[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 9790-9804]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, is the pending business amendment No. 3158?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is right. That amendment is 
pending.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have confirmed with Senator Snowe and 
Senator Lott that they would permit me to set their amendments aside 
for 3

[[Page 9791]]

minutes so that I could offer a nonproliferation amendment. I ask the 
Senate for that privilege.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The pending amendment will be set aside.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
ask consent my amendment be in order, as well.
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, do we have the amendment? 
Have the managers had a chance to view that? I don't know that there is 
a problem.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is report language. All I want to do is have the same 
kind of courtesies. If I could ask, then, at least it be considered 
after the floor managers have an opportunity to review the amendment.
  If there is an objection, that would be satisfactory with me. But it 
is relevant. Otherwise, I will insist on the reading of the amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I don't 
intend to, I don't even believe it is my role, I don't know that anyone 
has had a chance to look at it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I was waiting for my time. You were next to offer your 
amendment and were going to take 90 minutes. I was prepared to remain 
here and, hopefully, we are alternating amendments. This is directly 
germane. My good friend from New Mexico offered his amendment and asked 
for consent to do it. I was trying to get the same courtesies.
  I am glad to play by whatever rules the Senator wants to play by, but 
if we are waiting our turn to get here and someone asks consent to be 
able to advance their amendment, all I am asking is to get the same 
kind of consideration. That is the only thing.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is there a unanimous consent agreement to 
set aside an amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). To dispense with the reading of 
the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Has there been an agreement to set the pending amendment 
aside to offer this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, there has been.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry, Mr. President, if that question was put to the 
Senate, I certainly did not hear it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was made.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I made the request and the Lott amendment was pending 
and I asked it be set aside for 3 minutes so I could offer an 
amendment. That was granted.
  Mr. REID. I heard the Senator from New Mexico. I thought he said 
there had been an agreement to that effect. If you check the record, 
that is what it said.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And I said, and I ask the Senate grant me that 
privilege, after I made that statement to which you are referring.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the same privilege.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator from----
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, might I suggest, and I ask 
my good friend--and the Senator knows I will support him--could you 
withdraw that at this time so Senator Levin and I, together with the 
leaders, can determine the order in which we will take amendments?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw my request, in courtesy to my friend from New 
Mexico.
  I ask consent that I be recognized to offer an amendment at the 
conclusion of the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator----
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts in 
his typical courteous manner for the way he has handled it. I know the 
managers will work with him.
  Mr. REID. So the consent now before the body is, following the 
disposition of the pending amendment--that is, the amendment of the 
Senators from Mississippi and North Dakota--Senator Kennedy be 
recognized to offer his amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. I have to object. I fervently asked that the two managers 
work with our respective leadership and those desiring to bring up 
amendments. So I suggest that we continue with the Lott amendment and 
you be ever so kind to hold yours in abeyance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. They have already agreed on mine and it will take 3 
minutes. I don't doubt that.
  Mr. LEVIN. No. There has been no agreement on the Domenici amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What?
  Mr. LEVIN. As I understand, Senator Domenici--and I was distracted--
asked he be allowed to offer the amendment. As I understand it, there 
has been no agreement to the amendment, the time agreement on the 
amendment. The manager is asking the Senator from New Mexico would he 
now withhold that amendment so we can sort this out.
  Mr. WARNER. Correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be glad to do that.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, and I ask that we pursue the opportunity 
to have a time agreement on the Lott-Dorgan amendment.
  First, I ask the distinguished Senator from Mississippi how much time 
the Senator desires--and we will talk about it in terms of it being 
equally divided.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have talked back and forth and we think 
that 45 minutes a side should be sufficient.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. LEVIN. An hour and a half equally divided.
  Mr. WARNER. Forth-five minutes to the side?
  Mr. LOTT. An hour and a half equally divided.
  Mr. WARNER. Well, we want to keep moving with this bill. It seems to 
me the subject is pretty well understood. I was hoping maybe an hour.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond, we do have Senators who 
have not been heard.
  Mr. WARNER. Very well, I am agreeable if the----
  Mr. LOTT. If we have time and we do not need it all, we can always 
yield it back--an idea I like.
  Mr. WARNER. This issue has an intensity of its own.
  If an hour and a half is agreeable to the Senator from Virginia and 
the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senators would be willing to modify 
their amendment, it is my understanding following the hour and a half 
that there would be a vote on or in relation to that amendment with no 
second-degree amendments in order.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I ask that be part of the consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the original consent is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Snowe and Senator Feinstein have 
been patiently waiting, Senator Cochran wishes to speak, as well as 
Senator Dorgan.
  Would the Senator from New Hampshire have a question?
  Mr. GREGG. I would like to get 3 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Would the Senator be willing to withhold so we can proceed 
with the Senator from Maine?
  Mr. GREGG. Certainly, unless the Senator from Maine----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 3158

