senator Kennedy and all of his 
cosponsors for offering this amendment. The Senator from Massachusetts 
has identified a significant shortcoming in our current naturalization 
law. When we have people who are here legally, legal immigrants who 
have green cards, who join the Armed Forces, who put their lives on the 
line for our Nation, the least we can do is to make it easier for them 
to become citizens through the naturalization process.

[[Page 13590]]

  A number of things in this amendment highlight the clear and simple 
message we are trying to send to the men and women who are willing to 
go into harm's way for us and to make the commitment to our Nation that 
military service involves.
  Just a few elements: Naturalization can be carried out abroad. Right 
now that is not possible. Men and women of the military would have to 
come here, back to the geographical limits of the United States, in 
order to become naturalized. They could be assigned abroad, on duty 
abroad, and surely we want to make it possible for them to file their 
naturalization papers, to be interviewed, to take the oath to this 
Nation abroad at U.S. embassies or consulates or military 
installations.
  We also ought to take care of the members of the family of those who 
are killed or who die as a result of injury or disease that is incurred 
pursuant to military service. Those families, those noncitizen spouses 
and unmarried children and parents, who could become citizens while the 
loved one is alive surely should not lose that status and protection 
when the loved one is killed or lost in action or as a result of injury 
or disease.
  So what is done here is fundamentally human but also fundamentally 
significant in terms of what this Nation is all about. The men and 
women who are willing to join our Armed Forces to go and put their 
lives on the line for this Nation surely are owed a major debt by our 
country. One way we can in part pay this debt to them as well as to all 
members of the Armed Forces is to adopt the Kennedy amendment.
  Again, I commend him and all the cosponsors for offering it.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this amendment, 
which provides a more expeditious naturalization process for the brave 
noncitizens who serve in our Nation's military. It is a recognition of 
and an expression of appreciation for their dedication and sacrifice 
during this time of conflict. Moreover, this amendment reflects our 
Nation's compassion and gratitude to those who gave their lives in 
defense of our freedom, as it grants, for the first time, derivative 
benefits to the immediate family members of these fallen men and women 
who only became citizens posthumously.
  Senator Kennedy's amendment allows members of the military to apply 
for naturalization after 2 years of service instead of 3 years. It also 
provides for naturalization proceedings overseas so that the servicemen 
who serve abroad may become citizens without having to travel back to 
the United States at their own expense. In addition, the amendment 
benefits the immediate family members of servicemen who died in combat 
and are granted posthumous citizenship. Now, these family members will 
have at least an opportunity to derive immigration benefits based on 
the posthumous grant of citizenship. Indeed, this amendment allows 
these family members to stay in the country for which their loved ones 
gave their lives.
  I thank Senator Kennedy for his effort in reaching out for bipartisan 
support on this amendment, and for his willingness to accept the input 
and suggestions from Democrats and Republicans alike. In particular, I 
am grateful that Senator Kennedy accepted my proposal to close some 
loopholes so that alien smugglers and other worthy individuals do not 
inadvertently reap a benefit from this amendment. I am confident that 
this amendment now appropriately reflects the values and virtues that 
are inviolable to all of us as Americans.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this amendment 
to provide for the men and women who serve in our armed forces. I 
particularly want to express my heart-felt appreciation to the families 
of servicemen who gave their lives in our fight for freedom and victory 
in Iraq.
  This amendment accomplishes three purposes. First, for permanent 
residents who serve honorably in our Armed Forces, it changes the 
waiting period from 3 years to 2 years of service in order to begin the 
naturalization process. This provision also requires the Department of 
Defense to formulate a policy to ease and facilitate naturalization for 
these men and women.
  Secondly, the amendment provides a process of immediate 
naturalization for our selected reserve Armed Forces serving during a 
time of hostility. In today's military, we rely heavily and 
strategically on our reservists, and it is only fair to extend this 
benefit to reserve as well as active duty personnel serving our country 
in a time of war.
  Thirdly, the amendment benefits the immediate family members of 
servicemen who are U.S. citizens killed in combat. These immediate 
family members may be non-immigrants who rely on the citizenship of 
their spouse, father or mother, or even son or daughter to adjust their 
status to become permanent residents and eventually citizens 
themselves. In honor and respect of U.S. citizens who die in combat, 
this amendment will provide their families the temporary ability to 
continue the immigration process.
  This amendment further compliments a bill that my Georgia colleague, 
Senator Miller, and I passed in the Senate 2 months ago. That 
legislation expedites the granting of posthumous citizenship to 
immigrant soldiers who die in combat. Our bill and the amendment 
offered today reduce the waiting periods, eliminate the red tape, and 
reward those who serve in our armed services and especially those who 
make the ultimate sacrifice while defending freedom.
  Today we will adopt an amendment to further respect servicemen like 
19-year-old Diego Rincon from Conyers, GA, who was killed in Iraq. 
These members of our armed forces, whether citizens or permanent 
residents, and their families should be fully appreciated for their 
service to our country, and in some cases, receive the benefit of 
continuing the process to become citizens.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kennedy 
and McCain today in submitting an amendment to honor the contributions 
of immigrants who have shown their dedication both to this country and 
to creating a better future for themselves by joining the military. 
This amendment will do two critically important things: it will offer 
easier access to naturalization for immigrant men and women of our 
armed forces, and it will establish immigration protections for their 
families if they are killed in action.
  Having just been through a tough period of war, it is especially 
important to recognize those who fight on our behalf to preserve our 
freedom and our way of life. This is particularly true for those 
immigrants who have too often given their lives to defend our 
principles.
  This is poignantly illustrated by an anecdote from the President's 
visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital with his wife, Laura, back in April. 
In the press conference afterward, visibly moved by the heroes he met, 
he noted a special moment for him--witnessing two wounded soldiers 
sworn in as citizens of the United States. As the President put it 
himself, ``You know we got an amazing country where so powerful, the 
values we believe, that people would be willing to risk their own life 
and become a citizen after being wounded. It's an amazing moment. 
Really proud of it.''
  The President's words speak to exactly why this legislation is so 
important--and so worthwhile. These men and women are willing to risk 
their own lives on our behalf, even though they are not yet citizens of 
this country.
  In fact, there are more than 30,000 noncitizens on active duty in the 
U.S. military--approximately two percent of the total U.S. forces--who 
are willing to risk their lives on our behalf without the privileges of 
citizenship. In the Reserves and the National Guard are another 20,000 
noncitizens. These immigrants have proven a dedication to our country 
by joining the military or the Reserves or National Guard, dedication 
which should be recognized and rewarded.
  Our amendment will do that. First, it provides easier access to 
naturalization to members of the armed services who are already lawful 
permanent residents. Currently, being a member of the armed services 
allows a permanent

[[Page 13591]]

legal resident to reduce their wait time for naturalization from five 
years to three years--our legislation would reduce the time to only two 
years. It would also ease this process by allowing naturalization 
interviews and oath ceremonies abroad at U.S. embassies, consulates, 
and overseas military installations, and by waiving naturalization 
fees.
  In addition, the language provides for the immediate families of 
immigrant service personnel killed in action by either giving them the 
opportunity to legalize their immigration status or by allowing them to 
proceed with their own applications for naturalization as if the death 
had not happened. By protecting their immigration status, this element 
provides critical acknowledgment of the sacrifices that the families of 
our military members make as well.
  Finally, the amendment remembers those courageous men and women who 
ensure that in times of war or hostility, our country is ready and our 
recruiting needs are met, by saying that members of the Reserves or 
National Guard will have expedited naturalization during times of war 
or hostile military operations.
  It is easy to see why so many groups are supporting this amendment--
from the Veterans of Foreign Wars to the Non-Commissioned Officers 
Association to the National Council of La Raza to the National Asian 
Pacific American Legal Consortium, among others.
  This amendment on the naturalization and family protection for 
military members is a vitally important piece of legislation that both 
honors and rewards immigrants to this nation. They are already legal 
permanent residents--this simply ensures that they have the opportunity 
to truly become a part of this country through citizenship. Therefore, 
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I observe no other speakers to this 
important amendment. The managers of the bill are prepared to take it 
on a voice vote. Therefore, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield back 
his time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 847.
  The amendment (No. 847) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will proceed to a second amendment. 
Prior to that being done, I wish to advise the Senate there is a third 
amendment regarding the BRAC process which will be introduced by the 
Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Mississippi. At this 
time, so the Senate is aware, we will ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment that will be offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no amendment offered.
  Mr. WARNER. We will wait.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota is here. If I 
yield, he can go forward. I am happy to withhold.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am waiting for Senator Lott. I know he 
is near the Chamber. As soon as he arrives, we are ready to go. The 
Senator from Nevada may proceed first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 848

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 848.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Ms. Collins, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. 
     Murray, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 848.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a 
 service-connected disability to receive both military retired pay by 
 reason of their years of military service and disability compensation 
     from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability)

       At the appropriate place in title VI, add the following:

     SEC. __. FULL PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION TO 
                   DISABLED MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) Restoration of Full Retired Pay Benefits.--Section 1414 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have 
       service-connected disabilities: payment of retired pay and 
       veterans' disability compensation

       ``(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Except 
     as provided in subsection (b), a member or former member of 
     the uniformed services who is entitled to retired pay (other 
     than as specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled 
     to veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid 
     both without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.
       ``(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The 
     retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this 
     title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable 
     under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's 
     retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 
     5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of 
     the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title 
     exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would 
     have been entitled under any other provision of law based 
     upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the 
     member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
       ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member 
     retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 
     years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of 
     this title at the time of the member's retirement.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay, 
     emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
       ``(2) The term `veterans' disability compensation' has the 
     meaning given the term `compensation' in section 101(13) of 
     title 38.''.
       (b) Repeal of Special Compensation Programs.--Sections 1413 
     and 1413a of such title are repealed.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the items 
     relating to sections 1413, 1413a, and 1414 and inserting the 
     following:

``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected 
              disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans' 
              disability compensation.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on--
       (1) the first day of the first month that begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the 
     calendar year in which this Act is enacted, if later than the 
     date specified in paragraph (1).
       (e) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may 
     be paid to any person by reason of section 1414 of title 10, 
     United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), for any 
     period before the effective date applicable under subsection 
     (d).