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
amendment that has been offered by Senator Dorgan, Senator Lott, 
Senator Feinstein, and myself to refocus the provisions that are 
included in the underlying legislation that authorizes a base closure 
round in 2005 from our domestic installation to our overseas military 
infrastructure.

[[Page 9792]]

  I do so because I am firmly convinced today in this unprecedented era 
of global war on terrorism, as we continue operations in Afghanistan to 
root out the seeds of terror, as we are engaged in ensuring a free Iraq 
in the heart of the Middle East, it makes no sense to consider closing 
nearly a quarter of our domestic military infrastructure in addition to 
the 21 percent that has already been lost over the past 15 years in 
America.
  I arrive at this debate as a veteran of a number of issues that are 
key to our deliberations. First, I have been all too intimately 
acquainted with every base closure round since the first occurred in 
1987, as well as the accompanying pitfalls, failures, and foibles of 
each--and there are many.
  Also, in my capacity of both the House and the Senate, as ranking 
member of the Operations Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee 
of the House that oversaw terrorism and in my position in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee and former Chair of the Seapower Subcommittee.
  I cannot and will not ignore the pattern I have discerned of the 
failure to ``connect'' the critical ``dots'' in the past, and the 
implications of these shortfalls on our ability to project into the 
future.
  What most concerns me is the inadequacy of the military's threat 
assessment projections time after time accompanying the requirement, 
including enacting BRAC legislation in 1991 that stipulates the 
Secretary of Defense ``shall include a force structure plan for the 
Armed Forces based on an assessment by the Secretary of the probable 
threats to the national security during the six-year period beginning 
with the fiscal year for which the budget request is made.''
  It is very important to understand the requirements and the 
obligations of the Defense Department. They have to make those 
projections. Unfortunately, whether they make those projections 20 
years into the future or 6-year projections, the track record has been 
poor.
  I can say this because I have reviewed the military threat 
assessments not only contained in the force structure plans the 
Department provided, along with their justifications for the 1991 base-
closing round, but also the 1993 and 1995 BRAC rounds, as well as other 
key assessments made by the Department during that time, such as the 
1993 Bottom-Up Review, the 1997 Quadrennial Review, and the 2001 
Quadrennial Review.
  Specifically, I wondered how actual events and results matched their 
expectations. How did their threat assessments dovetail with the new 
realities, such as terrorism, asymmetric threat, and homeland security 
or homeland defense?
  I then went back a little more than 21 years ago to the bombing of 
the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, and looked at significant terrorist events 
directed against Americans throughout the world, as chronicled by the 
State Department. I put it on this chart because I think it is 
important to recall exactly what the events have been over the last 20 
years with respect to terrorism.
  A defining moment in 1983 was when our marines were under attack, 
when 242 brave marines were lost because of a suicide bomber.
  In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked, and U.S. Navy diver Robert 
Stethem was killed. Then, of course, we had the Achille Lauro. Then we 
had, of course, the Berlin disco that was bombed, and a number of 
American soldiers were killed or injured. We also know what happened 
with Pan Am flight 103 that was destroyed over Lockerbie.
  These are a few of the significant events that occurred throughout 
the 1980s. In fact, I am illustrating only a few of the 17 events that 
were identified by the State Department where Americans were the target 
of terrorists.
  Yet, after all these events, let's look at what was identified in 
these base-closing reports that are required under the legislation. We 
had a four-page report that was a result of the 1991 base-closing 
round, and they submitted a military assessment for the years, because 
they have to project out. In this case, it was 1992 to 1997. What did 
it have to say?

       The most enduring concern for U.S. leadership is that the 
     Soviet Union remains the one country in the world capable of 
     destroying the U.S. with a single devastating attack. . . .
       [T]he Soviet state still will have millions of well armed 
     men in uniform and will remain the strongest military force 
     on the Eurasian landmass.

  But when it came to terrorism, they said: Our efforts to promote 
regional stability and to enhance the spread of democracy will continue 
to be challenged by insurgencies and terrorism.
  So there was only a passing mention of this issue as an impediment to 
regional stability and the enhancement of democracy worldwide. But 
there was no discussion of it as a context, as a threat to the United 
States. There was no mention, as you can see, of it as an asymmetric 
threat or as a threat to our homeland security. And then what happened?
  On February 26, 1993, we had the bombing of the World Trade Center. 
It was badly damaged, and 1,000 people were injured, leaving 6 people 
dead. Yet the military threat assessment, issued less than 1 month 
later--it would have been a matter of weeks later--in the 1993 base-
closing round report again referred to the regional crises with North 
and South Korea, India and Pakistan, the Middle East, and Persian Gulf 
States. It went on to say:

       [T]he future world military situation will be characterized 
     by regional actors with modern destructive weaponry, 
     including chemical and biological weapons, modern ballistic 
     missiles and, in some cases, nuclear weapons.

  But note in this report there was suddenly, once again, no mention of 
terrorism after the World Trade Center bombing less than a few weeks 
later, maybe a month. And as to an asymmetric threat? Nothing. And 
homeland security? No reference whatsoever to homeland security.
  Furthermore, the bottom-up review that occurs within the Defense 
Department, which is a wide-ranging review of strategy, resources, and 
programs to delineate our national defense strategy for the future, 
that was signed out in October of 1993--and, of course, that was about 
8 months later--described four new dangers to U.S. interests after the 
end of the cold war. Again, no mention of particular asymmetric 
threats, homeland security, or anything with respect to terrorism. Even 
at that point, they did mention state-sponsored terrorism as a 
reference, but, again, they stated the World Trade Center bombing in 
1993 was the result of the mastermind Sheikh Omar Rahman, who was a 
non-state-sponsored terrorist.
  But, as you can see, in 1993, then, we had two Defense Department 
reports, one in response to the requirements under the base-closing 
process, and the second one was a bottom-up review by the Defense 
Department within the same year, having the foreknowledge of what 
happened and what transpired at the World Trade Center, and nothing was 
referenced with respect to terrorism, asymmetric threat, or homeland 
security.
  The timeline continues to 1995. We have the Tokyo subway with the 
sarin gas. Ironically, that is sarin gas equivalent to what was 
discovered in Iraq last week. I was stunned then to look at what 
happened in the 1995 force structure report that was also required in 
response to the base closure round of 1995 that had to address the 
threats between 1995 and 2001. Other than the removal of a few 
sentences, it was exactly identical, the same as the 1993 BRAC threat 
assessment. So much for rigorous analysis. Still there was no mention 
of terrorism, no mention of asymmetric threat, and no references to 
homeland security. And this is less--less--than 6 years before 
September 11, when we had those catastrophic and devastating events.
  Remember, this particular base closure round is required to project 
out 20 years. So now we are referring to a base-closing force structure 
plan in 1995, given all the preceding events of terrorism in which 
Americans were victims and a target, and there was no identification of 
terrorism being a major threat to the United States, or that there was 
an asymmetric threat,

[[Page 9793]]