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators McCain, Dorgan, 
Inhofe, Bill Nelson, Jeffords, Collins, Edwards, Bingaman, and Murray 
to offer an amendment on behalf of our Nation's disabled veterans.
  This amendment would end the longstanding injustice that prevents 
disabled veterans from drawing the disability compensation and 
retirement pay they have rightfully earned. It sounds unusual, but it 
is true. This prohibition on ``concurrent receipt'' has plagued our 
veterans for more than a hundred years.
  First, I thank Senators Levin and Warner for their support on this 
issue year after year. As a result of their dedication, deliberation 
and fairness in conference, we have been able to make some progress 
each year, and I commend them for the work they have done. The 
establishment of the special compensation programs has ensured that 
about 30,000 veterans can receive the benefit of both retirement pay 
and disability pay. But there are still hundreds of thousands of 
disabled veterans who need our help.
  Many people wonder why we return to this issue year after year in an 
attempt to keep this fight alive. After

[[Page 13592]]

all, the White House and the Pentagon are opposed to concurrent 
receipt, and we are told by OMB there is no money for it. So why take 
up the struggle year after year in this environment?
  For me, it is simply a matter of fairness. Why would we deny a 
veteran who served honorably for 20 years the right to the full value 
of his retirement pay because his service caused him to become 
disabled? That is what this terribly unfair law does. A retired and 
disabled veteran must deduct from his retirement, dollar for dollar, 
the amount of disability compensation received. In many cases, the 
effect is to totally wipe out the retirement pay. The end result is 
that the disabled military retiree loses all the value of his 20 or 
more years of service to our Nation. We don't subject any other Federal 
retiree to this kind of offset--only our disabled military retirees.
  Let me give you a specific example that strikes close to home for 
this Senator. MAJ Len Shipley is a decorated Marine Corps officer from 
Henderson, NV. He served combat tours in Vietnam and in the first Gulf 
War. He retired in 1993 with 26 years of honorable service--13 years 
enlisted and 13 years as an officer. Tragically, last year, Major 
Shipley developed Lou Gehrig's disease, a terminal illness for which 
there is no cure. This disease kills most of its victims within 18 
months of diagnosis. There are exceptions, of course, and I hope Major 
Shipley is one of them. But in all likelihood, he doesn't have much 
time left to live.
  Subsequent to this diagnosis, the VA found Major Shipley to be 100 
percent service-connected disabled. He was drawing his full retirement 
pay prior to receiving his disability rating, but once he was found to 
be entitled to disability compensation, he lost almost $2,400 of his 
monthly retirement pay because of the prohibitions on concurrent 
receipt. Major Shipley's wife, already a Navy reservist, has been 
forced to work overtime as a nurse in the local hospital to make ends 
meet. Her husband's disability--and now the loss of the retirement pay 
he has been collecting for more than a decade--has impacted her family 
severely.
  We should be doing things to make Len Shipley's life better, not 
worse. He served his country honorably. The restriction on concurrent 
receipt is fundamentally unfair, unwise, and unsound policy. We should 
fix it.
  I understand the new special compensation programs were designed to 
help veterans like Len Shipley, but he was told he does not qualify for 
this Severely Disabled Compensation Program because he received his 
disability rating more than 4 years after his retirement. Mr. 
President, Lou Gehrig's disease does not pause to consider when its 
victims retired from the military.
  We still don't know whether Major Shipley will qualify under the 
Combat Related Special Compensation Program. I hope the program will be 
fairly administered, but I am already concerned about a Pentagon ruling 
that excludes the National Guard and Reserve forces from eligibility 
for special compensation benefits. I hope this is simply a mistake by 
the Pentagon that will be corrected immediately. If you are combat 
disabled and retirement eligible, why should it matter whether you 
served on active duty, the National Guard, or the Reserves? It was 
never the intent of Congress to exclude the National Guard and Reserves 
from the Special Compensation Program.
  But these special compensation programs are necessary only because 
this ancient prohibition on concurrent receipt is still on the books. 
It is time to finally end the prohibition, get rid of the special 
compensation programs, and lift this unfairness from the backs of the 
disabled veterans.
  The support for concurrent receipt in the Congress is clear. I have 
mentioned a few cosponsors of this most important amendment, but I 
believe if we shopped it, most of the Senate would sign on. About 90% 
of the entire 107th Congress was on record supporting full concurrent 
receipt in the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. Disabled 
military retirees were extremely disappointed when the legislation fell 
short after a veto threat by President Bush.
  So it is time for us to demonstrate a sense of fairness to our 
retired disabled veterans. Let's end this prohibition once and for all. 
I urge my colleagues to support this most worthy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend Senator Reid for his constancy 
and his commitment to this cause. His leadership has been nothing less 
than extraordinary. Last year, the legislation, which he initiated, to 
repeal this prohibition had 82 cosponsors. He has continued to fight 
for this repeal, fight the administration's significant opposition. I 
support that effort, and I think it is particularly important at a time 
when we have troops being shot at in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We know 
some of our service members are going to suffer injuries and 
disabilities because of that service and service elsewhere. We must 
assure them that if they complete a military career, they will not be 
deprived of the benefits they have earned. So I support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our committee through the years has 
addressed this very important amendment. I, too, commend the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada, who has been the spearhead, together 
with others, on this issue. He has enumerated others, including Senator 
McCain on this side, who have fought so hard for this measure. Senator 
Levin just spoke of his endorsement, and I now add mine.
  I don't wish to prolong this because in last year's record I spoke 
extensively on this measure. Each time I have addressed it, I have 
mentioned I have had two brief tours of active military duty, but 
pretty much of a lifetime association with the Reserves and the Guard 
in my State and others. My military career is insignificant compared to 
that of many valiant members of the Armed Forces, generations of whom, 
hopefully, are to be benefited, quite properly and justifiably and 
fairly, by this legislation.
  I see no further speakers on our side.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may say one thing, the Senator from 
Virginia has stated--and I heard him say this--his military career is 
insignificant. The Senator's military career, of course, was 
significant. Anybody who serves in the military adds to the dimension 
of our defense posture in the country.
  I want the Record to reflect that the armed services, the men and 
women who serve in the U.S. military, have been improved as a result of 
the service of the Senator from Virginia as a member of the Senate. He 
has been devoted to the committee that is now handling this 
legislation, and the teamwork the Senator from Virginia has shown with 
the Senator from Michigan--talk about insignificant, mine is really 
insignificant; I have had no military service. I proudly serve in the 
Senate, doing what I can to help those people who have served in the 
military and are serving in the military.
  My service in trying to accomplish what I think is important for the 
military is really insignificant compared to the work done by the two 
managers of the bill. When the history books are written about this era 
of our country, there will have to be a chapter about what has been 
done by the two Senators who are managing this bill for their 
cooperation, partnership, and for moving this legislation forward.
  It would be very easy to have a very agitated relationship. We do not 
have that here. Senator Warner and Senator Levin set an example for the 
rest of the Congress as to how people can work together, even though 
their views may not always be in sync, to work together for the 
betterment of the country.
  I thank them very much for working so hard on this legislation, as 
they have over the years. But for the two of them, as I have already 
stated on the record, we would not be anywhere. We can pass all kinds 
of legislation in the Senate, but when it passes Statuary Hall and goes 
to the House, many times issues are gone.

[[Page 13593]]

  As a result of the work of Senator Warner and Senator Levin, veterans 
in this country will forever be helped.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield, but before yielding--I was going 
to say this--the Senator from North Dakota has been--I am trying to 
find a word to describe the push and pull, the ability to put 
legislation at the forefront of what we do. The Senator from North 
Dakota has done a remarkable job. But for him, we would not be where we 
are.
  I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to observe that what the Senator 
said about the chairman and ranking member is something most all of us 
in the Senate believe. They are two extraordinarily able people, and I 
am proud to serve with both of them. I think they produced a good piece 
of legislation.
  I especially wish to say, as coauthor of the concurrent receipt 
legislation with Senator Reid, I am pleased this will be accepted. My 
understanding is this will be part of the bill in the Senate. It is the 
right result for disabled veterans. I am very pleased they are allowing 
us to make this a part of the bill today. I thank Senator Reid for his 
leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am deeply humbled by Senator Reid's kind 
remarks. I wish to say, certainly this is not about my own career. I 
always felt I benefited more from my brief tour of military service 
than did the military for my service in those days. I tried to, in a 
sense, pay back so that other members of the service today can have the 
same and greater benefits than I had. I would never have received a 
college education in all probability had it not been for the GI bill.
  Although I did serve twice, I never placed myself in the category of 
combat arms and the valorous heroes of this great country but did my 
duty, as millions of others have, and was privileged to do so.
  On the Committee of Armed Services, no one could have a more 
wonderful working partner than my colleague from Michigan. We have sat 
side by side this quarter of a century, but we have achieved a high 
water mark of bipartisanship because we are really there to be 
responsive to the needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces and 
the overall security needs of our country. As each President has sent 
forth his message to the Congress, we have done our best to fulfill 
that message.
  I thank my colleague from Nevada and thank my colleague from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I must add a word of gratitude to Senator 
Reid for his always gracious commentary. This institution could just 
simply not function as well as we do with all of the roadblocks we face 
without Senator Reid. He is utterly unique in this institution in terms 
of moving the process forward. When we have setbacks or differences, he 
has overcome more of those than any other person in this Chamber as he 
serves as our assistant Democratic leader. I think everybody on both 
sides of the aisle is very much in his debt for his work, as well as 
for his excessively flattering comments for which I am personally 
indebted. I thank Senator Dorgan as well for his comments.
  One word about Senator Warner. Like him, I always look forward to our 
work on the Armed Services Committee. To put it in a nutshell, I have 
been blessed to have him as a partner. I just cannot conceive of having 
somebody with whom I would rather work on issues than having Senator 
Warner working on them as he does day in and day out. I agree with 
Senator Reid, it would not diminish his contribution militarily----
  Mr. WARNER. We must move on, Mr. President.
  (Laughter.)
  Mr. LEVIN. I will take that as my time is up. I yield back the 
remainder of my time on Senator Warner.
  Mr. WARNER. Senator Levin should know my sentiments.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to discuss Senator Reid's 
amendment, which would permit retired members of the Armed Forces who 
have a service-connected disability to receive both their full military 
retired pay and disability compensation.
  On March 27, I held a Personnel Subcommittee hearing with my 
colleague Senator Nelson specifically about this issue of concurrent 
receipt. Our colleague, Senator Reid of Nevada, was the first to 
testify, and he was followed by Undersecretaries Dan Cooper and Charlie 
Able and several experts from the General Accounting Office, 
Congressional Budget Office, and various veterans groups. There was a 
lot to learn about the intricacies of Federal benefits and 
compensation, but ultimately the hearing reinforced the fact that this 
legislation is extraordinarily complex and expensive.
  All said though, I intend to support this amendment because this 
compensation is long overdue for our Nations' veterans. It is 
unfortunate that the cost of concurrent receipt is so high, but 
America's veterans have earned their benefits through their long 
service to our Nation.
  Last year, Congress funded a form of special compensation for retired 
soldiers who had certain combat-related disabilities. The first check 
for this limited compensation will be cut on July 1, 2003, and this is 
good news for those veterans who qualify. This is an important step in 
the fight to help our nation's veterans but we must do more.
  These benefits for veterans and their families are important and we 
should honor those who interrupted their lives and the lives of their 
families to defend this country and preserve our freedom.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Nevada. This proposal 
to overturn current law that prohibits concurrent receipt of retired 
pay and disability benefits for military retirees with 20 years of 
service is long overdue. I believe the current policy is unfair and 
that our military retirees should receive their entire benefits 
package, just as any other Federal worker would.
  Last year, the administration and leaders of the House and Senate 
Armed Services Committees negotiated a compromise that partially 
repealed the dollar-for-dollar offset for certain military retirees who 
also receive VA disability pension benefits. Although the passage of 
this provision represented a step in the right direction, I recognize 
that many veterans who sacrificed to defend our freedom did not benefit 
under the compromise signed into law last year. That is why I am proud 
to support, once again, the amendment before us today to fully repeal 
the dollar-for-dollar offset.
  I have the highest respect for the men and women who have served our 
Nation in uniform. I congratulate the Senator from Nevada for his 
leadership on this important issue and I am pleased to join him and 
others today in honoring the sacrifice of the veterans in my State who 
have served our Nation so well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 848.
  The amendment (No. 848) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are about to turn to an amendment by 
our colleague from North Dakota and our colleague from Mississippi. I 
say to these two fine, outstanding colleagues, while I must oppose this 
amendment, I have rarely seen such extraordinary tenacity as exhibited 
by these two Senators in their strong convictions with regard to the 
matter that is about to be put forward. I wonder if the two Senators 
will offer the amendment, and then I wish to do a housekeeping measure 
with regard to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 849

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk on behalf

[[Page 13594]]

of myself, Senator Lott, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer, Senator Snowe, 
and Senator Bingaman, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), for himself, 
     Mr. Lott, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 849.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I may ask for the yeas and 
nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal the authorities and requirements for a base closure 
                             round in 2005)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. REPEAL OF AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS ON BASE 
                   CLOSURE ROUND IN 2005.

       (a) Repeal.--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 by striking sections 2906A, 
     2912, 2913, and 2914.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2904(a)(3) of that Act 
     is amended by striking ``in the 2005 report'' and inserting 
     ``in a report submitted after 2001''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any votes 
ordered with respect to H.R. 1588 be postponed to occur at 2:50 p.m. 
today; provided further, that immediately following disposition of any 
pending amendments, the bill then be read a third time and the Senate 
proceed to a vote on passage, as provided for under the previous order. 
I further ask unanimous consent that passage of S. 1050 be vitiated, 
and that following the passage of H.R. 1588, the Senate substitute be 
printed as passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is we have 15 minutes on 
our side in support of the amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has 30 minutes equally divided. 
The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to be reminded when I have consumed 
5 minutes.
  This amendment is really quite simple. It would rescind the 
provisions of law that now exist authorizing a round of military base 
closures in the year 2005. The Senate actually voted on this a couple 
years ago, in a relatively close vote, regarding an amendment offered 
by Senator Bunning, supported by Senator Lott and myself.
  I bring the amendment to the floor with my colleague, Senator Lott 
from Mississippi, today for a number of reasons. Let me begin to 
describe them.
  First of all, President Bush says--and he is right--we are at war, a 
war against terrorism. We do not know when the war will end. We do know 
that on 9/11 2001, this country was struck by terrorists. Since then we 
have sent our forces to fight a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq, 
and we know there are significant other challenges that confront us. 
Yet the 2005 base-closing round, the one that provides for a BRAC 
Commission, was conceived prior to 9/11.
  The shadow of 9/11 is long and has changed virtually everything. But 
we have not changed our pre-9/11 notion that we should have a base-
closing round in 2005. Before 9/11 Secretary Rumsfeld said: Let's close 
as many bases in one round as we did in all four previous base closure 
rounds.
  There are two reasons I think this is a bad idea. No. 1 is a military 
reason. We do not know what the military is going to look like 5, 10, 
and 20 years from now. We do not know how big it is going to be. We do 
not know the force structure. We do not know where our troops will be 
based. We have no idea how many troops will be based in Asia, in 
Europe, or the United States.
  If we bring troops home from Europe, for example, where will we base 
them in the United States? We have mechanized divisions in Europe that 
were there to protect Western Europe against the Communist threat from 
Eastern Europe. But, of course, the Warsaw Pact and Communist Eastern 
Europe no longer exist. So will we bring those divisions home? If so, 
where will we house them?
  We know the Army does not have enough large mobilization bases. That 
was proved when we mobilized the Guard and Reserve in the war against 
Iraq.
  So all of these issues beg this question: What is the threat? Is the 
threat different now since 9/11? The answer is, yes. Do we know the 
answers to how will we reconstruct, reconfigure, and reformulate our 
defense establishment and our military to respond to this new threat? 
As it is now, before we develop the answers to that question, we will 
be propelled into a round of base closings that, in my judgment, could 
be very counterproductive to our military preparedness.
  We might need more bases for homeland security purposes in this 
country, rather than fewer bases. I do not know. But before we know, 
the Pentagon wants to go ahead with a round of base closings which 
itself will be very expensive and very costly.
  Two things: One, everything has changed since 9/11, except we still 
have in place this requirement for a BRAC round in 2005. It ought to be 
struck at this point. If there is unneeded capacity, let us respond to 
that and do it in a thoughtful way. But let's not put every military 
installation in this country at risk of being closed.
  Second, I cannot think of a worse time to be considering this. We 
have an economy that is sputtering in this country. It is weaker than 
we would like it to be. In every major city, where there is a military 
installation, if an investor is told, oh, by the way, this military 
installation could very well be closed as a result of a 2005 BRAC 
round, what do you think an investor is going to do? What do you think 
a lender is going to do? They are going to say, we have to wait.
  There is no quicker way to stunt economic growth in cities with 
military installations than to say there is going to be a BRAC round in 
2005. Virtually every single military installation will be at risk of 
closure. In some States, and in some communities in those States, that 
closure of a military installation, according to studies, will mean 
there will be 20- to 30-percent unemployment.
  Do you think it stunts the economic growth in those communities right 
now to have that specter in front of their military installation? The 
answer is, yes, of course.
  So for two reasons, one a military reason and the other dealing with 
the precarious position of this country's economy, we ought to scrap 
the 2005 base-closing round. That does not mean that we should not be 
able to close some military installations that represent excess 
capacity. Of course, we should. But we ought not to create a commission 
that is required to meet in 2005, with a judgment that every military 
installation in this country will be at risk and potentially on the 
list. We ought not do that in contradiction to what we know is in the 
best interest of this country's military needs and also economic needs.
  That is why Senator Lott and I have offered this amendment. We have 
had some close votes on these issues, and they should not be 
represented as votes between people who believe we should never close a 
base versus those who believe we should always use a BRAC. I think 
there is room in between. It is just that at this time, at this place, 
at this intersection, with respect to our military needs and also our 
economic requirements, we ought not leave in law a requirement for the 
2005 base-closing round. So I hope very much that we will receive a 
favorable vote on our amendment.
  I am mindful that the White House senior advisers would recommend a 
veto to the President if this bill had this in it. I am sure my 
colleagues will point that out.
  I cannot conceive of a President vetoing this bill because of this 
particular provision. This bill is a big bill.

[[Page 13595]]