or that there was a threat to our homeland security. This was 6 years 
out.
  After the 1995 report, we go to 1996. We have Khobar Towers. We have 
the East Africa Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Then, of course, we 
have the USS Cole in the year 2000. Again, we do not have any 
identification that we are now being threatened, in these base-closing 
force structure plans, in our homeland security, or by the threat of 
worldwide terrorism.
  By 1997, the Department was acknowledging the fact terrorists using 
asymmetric means might attack the homeland. Again, I might add, yet it 
still remained a fourth-tier concern in their Quadrennial Defense 
Review--a fourth-tier concern--in spite of the continuing onslaught of 
terrorism around the world.
  Then, of course, we have all the preceding events. So this, in my 
opinion, raises some serious concerns about the ability of the Defense 
Department to project into the future, and particularly when talking 
about projecting 20 years out.
  I happened to review the Quadrennial Defense Review report issued in 
2001. Mind you, that was issued 19 days after the attack of the World 
Trade Center on September 11, and it obviously identified that we were 
being challenged by adversaries who possessed a wide range of 
capabilities regarding asymmetric approaches. Obviously, at that point 
it was not an astute observation. But interestingly, in examining the 
QDR, there was a lack of mentioning al-Qaida by name--not once. In the 
70-page report, there is not one mention of al-Qaida, when we are 
talking about 19 days after the events at the World Trade Center on 
September 11.
  I think this all indicates the significant dose of skepticism with 
which we should examine the current force structure plan and the 
accompanying threat assessment submitted by the Department to justify 
the base-closing rounds of 2005. Considering that we now base decisions 
on a 20-year assessment--never mind just 6, and even the 6-year 
projections proved spotty at best--and considering the volatile times 
in which we live, I have to say that what we received, over a month 
later than was required by the base-closing legislation--and I might 
add it is about what we expected, not much--indeed, my sense is they 
took these assumptions that were made for the Future Year Defense Plan 
that the Department submits as part of their overall budget 
authorization and simply extended it to 2009.
  But even after 20 years of constant assault, of terrorism on 
Americans either here or abroad, the Defense Department still has not 
matched its force structure with those assumptions. Indeed, they have 
avoided the entire issue of these threats that the Nation will face 
over the next 20 years by claiming that today's security environment 
``is impossible to predict with any confidence which nations, 
combination of nations, or non-state actors may threaten U.S. interests 
at home and abroad.''
  And when the Department claims they have adopted an approach to force 
development based on capabilities rather than threat-based requirements 
and will need a flexible, adaptive, and joint capability that can 
operate across the full spectrum of military contingencies, exactly 
what does that mean? That is a very good question. What does that mean? 
Clearly, it indicates an uncertainty upon which we should be 
considering closing military bases.
  It is obvious that the Defense Department is not certain, and this is 
not the basis upon which we can make decisions that are irreversible 
when it comes to our military infrastructure. Indeed, a retired Navy 
captain, Ralph Dean, succinctly placed a column in a Maine newspaper 
where he said:

       Surprisingly it showed--

  In reference to this force structure plan that was recently submitted 
by the Defense Department--

     virtually no changes in overall force structure during that 
     long period. This may indicate the Department of Defense is 
     unable to make projections about the future threat with any 
     degree of certainty. This uncertainty must be addressed, 