It is a good bill. Senator Warner and Senator Levin have given the 
administration almost all they want and need in this bill. This is a 
significant Defense authorization bill. I cannot conceive of an 
administration upset that we scrapped the 2005 base-closing rounds and 
then decide that they should veto this bill. I simply do not think that 
will happen. They have every right, of course, to use that as a 
technique prior to our vote to say vote for this and we will veto the 
bill, but I do not think there is a ghost of a chance of them doing 
that.
  I do think it is in the public interest, both for military and 
economic reasons, for the amendment that Senator Lott and I are 
offering to be passed by this Senate and to go to conference in the 
Defense authorization bill with the House of Representatives.
  I know my colleague from Mississippi wishes to speak. I thank him for 
his cosponsorship. He has worked on this issue for a long while, not 
just this year or just last year. Senator Lott has felt very strongly 
about the process of BRAC and its consequences, and I am pleased to 
join with him to express these concerns today and hope that we will get 
a favorable vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the generous effort 
put forward by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and his ranking 
member on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Levin, to make sure we had 
an opportunity to offer this amendment. He could have been so disposed 
to try to block it or stiff us or in some other way undermine the 
effort to have a full debate and a vote on this issue but he chose not 
to do that. I do appreciate it very much. He is always generous and 
kind, and he has proven that is the way he is proceeding on this 
amendment and this bill also. So I thank him.
  I have worked very closely on Defense authorization bills ever since 
I came to the Senate some 15 years ago. I served on the Armed Services 
Committee for a number of years, I think almost 7 years. I worked there 
with Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and others in a bipartisan way. I 
can remember struggling as leader to find the time to carve out for the 
Defense authorization bill to be passed so the appropriators did not 
have to just move forward without an authorization bill, which I think 
is not a good way to proceed. Quite often, it took a couple of weeks to 
get it done. This year, this bill, which is I think one of the best 
Defense authorization bills I have seen in a long time, got through in 
almost record time, at least in recent history.
  We were told that it might actually get through in 2 days. Well, I 
did not believe that, but I think when all of it is added up it may be 
5 days, which with a bill of this importance and this magnitude, it is 
still warp time, and it is because the committee did a good job. They 
have a good bill, and I commend them for that. So my support of this 
amendment in no way should be an indication that I do not appreciate 
the work that has been done and the considerations that have been given 
of the issues that I really do care about and that are in this bill.
  I think the record will also show that I have been consistent on this 
BRAC idea. Just a little history that maybe I should offer today, going 
back to when I was in the House of Representatives and I was the 
Republican whip in the House and on the Rules Committee. One day I was 
ambling up the center aisle and I met up with this young Congressman, 
maybe on his first or second term, named Dick Armey from Texas. He had 
this brilliant idea called BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Act. 
He wanted to know how he could get that done. I look back on it and 
question my judgment, but I told him as a member of the Rules Committee 
and the Republican leadership, well, this is probably how you would 
need to do that and how you would need to proceed, and explained what 
happened in the Rules Committee.
  At that point, I said I do not agree with what you are trying to do. 
I think this is an abdication of responsibility. We should not be doing 
this, and if you think this is going to take politics out of it or make 
it easier, you have not been around long enough.
  Well, dang if he did not go out and do it. So I am partially to 
blame, I guess, for the process that was put in place by that young 
Congressman who went on, of course, to be the majority leader.
  The reason why I think it is an abdication of responsibility is, 
look, we have closed bases before. We did it after World War II. We did 
it after the Korean war. We did it after the Vietnam war. How do I 
know? I know of bases all around my region of the country: Brookley Air 
Force Base in Mobile, AL, the Greenville base, the Grenada base, the 
Greenwood base in my own State, lots of bases. How was that done? The 
Pentagon, particularly the military service personnel, looked at these 
bases, at what the requirements were and where the redundancy was. They 
made recommendations to Congress of what bases needed to be closed. In 
many instances, I do not know exactly how it worked, they either had to 
affirmatively approve it or, if they did not disapprove it, they could 
be closed. We could work that process out but, no, no, we want a 
process where we can say, no, I do not see it; I do not hear it; I am 
not involved, do not tell me about it; I do not want it.
  What is the responsibility of the executive branch and the 
legislative branch? That is to do our job. I think this process takes 
out the considerations that can be given by a Congressman or by a 
Senator who knows about a base in Virginia or Montana or wherever it 
may be. They know all the ramifications, what the needs are, what the 
problems would be if it is closed.
  I have never liked this process. The process has not been that unfair 
to me or to my State. We fared pretty well but then we do not have a 
whole lot of bases as compared to other States. But we were on the 
lists. Oh, yes, we were on the lists. There were bases that really 
should not have even been on the list. It does affect the economy and 
it does affect the people.
  The cities and the States go out and hire Washington people who used 
to work on the Hill or worked at the Pentagon to be lobbyists.
  Millions of dollars will be spent across America in fearful 
anticipation of this next round of BRAC, even in places where they are 
not going to be closed.
  I have urged those responsible, if you are going to do this, target 
it where there is redundancy and there needs to be closure; specify 
those areas, and do not say, well, it could be every base. If you 
don't, hundreds of bases will be on the list. If they have been on the 
list before, they may be again. Everyone will run out and start trying 
to deal with this problem.
  Some say people are not really worried about it. Once a month, I do a 
satellite feed to television stations in my State. Almost every month I 
get a question: What is happening on BRAC? Are we going to be on the 
list? They are in fearful anticipation. One in particular I refer to 
probably will not be on the list, but they are scared to death.
  I question it on that basis. If you think this takes politics out of 
the process, take a look at the last process during the 1990s. There 
was a lot of concern about some on the list or taken off the list. 
Human beings are involved. They will use every tool they can to affect 
it or protect themselves. We should not think this is some pure 
process. It is not.
  Also, the timing. We have been through 2\1/2\ rounds. We still are 
dealing with some of the aftermath of that, the cleanup. Could we 
reacquire them? Have they been transferred to the cities and States? 
When will we know the full benefit or the detriment of that? Sometime 
later on. The timing now is what bothers me.
  We have troops all over the world, thousands in Asia and Europe and 
Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting a war--not a battle, a war on terrorism. 
Then we will say, well, we are going to start closing bases. What about 
some bases in Europe? We have been talking about that for 20 years. 
Before I came to the Senate, we were talking how we needed

[[Page 13596]]

to take a look at our basing requirements in Europe. The Soviet Union 
is gone. Didn't anybody notice? Yet we are still positioned in Europe 
as if we were going to go with tanks and heavy equipment into the 
Soviet Union. When are we going to get around to this?
  In defense of the Pentagon, they are busy, they have a lot going on, 
and they have done a great job. They have not had the time, perhaps, to 
decide what we are going to do in Okinawa and South Korea and the rest 
of Asia and Europe and what the future will hold. That is my point. Why 
should we do this?
  Before we start closing bases in America, we need a full assessment 
of what our needs are around the world. Will we bring the troops back? 
What will our efforts be to protect forces and be mobile? What do we 
need here?
  I could have maybe gone along with a deal and said we will go forward 
with this once we have done the assessment and have identified what we 
will change in Europe.
  I have learned around this place, never say never. I could conceive 
of a time and a circumstance where maybe this would need to be done. At 
this particular time, we have not properly assessed our needs. We are 
at war. It sends a terrible signal, and it is bad for the economy. We 
are trying to get the economy going, and it has a negative impact on 
the economy.
  Colleagues, look at what has been identified here. The criteria for 
this round include military value. Does it have value as a military 
asset? Should it be eliminated or outsourced? Read that language 
carefully. Does it have value as a military asset? Is that a way of 
saying, Do we need the Corps of Engineers? Should it be eliminated or 
outsourced? Outsourced, is that what is behind all of this?
  Jointness: Does the base possess multiservice functionability? What 
does that mean, we are going to combine Air Force and Navy pilot 
training? Have we thought that through?
  Preservation of training areas: Does the base have unique training 
areas hindered by encroachment or environmental issues? That is a good 
thing to consider.
  Homeland defense: Does it play a vital role in homeland defense? That 
is interesting. We should consider that. And cost and its economic 
impact.
  One of the areas that worries me, my impression is a lot of attention 
will be given to health-related installations. Look down the list. We 
are talking about Army health clinics, a clinic in Alaska, talking 
about medical groups in Alabama. I am not sure that is the place we 
need to focus either. It will have an effect on military personnel and 
on our veterans at a time when we are making a commitment to them under 
TRICARE and telling our military personnel they will have good health 
care service. Are we going to be looking at closing the facilities 
around the country? Beware.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. This would knock it 
out of the 2005 round. Maybe 2006 would be considered. Maybe something 
could be worked out in conference. I invite my colleagues to pay 
attention to this. This will wind up being a huge problem is my 
prediction.
  Mr. WARNER. It is always a challenge, Mr. President, to go toe to toe 
with my distinguished colleague from Mississippi. The citizens are 
blessed for having such a powerful and respected voice in the Senate. 
We have had a long and strong relationship. I am still proud to call 
you leader. And you exhibit that leadership and have done so 
magnificently, particularly here recently.
  Quickly, I digress from what I intended to say by way of opening with 
a couple of points. That is, the BRAC process will not begin until 
Congress has received and reviewed an overseas basing master plan from 
both the administration and an independent commission to Congress 
authorized in the bill. Both of these reports should be available by 
August 2004. That is an important point raised. We have addressed it. 
That information will be before the Congress.
  Second, under the law as written, the Senator brings out a series of 
points about what this law does to protect us. There is quite a litany 
of steps. Congress will have numerous opportunities during the process 
to affect BRAC actions.
  First, Congress will review by joint resolution the proposed BRAC 
criteria submitted by the Department of Defense to Congress in February 
2004.
  Second, Congress will review the DOD proposed force structure in 
February 2004 and can pass legislation at any point in the process to 
terminate the authority.
  Third, Congress can exercise ``advise and consent'' prerogatives on 
nominees to the BRAC commission.
  Fourth, Congress has 45 days after receiving the commission's list of 
recommended base closures and realignments to pass a motion of 
disapproval.
  The law has carefully been drawn to protect the interests of the 
several States and to give the tools to its elected representatives, 
Senate and House, to step into this situation at a series of junctures 
to protect the interests of their constituents as this process goes on.
  I pick up on another phrase used by my distinguished leader. With 
respect to the BRAC process, he enumerated his long association. 
Indeed, I have had quite an association with it myself. I suppose I go 
back to 1969 to 1974 when I was in the Navy Secretariat and had the 
decision to close, for example, the Boston Naval Shipyard and the 
Newport, RI, destroyer base. I am reminded of that on the floor of the 
Senate with great frequency by the colleagues from those distinguished 
States.
  Nevertheless, in those days we did not have a BRAC process. The 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with his Service Secretaries--
Navy, Army, and Air Force--moved unilaterally.
  Congress came in. I remember going through days of hearings in the 
Senate caucus room. There must have been a dozen cameras focused on us 
while the various Members of the Congress berated this humble public 
servant, and the Chief of Naval Operations sitting next to me, with 
regard to the faulty process. Nevertheless, we had to move on.
  At that point in time, we were overburdened with an infrastructure 
that simply no longer was needed to support the size of the forces we 
had. That is the very thing we are confronted with today.
  For example, since the late 1980s, the Department has reduced force 
structure by 36 percent. That is the numbers of men and women in 
uniform, Guard and Reserve. But infrastructure--that is the barracks, 
the bases, the airfields, the training grounds that support that 
force--has been reduced only by 21 percent. That is showing the total 
disjunction between force level personnel and infrastructure to support 
and train those personnel.
  A 1998 DOD BRAC report to Congress, validated by the Congressional 
Budget Office, indicated the Department of Defense had 23 percent 
excess capacity. That basically still remains. I ask my colleagues, 
what businessperson in your State does not evaluate their 
infrastructure and determine what is needed and what must be disposed 
of in order to maintain the basic profit line and viability and the 
ability to keep its employees? Of course, we accept that as a pattern 
of business.
  I say most respectfully, the Department of Defense is a business, a 
very large business involved in a mission that is vital to the 
security, today, tomorrow, and in the indefinite future of this 
country. The management of that business--four Presidents in sequence 
and the Secretaries of Defense acting under those Presidents--has come 
before the Congress and asked for the authority to bring into alignment 
the base structure as this country is rapidly moving, under the 
leadership of the current Secretary of Defense, to a transition of the 
Armed Forces so we can keep apace with modernization; whether it is the 
smart bombs we saw that were used in the most recent conflicts, or the 
new ships that are on the drawing board, or, frankly, the lifestyles of 
the soldiers, sailors, and marines.
  When I was privileged to serve--we mentioned that more than we should 
this morning--I remember I slept in a