     because BRAC actions are irreversible.

  Exactly. And therein lies the problem. We are required to make 
decisions on force structure, on threat assessments based on plans that 
are submitted to the Congress and to the base-closing commission. We 
are going to make permanent decisions. We cannot retreat from those 
decisions once they are made. You cannot retract those decisions once 
they are put in motion.
  Let's look at the overall picture in the context of the threat 
environment in which we live today. How can we possibly project out 20 
years to ascertain our military requirements? We are learning in Iraq 
that the quantity of troops matters, as DOD is forced to recalibrate 
and send an additional 20,000 troops there. Moreover, this underlying 
legislation, the Department of Defense reauthorization legislation we 
are currently considering, is actually increasing the Army's end 
strength of more than 30,000 soldiers. Yet at the same time we are 
suggesting that we are going to reduce the number of our bases at home? 
Indeed, the BRAC force structure plan of 2005 addresses neither the 
potential surge requirements that we may confront in these protracted 
struggles, nor the need for more troops.
  Indeed, there seems to be some confusion within the Defense 
Department between DOD and the services. I saw a report the other day 
that interested me that appeared in the Boston Globe making reference 
to the fact that the Navy is planning to inactivate a number of 
submarines over the next few years. It was reported that the Navy is 
conducting a study that might reduce the attack submarine force 
substantially downward for the fiscal year 2006 budget submission, and 
we are told there are no changes, as indicated in the Future Year 
Defense Plan, upon which the force structure plan that was submitted 
for this base-closing round was predicated. So how can we be certain of 
the type of projections the Defense Department is going to make beyond 
the year 2009?
  There is no mention of any changes up to 2009 in terms of its force 
structure requirements. How then are we going to base the kind of 
decisions within the base-closing process when we have not had an 
adequate projection of threat assessment for the next 20 years and what 
it will require in terms of force and also infrastructure? And what are 
the joint warfighting plans that are still being developed? If BRAC 
decisions are based on untested joint concepts, then the Department of 
Defense could well face limited options down the road because of the 
limitations of facilities.
  I think it doesn't make any sense at this point to continue with the 
domestic base-closing round without a complete understanding and 
evaluation of our overseas basing requirements. This amendment will 
allow Congress time to conduct adequate oversight to ensure that these 
invaluable decisions that we will be making, permanent decisions, 
irreversible decisions, do not have implications for the future of our 
capacity to respond to the changing threat environment in which we 
currently are.
  I am hoping that Members of this Senate, however they felt in the 
past about the base-closing process, will understand there is an 
enormous gap between threat assessments and force structure projections 
by the Defense Department and all of the previous base-closure rounds, 
and that is a serious problem in the world in which we live and 
certainly in the context of needing more flexibility when we are 
conducting a war on terrorism. As the President said, this is going to 
be an ongoing struggle for a long time in the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, we have to reconsider and look abroad for our overseas 
facilities as opposed to those at home.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may take.
  I ask my distinguished colleague from Maine, have you had an 
opportunity to examine the letter that was sent by the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and all of the other Chiefs in which they say ``a 
comprehensive overseas basing review is

[[Page 9794]]

nearly complete.'' I have other documentation. They have done a 
conscientious job on the overseas base structure. They are coming 
forward with a very balanced program to work with the existing law.
  My concern is, if we dislodge the existing law by adopting this 
amendment, it would have the effect of delaying the process another 2 
years and putting on to the Department of Defense the added cost of 
continuing to maintain structure that they simply do not need for 
today's and the foreseeable military strength of our country.
  I have to tell my distinguished colleague, in the course of the lunch 
period, I talked with a number of individuals. They said: John, the 
most persuasive case to me is that I have called home and talked to 
several of the communities that have hired the lobbyists, and they 
pleaded with me: We can't afford this infrastructure that we felt 
necessary to defend our base under the existing 205 BRAC procedure. You 
add another 2 years, you are going to draw down those precious small 
amounts of tax dollars in those communities by another 2 years. Is the 
sentiment in your State to go on for another 2 years with all of the 
uncertainty?
  A lot of communities cannot attract new business for fear that the 
base may leave. They have to have a decision and get on with this.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's comments. 
First, with respect to overseas facilities, in this legislation, under 
the current law, it requires the Department of Defense to submit that 
report only 4\1/2\ months prior to when the base-closure commission's 
final decisions are completed. I think that is going to be a totally 
inadequate period of time in which to make a current examination as to 
whether or not to close the facilities. You can have an impact at home 
on domestic installations. We are talking about increasing the number 
of troops in the underlying legislation. Where are they going to be 
housed? There are a lot of decisions. We have never thoroughly 
evaluated overseas installations. I think that needs a thorough 
examination. We deserve that.
  Frankly, I do not have confidence in the process. I can tell my 
colleague, as the Senator from Mississippi has indicated, I have no 
confidence in the integrity of the process. They have not been in 
position to ever not only provide a credible force structure plan in 
identifying the future threats, they have not been accurate in their 
projections.
  Secondly, if you talk about the examination of savings--and I did not 
get into that subject because that is a wide-ranging subject--GAO, in a 
report yesterday, said the Department of Defense does not have any 
adequate methodology by which to ascertain whether they have made or 
achieved any savings. In fact, there may be one base closing round that 
has achieved any savings in the first 6 years--maybe.
  We are going to be talking about spending a lot of money before we 
even get to that process even if we do because it costs so much in 
remediation in the cost of closing down those facilities, in 
conjunction with the war on terror, in conjunction with the conflict in 
Iraq, and all the potential costs associated with that which remain 
unknown in the foreseeable future.
  That is why I say to the chairman, I think it is important, not for 
the sake of expediency and efficiency, but for the sake of fairness in 
looking abroad as to exactly what we need. We have more than 700 
facilities that have not heretofore been examined. With regard to 
forward-deployed forces, many nations would not allow us to put our 
troops there when it came to the conflict--Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
  The time has come to look at this situation very differently. We are 
in a very different environment, as the chairman well knows, and I 
appreciate that. But I think the time has come to understand there are 
huge gaps in understanding what our future threat environment is going 
to be all about, and that has enormous implications for the future.
  Finally, may I mention, in this legislation there is a joint 
resolution of approval by the Congress in 1997 to make a decision as to 
whether to proceed to an additional base-closing round.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know the Senator from California has been 
waiting to speak. Will 10 minutes be sufficient, or if she does not 
need all that time, we will reallocate the time. I yield up to 10 
minutes to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  I had the privilege of listening to the Senator from Maine. I feel 
very privileged to join in this effort along with the Senator from 
Mississippi and the Senator from North Dakota. The Senator from Maine 
made an excellent case, and I concur wholeheartedly.
  Specifically, what we are trying to do with this amendment are two 
simple things: modify the 2005 base closure round to make it apply 
solely to military installations outside the United States. As Senator 
Snowe said, we need to begin to look at the 700 operations and 
installations we have around the globe and make some decisions with 
respect to them in this new asymmetrical war on terror we face.
  Secondly, provide for expedited consideration of a request for a 
domestic base closure round in 2007.
  I thought the Senator made the excellent point that Congress 
authorized the 2005 base closure round in 2001. Our military and our 
Nation have been confronted by several new challenges since that time: 
9/11, the war on terror, the overthrow of the Taliban and the Hussein 
regime, and the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq. We now know our 
enemy may well be rogue states, may well be nonstate entities who seek 
to find weapons of mass destruction. They may well be international 
groups which have replaced the Soviet Union as the greatest threat to 
American interests and security.
  These challenges, we believe, mandate us to reexamine the role and 
composition of our military in this new era: What kind of force 
structure will be needed? How many troops will be sufficient? And, yes, 
what sort of infrastructure and basing needs will be required to meet 
these new threats?
  It seems very shortsighted to me to proceed with a new round of 
domestic base closures that was approved before 9/11 took place and 
before any of these questions were raised. In fact, the criteria for 
the 2005 base closure round is almost identical to the criteria for the 
past four rounds. How can we be sure this process will be fair and 
balanced and in the best interest of our military and our national 
security interests if it is based on criteria appropriate for 1995?
  For example, as Senator Snowe pointed out, there was no Department of 
Homeland Security in 1995. We are only beginning to understand how our 
domestic military infrastructure can play a role in providing for the 
actual defense of our homeland. That is a very important point. I do 
not think there is anyone who would say our homeland is beyond attack. 
As a matter of fact, I think a majority of us, certainly on the 
Intelligence Committee, would say there are very good chances that 
there will be another attack; therefore, domestic military has a new 
and different role to play in our country.
  I do not think now is the time to rush forward. We still have 112,000 
troops based in Europe, 37,000 in Korea, 45,000 in Japan in bases 
designated, devised, and intended for cold-war-era threats. Those 
threats have changed.
  We see on the Military Construction Subcommittee how the thinking is 
now changing with respect to force structure, the location of force 
structure in Korea, as well as in Europe, moving more of the European 
components south of the Alps so that we may be able to move them more 
rapidly into the Middle East and into Africa.
  Suppose after the 2005 round is completed it is determined several 
overseas bases need to be closed and the troops relocated to the United 
States. Where will they go? Will closed bases have to be reopened?
  Let us also remember there is an economic impact on a community that 
must be taken into consideration.