[[Page 13597]]

barracks with 50 people all in one room. I was only 17 or 18. We got 
quickly adjusted to the lifestyle. We shared all types of facilities in 
World War II.
  Today, we try to give our men and women of the Armed Forces living 
compartments, once recruit training is completed, where they have a 
certain measure of privacy and personal dignity that I think is owing 
to these people who volunteer today.
  We cannot retain much of this infrastructure which is outdated, which 
still requires that it be heated, painted, maintained, drawing down O&M 
funds vital to build new facilities for the men and women of the Armed 
Forces.
  I could go on about the needs of the services, but I bring to the 
attention of the Senate the letters that have been forwarded to this 
body. As a matter of fact, the letter approved by the President of the 
United States has just been sent to me at this very moment.
  I will ask unanimous consent, during the course of this debate, that 
I can have printed in the Record letters from the Administration. 
Indeed, one from the Secretary of Defense makes it very clear that:

       The authority to realign and close bases we no longer need 
     is an essential element of ensuring the right mix of bases 
     and forces within our warfighting strategy as we transform 
     the Department to meet the security challenges of the 21st 
     century.

  Then the concluding paragraph--this particular letter went to the 
House of Representatives, but basically an identical one is being 
transmitted to the Senate:

       If the President is presented a bill to repeal or delay 
     BRAC, then I [the Secretary of Defense] would join other 
     senior advisers to the President in recommending that he veto 
     any such legislation.

  Also accompanying that letter is a letter to me of 3 June, by the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, supporting this current posture 
of BRAC; namely, that it is law today and joining me in urging Senators 
not to vote for the present legislation. I will quote the Chairman, 
General Richard Myers:

       In an environment where resources are scarce, we must 
     eliminate excess physical capacity to allow for increased 
     defense capability focused on ``jointness.''

  There we are. The two spokesmen who are entrusted by law--not the 
BRAC law but the overall framework of the law of the United States as 
it relates to our security structure--these two men state unequivocally 
their opposition to the amendment that is presently before this Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Secretary of Defense,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2003.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to reiterate the importance we 
     place on conducting a single round of base closures and 
     realignments in 2005. We have just seen our troops 
     demonstrate an unprecedented effort in fighting for freedom 
     and against terror. But as I have expressed before, in the 
     wake of September 11, the imperative to convert excess 
     capacity into warfighting ability for potential conflict is 
     enhanced, not diminished. The authority to realign and close 
     bases we no longer need is an essential element of ensuring 
     the right mix of bases and forces within our warfighting 
     strategy as we transform the Department to meet the security 
     challenges of the 21st century.
       Through base realignment and closures (BRAC) we will 
     reconfigure our current infrastructure into one in which 
     operational capacity maximizes both warfighting capability 
     and efficiency. BRAC 2005 will also help the Department 
     eliminate excess physical capacity--the operation, 
     sustainment, and recapitalization of which diverts scarce 
     resources from defense capability. BRAC's ability to achieve 
     significant savings has been thoroughly reviewed and 
     validated by both the Congressional Budget Office and the 
     General Accounting Office.
       With the continuing demands of the global war on terrorism 
     we must seek every efficiency to meet our national security 
     needs. Now more than ever we have an imperative to convert 
     excess capacity into warfighting ability.
       If the President is presented a bill to repeal or delay 
     BRAC, then I would join other senior advisors to the 
     President in recommending that he veto any such legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Donald Rumsfeld.
                                  ____

                                                   Chairman of the


                                        Joint Chiefs of Staff,

                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2003.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: To ensure the security challenges of the 
     21st century are met, we must continue to transform the joint 
     force. Capitalizing on the recent successes in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan, BRAC 2005 provides us the opportunity to 
     configure our infrastructure to maximize capability and 
     efficiency.
       In an environment where resources are scarce, we must 
     eliminate excess physical capacity to allow for increased 
     defense capability focused on ``jointness.''
       I strongly support needed infrastructure reductions 
     facilitated by BRAC 2005.
           Sincerely,

                                             Richard B. Myers,

                                                   Chairman of the
                                            Joint Chiefs of Staff.

  Mr. WARNER. I want to return to Senator Lott's comment when he said 
``Never say never,'' which indicates maybe someday a BRAC procedure. 
Senator Lott very accurately portrayed the turmoil in the States, the 
cities, the towns, and the villages where military installations are 
located. It is a very painful procedure by which the Department has to 
evaluate each of those installations and make the determinations which 
are no longer needed for the viability of a modern military. 
Consequently, the mayors, the city councils, the Governors are working 
very hard--I know in my State--as they are in each of your States at 
this time to prepare themselves for the unknowns of BRAC. Considerable 
dollars in the local budgets, and in the State budgets, are expended to 
hire those individuals they believe are expert in how best to go before 
the BRAC Commission, should a base or a facility in that State be put 
on the DOD list. The Governors can address that Commission, and indeed 
the Members of Congress, to state the case for not closing a base.
  All this is going on at great expense. As Senator Lott said, ``Never 
say never.'' Congress has spoken. It has put a law on the books under 
which our President is currently operating. He has indicated he is not 
going to let that law be removed. So if we take action today and send a 
signal that the Senate is repealing the previous law, there is a long 
course of uncertainty as to whether or not that decision by the Senate 
will stand. This President, whom I have come to respect enormously, 
when he says he is going to do something, does it. These communities--
as Senator Lott says, ``Never say never''--will be in a great state of 
uncertainty for an indefinite period of time.
  I do not say this by way of any threat. It is my own opinion. I 
believe the law that has been adopted by the President, that is in 
force, is going to stay in force. We better recognize that and get on 
with the business of this Nation to properly enable those of 
responsibility to realize the force and base structure of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, an hour from now, we will have the 
opportunity to vote on an amendment pertaining to whether or not we go 
forward on the process called BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure 
Act. For the last 20 years, we have debated in the House and the 
Senate, and around the country, whether or not we should take a look at 
our military bases--Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine--to determine 
whether or not we have the right bases with the right mix of personnel 
with the appropriate aircraft, ships, and tanks, and decide whether the 
men, women, equipment, and materiel are where the bases are. We might 
have some bases that need to be closed, or perhaps we have some bases 
where we simply need to move men, women, equipment, and materiel to 
some other base where it makes more sense to maintain them.
  Over the last month or two, we have debated our budget at some 
length. Today we find ourselves in a deplorable situation with respect 
to our budget deficit. Two or three years ago, we enjoyed the largest 
surplus in our Nation's history. This year we are looking at what might 
be the largest budget deficit that we will have ever had.
  I, for one--and I know I have many colleagues who feel this way, 
too--do not worship at the altar of a balanced budget, but I sure care 
about getting

[[Page 13598]]

closer to a more balanced budget. When I was Governor of Delaware, we 
cut taxes 7 out of 8 years. We also balanced the budget in 8 straight 
years.
  One of the things I found troubling about the tax cuts Congress just 
passed is that we do not come close to balancing the budget this year, 
next year, or for the next 10 years. That is a problem for our country. 
But we have taken the action that we are going to take with respect to 
taxes, and now, over the next several months, we will be turning to the 
13 appropriations bills.
  About a year ago, when we were discussing military spending, we had 
the opportunity to decide whether or not we wanted to take another 
close look at our military base structure, largely in this country but 
also outside this country, to see if we have it right: if we have the 
bases, the personnel, the weaponry, and the military equipment where we 
need it in the 21st century. There is some reason to believe we do not. 
The wars we have just fought in Iraq and Afghanistan were different 
from the one in which I served in southeast Asia. Subsequently, the 
wars of the 21st century--I hope there are none, but history would 
suggest that there probably will be--those wars are going to be 
different from the ones we had in the last century.
  Our military leadership tells us in this administration, just as they 
did in the last administration, and as they did during the Reagan and 
Bush 1 administrations, that from time to time we need to look at our 
base structure and determine whether or not it is appropriate for the 
threats we face. I, for one, believe it is time to take another look at 
where we have our bases, how they are structured, and how they are 
manned.
  To the extent we find bases that ought to be closed, for they simply 
do not have the personnel to support or the missions to demand that 
kind of infrastructure, then we ought to have the political courage, as 
difficult as it is, to close them.
  We have a whole lot at stake in my State. The largest employer in the 
central and southern part of my State is Dover Air Force Base. It is a 
great base, with a great reputation. We would like to think they are 
immune from the threat BRAC might pose, but I suppose one never knows. 
We have worked hard, and people on the base work hard, to make sure 
they will never be on a short list for BRAC.
  I spent about 5 years on active duty and another 18 years in the 
Reserves as a naval flight officer. I have been stationed at any number 
of bases which, frankly, ought to be closed, if one looks at the people 
who were assigned to a particular base. Large bases with plenty of 
hangar space, plenty of space in the exchange and the other parts of 
the base, but not many people. I have been on other bases where they 
may have had the people who were stationed there but they did not have 
the support, whether it was the child development centers, schools, or 
other services for families.
  This is not a bad time, as we face the threats of this century to our 
country, to look at the kind of military we are trying to shape.
  Much is said of this administration's effort, led by Secretary 
Rumsfeld, to reshape and reform our military. Actually, a lot of the 
changes were undertaken in the last administration under the leadership 
of President Clinton and his Department of Defense Secretaries.
  We want a military that is leaner in terms of personnel. We want a 
military that is better trained, better equipped, and better uses 
technology. We want a military that is able to deploy more quickly to 
trouble spots around the world. The threat we face, as we all know, is 
different today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. A lot different.
  That also suggests to me this is a good time to slow down, to take 
stock, to assess where we have our men and women and materiels 
stationed around this country and the world and ask ourselves, does 
this allocation make sense? In many cases, it will; in some cases, it 
will not.
  When we talk about budget deficits and bemoan the fact we have this 
huge budget deficit today, I don't want to hear from the 
administration, well, there is one thing we could have done to help 
whittle down that budget deficit a little bit without threatening our 
ability to defend ourselves or express our strength and extend our 
military strength around the world. I don't want it said that we undid 
what we agreed to do a year or two ago. I hope when we vote in less 
than an hour that we will support the position we took last year, we 
will let this commission be formed, we will let them do their work, and 
we will provide plenty of input to the commission as they do their work 
in our respective States, and in the end have an opportunity for an up-
or-down vote on whether or not the status quo is just fine--I think it 
is not--or whether some changes are needed. Fair, reasonable, pragmatic 
changes are needed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I offer my support of the Dorgan 
amendment and oppose the base closing round scheduled for 2005. The 
world has changed since this legislation was voted on in 2001. I 
opposed it then and I oppose it now because we must complete an 
evaluation of our basing needs for the 21st century. And this argument 
carries more weight in this post-September 11 world.
  Since we passed the base closing legislation in 2001, we have had the 
September 11 attacks, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. Our 
men and women in uniform are operating under a tremendously demanding 
operations tempo. Until we are able to evaluate the lessons of these 
conflicts and how they should impact our base structure, it seems 
foolish to rush ahead to a base closing round that was conceived prior 
to September 11.
  A number of New York installations have played a vital role in our 
homeland security as well as military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
As we know, troops from the 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, 
from Fort Drum fought in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan and also 
contributed troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom. New York's Air National 
Guard units in Niagara Falls, Syracuse, Newburgh, Scotia, and Long 
Island have all contributed to homeland security or important missions 
abroad. And New York has numerous other installations that play an 
important role in our national defense and homeland security. Because 
our security needs have grown so much at home and abroad, we need to 
conduct a full evaluation of how our military bases fit into our 
homeland security structure before we push ahead with another base 
closing round.
  Our troops need to know that we support them in their efforts. And 
standing by a bill that was passed in the months before September 11 
does a disservice to them. It places communities under tremendous 
stress to have to prepare for a base closing round. As Senator Dorgan 
points out, it seems wasteful to ask communities in this economic 
climate to devote scarce resources to prepare for this round of base 
closures. And New York is no exception.
  Until we can have a full debate on what form our post-9/11 military 
base structure should take, I will support the Dorgan amendment and 
oppose a 2005 base closing round.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the 
amendment offered by Senators Dorgan and Lott to repeal the provisions 
in the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill that authorize an 
additional base closure round in 2005.
  Even before the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, I along with 
many of my colleagues had serious questions about both the integrity of 
the base closing process itself as well as the actual benefits 
realized. Now, with acts of war committed against the United States, 
with Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom ongoing, 
with our reservists having been called up and our troops being deployed 
and the unpredictability of future missions, this is not the time to be 
considering the closure of additional bases. Indeed, now, more than at 
any time in recent history, I believe it is absolutely critical that 
this Nation not sacrifice valuable defense infrastructure.

[[Page 13599]]

  In addition, as we proceed in the stand up of the Department of 
Homeland Defense, we are still trying to understand the domestic 
military requirements of our nation. Until there is a complete 
assessment of these needs, we simply can't afford to lose more bases. 
After all, during previous base closure rounds over the last decade, 
the Northeast alone lost 49 bases, roughly 50 percent of what we had 
prior to BRAC. Furthermore, 173, or just under 35 percent of the 
installations on the East Coast, were closed during the previous 
rounds. Although the Department of Homeland Security will not take the 
place of the Department of Defense, all of our military installations 
will no doubt play a critical and prominent role in homeland security.
  Instead of chasing illusive savings, I believe the Department of 
Defense needs a comprehensive plan that identifies the operational and 
maintenance infrastructure required to support the services' national 
security requirements. Once property is relinquished and remediated, it 
is permanently lost as a military asset for all practical purposes.
  The administration and proponents of additional base closure rounds 
point out that reducing infrastructure has not kept pace with our post 
Cold war military force reductions. They say that bases must be 
downsized proportionate to the reduction in total force strength. 
However, the fact of the matter is, there is no straight line corollary 
between the size of our forces and the infrastructure required to 
support them.
  Keep in mind, that force levels may have to be revisited once again 
in light of the new anti-terror mission our military faces, and may 
well require an increase. So would we then go and buy back property 
that we have given up in future base closure rounds to build new 
bases--I think not.
  The Department of Defense hopes to eliminate 23 percent of its base 
structure in the 2005 BRAC round. That would exceed the 21 percent 
closed in all four of the previous rounds. Before we legislate defense-
wide policy that will reduce the size and number of training areas 
critical to our force readiness, the Department of Defense ought to be 
able to tell us, through a comprehensive plan, the level of operational 
and maintenance infrastructure required to support our shifting 
national security requirements.
  Proponents argue that the administration's approach will be based 
upon military value and removes parochial and political factors from 
the process, but in reality, the administration's Efficient Facilities 
Initiative is more similar to past BRAC rounds than one might think. 
Much has been made of the de-politicization of the process by including 
``military value,'' ``joint-
ness,'' and the other criteria in the legislation. However, review of 
the last process reveals that these criteria are nearly identical to 
those used in the 1995 round. This is very disturbing, because in my 
view, the past BRAC rounds were not fair or equitable, and were not 
based solely on military value.
  I have been through BRAC before. And I have to say, I know how the 
criteria can be twisted to the advantage or disadvantage of a given 
facility. In fact we had not one but two Air Force generals defending 
the former Loring Air Force Base before a past BRAC commission; yet the 
Air Force claimed its facilities were ``well below average''--and this 
despite the fact that $300 million had been spent there over a ten year 
period to replace or upgrade nearly everything on the base and it ended 
up being closed on so-called ``quality of life'' issues even though 
that was never supposed to be part of the criteria.
  I strongly believe Congress must also consider the economic impact of 
base closures on communities in light of the uncertainty regarding the 
nation's economy and in those communities whose economy is tied to 
military installations, the threat of closure will provide a deterrent 
to any recovery.
  In August 2001, GAO issued an overview on the status of economic 
recovery, land transfers, and environmental cleanup in communities that 
lost bases during previous BRAC rounds. GAO found that the short term 
impact of a base closure was traumatic for the surrounding community 
and that economic recovery was dependent on several factors including 
the strength of the national economy, federal assistance programs 
totaling more than $1.2 billion, and an area's natural resources and 
economic diversity.
  Keep in mind, this assessment was done during a time of unprecedented 
economic growth and as GAO stated, the health of the national economy 
was critical to the ability of communities to adjust: ``Local officials 
have cited the strong national or regional economy as one explanation 
of why their communities have avoided economic harm and found new areas 
for growth.'' GAO also noted: ``Local officials from BRAC communities 
have stressed the importance of having a strong national economy and 
local industries that could soften the impact of job losses from a base 
closure.''
  With the slow-down of the economy, communities may not be able to 
rebound to the extent they have in previous years. Indeed, it is vital 
to note that not every community affected by base closures has fared so 
well in the past--those in rural areas still experienced above average 
unemployment and below average per capita incomes.
  Advocates of base closure allege that billions of dollars will be 
saved, despite the fact that there is no consensus on the numbers among 
different sources. These estimates vary because, as the Congressional 
Budget Office explains, BRAC savings are really ``avoided costs.'' 
Because these avoided costs are not actual expenditures and cannot be 
recorded and tracked by the Defense Department accounting systems, they 
cannot be validated, which has led to inaccurate and overinflated 
estimates.
  The General Accounting Office found that land sales from the first 
base closure round in 1988 were estimated by Pentagon officials to 
produce $2.4 billion in revenue; however, as of 1995, the actual 
revenue generated was only $65.7 million. That's about 25 percent of 
the expected value. This type of overly optimistic accounting 
establishes a very poor foundation for initiating a policy that will 
have a permanent impact on both the military and the civilian 
communities surrounding these bases.
  I want to protect the military's critical readiness and operational 
assets. I want to protect the home port berthing for our ships and 
submarines, the airspace that our aircraft fly in and the training 
areas and ranges that our armed forces require to support and defend 
our nation and its interests. I want to protect the economic viability 
of communities in every state. And I want to make absolutely sure that 
this nation maintains the military infrastructure it will need in the 
years to come to support the war of terrorism. We must not degrade the 
readiness of our armed forces by closing more bases, certainly not at 
this time. Certainly not without information on our future defense 
needs that we do not have.
  In closing, I reaffirm my opposition to legislation authorizing 
additional BRAC rounds and encourage my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the Dorgan/Lott amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment in 
question. I don't think anyone in the U.S. Senate is looking forward to 
the upcoming BRAC round in 2005, including myself. BRAC will have a 
negative impact in Georgia should any of the bases or posts in my state 
be closed.
  However, I am convinced fiscal realities and some over capacity 
issues exist which we absolutely need to address, and if we don't do it 
now we will have to do it later. Putting off the BRAC 2005 round now 
will only prolong the anxiety in our communities surrounding our 
military installations.
  The Department of Defense has stated that they are as much as 25 
percent over-capitalized in their installations across the country. I 
do not agree with that assessment but I believe that if we are serious 
about transforming the military for the 21st Century then we need to 
reduce capacity to more closely equal our force structure needs.
  I personally have 13 major defense installations in my State of 
Georgia, and