[[Page 9795]]

When a base is closed, jobs are lost, economic growth is stunted. Even 
the threat of a base closure is enough to scare away investment.
  Should we not take a look at our overseas basing structure first 
before we ask our communities to make additional sacrifices?
  Senator Hutchison, who is the chairman of the Military Construction 
Subcommittee, and I, as ranking member, introduced legislation last 
year to create a congressional commission to take an objective and 
thorough look at our overseas bases. We met with that commission last 
week and gave them their charge to look at the mission and then make 
some recommendations to us with respect to the placement of bases 
needed by that mission.
  It seems to me the way one approaches this issue is to build on that 
legislation and first look at overseas basing needs in 2005, since they 
are, in fact, changing, and then turn to domestic bases, if necessary, 
in 2 years' time.
  I also want very briefly to mention the impact of base closures on my 
home State of California. California has had 29 military bases closed. 
It has cost the State more than 93,000 jobs, of which 40,000 were 
civilian positions.
  According to the executive director of the California Institute for 
Federal Policy Research, California lost more jobs than all of the 
other States combined in the last four rounds. While at the time we had 
only 15 percent of the Nation's military personnel, we shouldered 60 
percent of the net personnel cuts. I believe we have sacrificed enough.
  If California is called on to make additional sacrifices and 
additional bases are closed in a future domestic BRAC round, we should 
know that our Government did a complete and thorough examination of the 
threats our country will face in the future and the military 
capabilities we will need to face those threats.
  While we are mentioning this, I also want to raise another real 
problem and that is the gross underfunding of cleanup and remediation 
of the bases. This has been short funded by literally billions of 
dollars. Let me make a couple of points.
  It is estimated it will cost $1.3 billion to clean up the former 
McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento. That process will not be 
finished until 2033. The cleanup of Fort Ord will not be finished until 
2031. Castle Air Force Base will not be completed until 2038, and the 
list goes on.
  What is the rush to close more bases that cannot be rapidly 
transitioned into civilian use because of the inability to fund 
remediation and cleanup of environmental hazards?
  So I think Senator Snowe made an excellent argument with respect to 
the need to take a good look at the overseas bases first--700 of them--
and make some decisions with respect to where we are going in this new 
asymmetric war on terror and to leave intact America's bases for the 
next 2 years and then, in 2007, to consider an expedited round.
  I am very proud to join with Senators Dorgan, Lott, and Snowe in this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I rise in opposition to the Lott amendment and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, we have to keep in mind that the main 
mission is to secure the safety of Americans both at home and abroad. I 
believe we are responding to the terrorist threat. We have stood up 
Northern Command in the military. We have set up a whole new Department 
dealing with homeland security.
  At the very beginning of his administration, President Bush made it a 
priority to build and transform our military after 8 years of operation 
and maintenance funding shortfalls under the previous administration. 
Where does one get the money? If the bases and mission are being 
transformed, savings have to be figured somewhere. I think it is 
entirely appropriate, both at home and abroad, to review our mission.
  I agree with many of the points that are being made on this 
amendment. We have to look at our bases overseas. Certainly our mission 
has changed considerably over there. As opposed to a large frontal 
assault, we are now dealing with a terrorist problem which requires a 
more mobile and modern military to address that threat.
  We have the same threat at home, and we also need to look at whether 
bases at home are meeting the mission of the modern threat from 
terrorism. Those of us in the Senate have heeded the call of the 
President and I am pleased we are about to take the next step in 
maintaining a military fully capable of defending our Nation and 
meeting our foreign policy goals.
  I continue to support the President's plan to transform our military. 
This authorization bill builds on the work we in the Congress have 
already accomplished toward that end. This amendment tends to undermine 
that effort.
  I will take this opportunity to review where we are with BRAC. 
Congress granted the administration the authority in fiscal year 2002, 
that is the National Defense Authorization Act, to conduct a BRAC round 
in 2005, providing a critical opportunity to eliminate excess capacity 
and achieve additional savings that could be used to modernize and 
transform our Armed Forces to address emerging global threats.
  The fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act improved the 
BRAC language from previous rounds to ensure future infrastructure 
satisfies emerging national security requirements and to correct 
earlier abuses of the process.
  A 2002 GAO report on the 387 closures and realignments in four 
previous rounds; that is, in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, reaffirmed 
that the Department of Defense generated a substantial net savings of 
somewhere around $17.6 billion, and expects the annual savings of $6.6 
billion in fiscal year 2003 to grow.
  DOD further estimated in March of 2004 that a BRAC round in 2005 will 
save $5 billion in 2011 and $8 billion annually thereafter. Now, BRAC 
is a key enabler for DOD transformation initiatives, including global 
basing and the rebalancing of Active and Reserve Forces.
  I believe a delay of the 2005 BRAC round already underway delays the 
effort for us to modernize our forces. I cannot accept the argument 
that if we do not close bases that somehow or another we are better 
off. I think we need to have some savings. We need to save money. In 
the long run, there is going to be more money available for us to meet 
the changing threat from the terrorists that we now face today.
  If we are serious about modernizing our facilities and being ready to 
meet the changing mission, we need to defeat the Lott amendment and we 
need to move forward with the provision that we have currently in the 
Defense authorization bill.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the Lott amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining in 
support of the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Those in support of the amendment have 16 
minutes. The opposition to the amendment has 36 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, does Senator Dorgan wish to use some of the 
time at this point?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would be happy to but I wonder if the 
opponents might want to use some of their time.
  Mr. LOTT. How much time remains on the opposition side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 36 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Senator Levin has not spoken and Senator Inhofe is here, so 
perhaps we could take some more time off the opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment of Senator Lott and Senator Dorgan. The first argument they 
make is that we ought to look first at overseas bases before we have 
our commission next year look at the domestic bases. I