[[Page 13600]]

we are preparing now for the 2005 BRAC round. We have a tremendous 
amount to be proud of at every one of our Georgia installations and I 
never pass up an opportunity to say how proud I am of the soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, marines, Department of Defense (DoD) civilians--and 
their families--who serve at our bases. They have served our country 
well. And I believe our bases in Georgia are essential to the national 
security of the United States. All you have to do is look at the recent 
conflict in Iraq and see that Georgia's bases were all so strategically 
important. Georgia will prove that to the BRAC Commission when they 
come to visit us in the coming months.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose the Pentagon's plan for a new 
round of military base closures in 2005. California has already endured 
more than its fair share of previous base closures. Of the 97 major 
military installations closed nationwide since 1988, 29 were in 
California. That's 30 percent of all major facilities closed.
  Californians are all too familiar with the serious impact of closed 
military facilities on their communities. Jobs are lost, small 
businesses close down, and what is left is infrastructure that is 
difficult to reuse. In many cases, environmental contamination makes 
large tracts of land off limits until decades of cleanup are complete. 
By the Pentagon's own estimates, some closed California bases won't be 
fully cleaned up until 2069.
  The former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento is a good example 
of the failure of the Department of Defense to clean-up bases that were 
closed through the BRAC process.
  Rob Leonard, the former head of Sacramento's Military Base Conversion 
office, recently testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee 
about the status of McClellan. According to Mr. Leonard's testimony, 6 
years ago the estimated cost to clean-up McClellan was $832 million and 
was projected to take 30 years. Today, the cost is estimated to be $1.3 
billion and is anticipated to continue far beyond 2033.
  At the same time, however, he goes on to say that ``over the past two 
years the Air Force appropriation requests for the McClellan 
environmental program have not been fully supported by the Department 
of Defense and Congress; and as a result, the clean-up schedule has 
been adversely affected.''
  Another example is the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. This 
base, which was closed in the 1993 round of BRAC, will not be cleaned-
up until 2034 at the earliest. The DOD's own estimates say that it will 
still take at least $77 million to complete the work. Contamination on 
the base, including a nine acre hazardous-waste dump, has led to delays 
in the reuse and redevelopment of the site.
  These former California bases are not the exception--they are the 
norm. Consider the estimated clean-up completion dates for the 
following California bases: George Air Force Base--2031; Castle Air 
Force Base--2038; Tustin Marine Corps Air Station--2038; Moffett Field 
Naval Air Station--2032; and Fort Ord--2031.
  It seems to me that the military should finish one job before it 
starts another. The DOD should concentrate on cleaning up what has 
already been closed so that these bases can be put to productive use by 
local communities.
  Given that the Department of Defense continues to drag its feet on 
cleaning up BRAC sites while pushing for broad exemptions from 
environmental standards leads me to believe that it simply does not 
understand the importance of a safe and clean environment.
  The Pentagon should focus its energy and resources on cleaning up the 
bases it has already closed rather than pursue another painful round of 
military base closures. I hope my colleagues share this view and I 
thank the Senator from North Dakota for his amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 45 seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Michigan be 
given 5 minutes--add an extra 5 minutes to both sides. As I understand, 
there is another Senator. Let's suggest we add another 10 minutes to 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. I believe the men and women in 
uniform and the taxpayers are served best by ensuring that this 2005 
BRAC process go forward. Every day since September 11, they have been 
on the front lines of our daily fight against terrorism. They have been 
sent directly into battle in Afghanistan and most recently in Iraq. 
Every dollar wasted denies them the resources needed to ensure their 
success and their safety, and the success and safety of future men and 
women whom we place in harm's way.
  The Department of Defense estimates that as much as 25 percent of 
their current base structure is excess to their needs. We are spending 
billions of dollars year after year maintaining infrastructure that we 
simply do not need. It is a waste of public resources to hold onto this 
infrastructure, and it is an impediment to our efforts to protect our 
national security.
  Estimates of previous savings in previous BRAC rounds stand at $17 
billion. Perhaps more significant for this debate are the annual 
savings we could expect from future base closings which are estimated 
at $6 billion a year. These savings have been documented countless 
times by the Department of Defense, by the GAO, and by the 
Congressional Budget Office in letter after letter saying the savings 
are significant. Our forces need resources for training, for 
technology, for weapons, and to maintain facilities in better 
condition.
  How do we justify asking our forces to go into combat and into harm's 
way if we ourselves are unwilling to take the difficult steps to give 
them the resources that they need and deserve and that we have the 
power to give to them?
  One of the most important questions that has been raised is, Does 
September 11 change all of this? We answered that question 2 years ago 
when we adopted the 2005 round. We authorized it at that time, after 
September 11.
  On November 16, 2001, GEN Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, wrote us the following:

       We estimate that 23 percent of our facilities are 
     underutilized. The Services cannot afford the costs 
     associated with this excess infrastructure. The Department of 
     Defense must have the ability to restructure the 
     installations to better meet the current national security 
     needs. The sustained campaign against international terrorism 
     will require wise use of our resources and the aggressive 
     elimination of waste.

  A letter written on October 15, 2001--a month after September 11--
signed by I think every former Secretary of Defense, says:

       We are concerned that the reluctance to close unneeded 
     facilities is a drag on our military forces, particularly in 
     an era when homeland security is being discussed as never 
     before. The forces needed to defend bases that would perhaps 
     otherwise be closed are forces unavailable for the campaign 
     on terrorism. Further, money spent on a redundant facility is 
     money not spent on the latest technology we'll need to win 
     this campaign.

  I ask unanimous consent that those two letters I have identified be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   Chairman of the


                                        Joint Chiefs of Staff,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Conferees deliberate the FY 2002 
     Defense Authorization Bill, allow me to emphasize how 
     critical it is that Congress authorize another round of base 
     closures and realignments.
       Installations contribute to overall force readiness; 
     however, excess infrastructure detracts from military 
     readiness by diverting limited resources from personnel, 
     training, equipment modernization, and transformation. We 
     estimate that 23% of our facilities are underutilized. The 
     Services cannot afford the costs associated with this excess 
     infrastructure. The Department of Defense must have the 
     ability to restructure its

[[Page 13601]]

     installations to better meet the current national security 
     needs. The sustained campaign against international terrorism 
     will require wise use of our resources and the aggressive 
     elimination of waste.
       Therefore, I strongly endorse pending legislation to 
     provide the Department the required tools to reduce our 
     excess infrastructure. This authority is necessary for our 
     forces to become more efficient and thus serve as better 
     custodians of taxpayer money.
       Finally, on behalf of our magnificent men and women in 
     uniform, thank you for your strong and dedicated support.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard B. Myers,
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
                                  ____

                                                 October 15, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter underscores the need for the 
     Congress to approve an additional round of base realignment 
     and closure. While we understand the sensitivity of this 
     effort, our support for another round is unequivocal in light 
     of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Defense 
     Department must be allowed to review its existing 
     infrastructure to ensure it is positioned to support our 
     current and evolving force structure and our war fighting 
     plans.
       We are concerned that the reluctance to close unneeded 
     facilities is a drag on our military forces, particularly in 
     an era when homeland security is being discussed as never 
     before. The forces needed to defend bases that would perhaps 
     otherwise be closed are forces unavailable for the campaign 
     on terrorism. Further, money spent on a redundant facility is 
     money not spent on the latest technology we'll need to win 
     this campaign.
       We thank you for all you have done to provide for our 
     military forces, the finest in the world. We know closing or 
     realigning bases will be difficult, but we expect you will 
     face many difficult decisions in the coming weeks and months. 
     With the support of Secretary Rumsfeld, together we stand 
     ready to assist in any way we can.
           Sincerely,
     Former Secretaries of Defense.
                                  ____

                                                   Chairman of the


                                        Joint Chiefs of Staff,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee,
     U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As the full Senate deliberates the FY 
     2002 Defense Authorization Bill I would like to reiterate how 
     critically important it is the Congress authorize another 
     round of base closures and realignments.
       Last Thursday the President outlined a sustained campaign 
     to combat international terrorism. The efficient and 
     effective use of the resources devoted to this effort will be 
     the responsibility of the Services and the Combatant 
     Commanders. The authority to eliminate excess infrastructure 
     will be an important tool our forces will need to become more 
     efficient and serve as better custodians of the taxpayers 
     money. As I mentioned before, there is an estimated 23 
     percent under-utilization of our facilities. We can not 
     afford the cost associated with carrying this excess 
     infrastructure. The Department of Defense must have the 
     ability to restructure its installations to meet our current 
     national security needs.
       I know you share my concerns that additional base closures 
     are necessary. The Department is committed to accomplishing 
     the required reshaping and restructuring in a single round of 
     base closures and realignments. I hope the Congress will 
     support this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Henry H. Shelton,
                            Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is another issue which has been 
raised, and that is the future of our overseas bases. The question was 
asked, How do we consider the base structure in the United States 
before we determine the overseas base structure and what the 
requirements will be? There are three ongoing efforts in determining 
what our overseas presence will be for the future.
  First, the BRAC law itself requires an infrastructure facility review 
on a worldwide basis before the 2005 round can proceed.
  Second, in March, Secretary Rumsfeld requested input from the various 
combatant commanders in developing a comprehensive overseas presence in 
basing strategy looking out for the next 10 years. The results of that 
review are expected this July.
  Finally, there is a provision in the bill before us that establishes 
an independent overseas basing commission that will provide 
recommendations on our overseas presence and a basic strategy to 
Congress that is due in August of 2004.
  Senator Dorgan asked, How are we going to know what our needs are in 
2005? That is when the recommendations are made to the Base Closing 
Commission--in May of 2005.
  This isn't something being done now or this year; these 
recommendations are due in May of 2005.
  I thank our colleagues who have maintained the difficult course here, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, you know there are issues that never go 
away. I have only been here since 1987. But we have revisited this 
issue--I think my colleagues from Michigan and Virginia would agree--
probably more often than any other issue affecting our Nation's 
security. Issues come and go. This one keeps coming back.
  Every expert on military national security who doesn't have any 
particular bias will tell you we have too many bases. We have too many 
military bases. I am happy to say we are already in the process in 
Europe of making some significant changes which will result in 
significant savings.
  Why do we have the BRAC process? We have the BRAC process because we 
proved to anyone's satisfaction that we cannot close an individual 
base. Yes, we abrogated our responsibilities, but we didn't completely 
abrogate our responsibilities because it will still come back to the 
findings of the commission, and we will vote yes or no.
  The issue that continues to intrigue me is this argument that it will 
cost more to close bases. If that logic were true, we never should have 
closed the bases following World War II when we had thousands of bases 
all over America. But we closed bases following World War II because we 
had a decrease in the requirements to meet our national security needs.
  In 1991, we had approximately 3 million men and women in the 
military. We now have 1.4 million men and women in the military. And 
those reductions in the size of our military were made with the full 
knowledge, support, and legislative action of the Congress of the 
United States. The President didn't reduce the size of the military by 
Executive order. Every year, a part of our bill is the authorization of 
the numbers of people and appropriations to pay them. We are now down 
to 1.4 million Americans. Maybe we need some more. But there clearly is 
not the need for the number of bases we had in 1991.
  The Secretary of Defense--obviously a strong leader, obviously a 
highly respected individual, as his predecessors have said--will 
recommend a veto of the entire legislation if this BRAC process is 
taken out of it and not allowed to proceed. Here we are placing at risk 
all of the hard work that has been done by the committee in hearings 
and coming up with our authorization. The bill is now at risk if we 
destroy the BRAC process.
  I remind my colleagues that the BRAC process has worked. Yes, it has 
caused some pain. Yes, it has caused some dislocation. But over time in 
the vast majority of bases that are closed, revenue increases to the 
community rather than decreases.
  That is not to say there isn't severe dislocation in the short term 
and severe economic difficulties because communities are dependent upon 
the military presence. But I urge my colleagues to do what is best for 
our Nation's security, as articulated by the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, by our Secretary of Defense, and literally every other 
expert on national security: that we need to reduce the number of bases 
so we can spend the money on the men and women in the military, for 
their pay, their benefits, their health care, and their housing.
  One of the reasons why we have dilapidated barracks in some bases in 
America is because we have too many of them. We cannot afford to 
maintain all of them at the level we would like for this magnificent 
All-Volunteer Force.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Let's move forward and 
have this bill enacted and signed into law by the President of the 
United States.

[[Page 13602]]

  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield time to myself.
  I thank my colleague from Arizona. He, with a great sense of 
humility, can refer to his own long association with the Active and, 
indeed, Reserve and Guard Forces throughout this country. He knows full 
well that the purpose of the BRAC is to enable the men and women of the 
Armed Forces to have a better lifestyle together with their families--
that coupled with the desperate need to continue with the modernization 
and transformation of these Armed Forces. I thank my colleague for his 
participation and strong support to maintain what is law today, and 
which law gives Congress adequate opportunity, as I have said, to 
protect the interests of our States.
  I enumerated there are several parts of the bill which provide that. 
I enumerated very clearly they were going through quite a process with 
regard to the evaluation of overseas bases prior to final decisions on 
the BRAC. I believe Members have a role of participation to come in the 
days, months, and whatever period it takes.
  Mr. President, I now have in hand the letter from the Secretary of 
Defense as authorized by the President. I have referred in part to an 
earlier communication from the Secretary of Defense to the House. It is 
parallel to the one received by the Senate, strongly stating the 
essential nature of this and concluding:

       If the President is presented a bill that amends the BRAC 
     authority passed by Congress two years ago . . . then I would 
     join other senior advisors to the President recommending that 
     he veto any such legislation.

  That is a perilous route to put the Senate in with regard to this 
important piece of legislation. In my years here, I have witnessed our 
legislation contested to the very last minute and how the 
Appropriations Committee then had the distasteful task of trying to 
pick out those portions of our bill which had to become law. So much of 
the work--of all the Members, not just the committee members--in that 
bill is lost in that process of dissembling our bill and putting 
portions on the Appropriations bill as it goes forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time on the amendment has 
expired.
  Mr. WARNER. I strongly urge that this amendment be rejected by the 
Senate. As I understand, Mr. President, the vote takes place at 2:50 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, all time has expired but I see the 
presence of a very valued member of our committee, the Senator from 
Oklahoma, so I ask unanimous consent that he be given 5 minutes to 
speak to this matter. Regrettably, he is not aligned with the chairman, 
but occasionally that occurs. I ask that his remarks be included as if 
stated within the time limitation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes remain for the proponents of the 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Then he is within the bounds of his right to exercise 
such time as he wishes under the 10 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee for his remarks, and also the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona.
  I would like to start off by saying, I was elected to the other body 
in 1986. In 1987, a very distinguished Congressman, Dick Armey, came up 
with the whole idea of how to get rid of excess infrastructure, using 
this system that should be free of political influence, or as free as 
possible. I supported it and voted for it. I went through four BRAC 
rounds. The first one was in 1988, the second one was in 1991, the 
third in 1993, and the fourth was in 1995.
  During that period of time, it worked very well. We closed or 
realigned some 300 installations but 97 specific major installations 
were closed. There was a lot of pain that went with that. There were 
probably a few people who were defeated on the basis of that. But, 
nonetheless, the idea he had worked.
  I made the statement during that time that with regard to the 
installations we have in my State of Oklahoma, if they came out through 
this process and said they, in fact, wanted to do something, and it was 
necessary to close a classified, excess infrastructure in one of my 
installations, I would support that statement. As it turned out, it did 
not happen.
  There are three major reasons, that even though what my colleagues 
have said sounds very good--and I believe most of it is true and 
factual; and I know they believe it--but three things are different 
today than were in those four BRAC rounds.
  No. 1, I look across the Chamber and I can see a chart that makes 
reference to the fact that the threat is different since September 11. 
Well, I will not belabor that point because I was not on the floor and 
I assume that point has been made.
  When you talk about the threat that is out there, you are talking 
about a threat that could not have been foreseen 10 years ago or even 5 
years ago or even 3 years ago. It is a totally different threat.
  I can remember sitting in a hearing when we had expert testimony by 
individuals who were saying at that time that we will no longer need 
ground forces in 10 years. That was 10 years ago, and we have had two 
major victories--primarily on the ground--in the last year. So these 
things were not foreseen at that time. The change in the threat is 
going to cause us to make other adjustments.
  The second thing that I have strong feelings about is this: I was 
listening to the distinguished Senator from Michigan talk about the 
amount of money that has been saved. I would question that. There are a 
lot of cleanups that have not been concluded yet. We hear glowing 
figures about how much is going to be saved by each installation that 
is closed. Some installation closings have resulted in no savings 
whatsoever. But there is one thing that is a certainty; and that is, 
when you close an installation, for the first 2 or 3 or 4 years, it is 
going to cost a lot of money. For that reason, and that reason alone, I 
would want to adopt this amendment so we do not have a 2005 BRAC round 
because we do not have any idea how many installations will be closed 
and how much money that will cost us.
  Right now we are in a crisis in our defense system. I know a lot of 
people do not like to say this. A lot of people do not believe it. But 
we went through the last administration, when the proper attention was 
not given to defending America, and a lot of people had this great 
euphoria that the cold war was over and thinking there was no longer a 
threat out there and that we could cut down the size of our military; 
and, as the Senator from Arizona said, we did cut it down from some 3 
million troops to 1.4 million. I am certain a mistake was made.
  Now we look at the problems we have in our military and they go all 
the way across the board. No. 1, we have inadequate troop strength. We 
know that. That is a fact. We can't do what has to be done in Iraq and 
other places and have enough reserve for a contingency that might 
happen in North Korea, Syria, or any other place. This is something 
that has concerned us.
  No. 2, force strength deficiency is resulting in a crisis in our 
reserve component. Our Guard and Reserves are all overworked. They are 
unable to carry on the responsibilities they have. We can't expect the 
employers to continue with all these deployments and pay these people, 
hold these jobs, particularly in an economy that is not robust. This 
problem is serious.
  A third problem that took place over the last administration was a 
slowing down of our modernization program. I have said in the Senate 
that we are sending our troops out to fight on the ground with 
artillery that is World War II technology. The best thing we have in 
artillery right now operating is called Paladin. Paladin technology 
came about in the 1950s. When you tell people you have to get out and 
swab the breach after every shot, they don't believe you until they see 
that is the

[[Page 13603]]

case. There are four countries, including South Africa, making 
artillery pieces better than that which we have.
  Then with all of these problems out there, we find out that the 
threats are greater today than they were during the cold war. People 
don't like to hear that, but back in the cold war, we had one great 
threat. That was the Soviet Union. We were the two superpowers. They 
were predictable. We knew what each other had. We developed a program 
under a Republican administration that I did not agree with. That was a 
program of mutual assured destruction. That is, I will make you a deal: 
You don't defend yourself against us and an incoming missile; We will 
not defend ourselves. So if you fire on us, we will fire on you. 
Everybody dies and everybody is happy.
  That seemed fairly reasonable at that time. Now we have a little 
sense of the changing threat out there and recognize it is not coming 
from one place. We have some 20 countries that have weapons of mass 
destruction or that are developing them. It is not something we can 
quantify now as to what kind of force structure we need.
  That brings me to my second point one more time. While we don't know 
how much savings will be effected, we do know it is going to cost 
millions and millions of dollars for every installation that is closed. 
We cannot afford it now. We cannot afford to leave our force structure 
where it is, our modernization program where it is. We cannot allow the 
Russians, who are selling on the open market their S.U. series that are 
better than our F-15s and F-16s--we want to give our troops, the most 
capable troops in the world, the resources and modern resources to make 
sure they have something that is better than the enemy has.
  The third reason it is very significant is, we are going to rebuild. 
We have been asking the administration to give us as much detail as to 
what our future force structure should look like. I am not criticizing 
them for not being able to come back with it because this is a moving 
target. We have threats that are out there we didn't have before. We 
have to learn how to accommodate these threats and how to combat them. 
Until such time as we know what the force structure is going to look 
like, I don't believe we should be closing any infrastructure. If we 
have an inadequate force structure right now that is down to here and 
we have perhaps more infrastructure, it does not make sense to bring 
the infrastructure down to an inadequate force structure and then build 
that up and wonder, wait a minute, why do we have something that can't 
be used.
  So for that reason, until we find out what our force structure is 
going to look like, we don't know what remaining installations will be 
needed. Let's stop and remember, we had 97 major installations that 
have been closed. That is behind us. We supported that. Those were the 
four BRAC rounds. We are now to a point where we do not know what the 
threat is going to be. We don't know how we will have to rebuild our 
force structure and our system. So we don't know what kind of 
infrastructure it is going to take to accommodate that.
  These three reasons were not present in 1989. They were not present 
in 1991, 1993, and 1995. But they are present today. So we have to face 
this crisis, which we will, and rebuild our military. And when we get 
to the point where we know what it is going to look like and how to 
adequately defend against this new threat, we had no idea it would be 
out there as recently as 3 or 4 years ago, then it is time to maybe 
look and reevaluate where we might be. It would be premature to do it 
at this time.
  I support the amendment. These are three very good reasons that were 
not present in the future rounds.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________