[[Page 9796]]

agree with that. I think it does make more sense to look at the 
overseas bases before we look at ours, and that is exactly what we 
provided for by law.
  We have created a commission which will look at overseas bases and 
report back to the Department of Defense and to the Nation by the end 
of this year. That commission has now met and I believe they had their 
first meeting, in fact, this month and they have already scheduled a 
second meeting.
  In terms of the argument that we should surely look at these bases 
all around the world before the commission which will be appointed next 
year looks at domestic bases, I think the argument is a good one, and 
we have provided for that argument.
  The Global Posture Review, which is a requirement that the Department 
of Defense is now meeting, which is to see whether our forces are 
properly deployed around the world in order of addressing where the 
likely hotspots are, that Global Posture Review is also going to be 
completed this year. So there is a logic, there is a chronology, which 
meets the supporters' argument, the proponents of the amendment of 
Senator Lott, that there is a sequence which should be followed.
  We should first look at the overseas facilities before looking at 
ours is a sequence which we now have placed in law for many years. 
This, of course, has been in law and is now unfolding, as it was 
projected to unfold by law.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and all of the chiefs have written 
us a letter. That letter has been printed in the Record. It is dated 
May 18, but I just quote from it to emphasize the importance of going 
through with a base realignment and closure round as authorized in the 
year 2001, and the importance to our uniformed military leadership.
  The letter is addressed to Chairman Warner. It says:

       We are writing this letter to emphasize our continued and 
     unequivocal support for conducting a 2005 round of base 
     realignment and closure (BRAC), as authorized by the 
     Congress.
       The convergence of ongoing strategy and overseas basing 
     actions, the transformational direction in all the services 
     and force structure changes together afford us a once-in-a-
     generation opportunity to truly transform the Department's 
     combat capability in an enduring way. A delay of this BRAC 
     round, or a modification of the legislation that limits the 
     Department's flexibility to execute it, will seriously 
     undermine our ability to fundamentally reconfigure our 
     infrastructure to best support the transformation of our 
     forces to meet the security challenges we face now and will 
     continue to face for the foreseeable future.

  There is transformation going on. We are shifting to meet new 
threats--the best that we can foresee them. It has been argued that you 
can't perfectly foresee future threats. That is true. But that is 
surely no argument for not attempting to make the assessments in a 
thorough way, in a conscientious way, and then to structure your forces 
and to structure your infrastructure in a way that will most readily 
and most effectively meet those projected threats.
  How can we reconfigure our military, which I think everybody 
recognizes is necessary in a new world of new threats, if we freeze 
into place the infrastructure that we have in this country? Somehow or 
other, the argument is made that because there are changes in the 
world, therefore we should not change, we should not allow our 
structures here to change. The opposite, it seems to me, is the case. 
The world has changed and changed dramatically, and the threats are 
very different. Surely we should not be frozen into our current 
structures here or around the world in response to a changing threat 
environment.
  So the more we point out, and accurately so, and the more we argue 
how different the threats are following 9/11, it seems to me the more 
we should be willing to allow a process to work which first looks at 
our structures, our infrastructure, our base structure around the 
world, and then next year, after the foreign structures are looked at 
and the foreign bases are looked at, then our base-closing commission 
will look at the domestic bases.
  I believe one of the Senators who spoke argued that the vote in 2001 
came prior to 9/11 and that everything has changed since then. 
According to the information I have, our vote took place on September 
25, 2001, 2 weeks after 9/11, the vote to sustain the title in the bill 
which authorized an additional round of base realignments and closures. 
I believe that vote--maybe my records are wrong here--took place after 
9/11 and not before 9/11.
  We also had a vote last year as to whether we should not proceed with 
another round of base closings. That vote last year also surely came 
after 9/11. We went through the same arguments, essentially, on our 
vote last year, whether the world has changed as to whether there are 
really savings that are created by the closing of bases.
  On the savings point, I would simply give the best information 
available to us relative thereto. We have talked about the necessary 
closing of and realigning of bases in order to meet the new threats. 
But there is also a significant savings issue here as well. Here 
quoting from the Department of Defense report of March 2004, which we 
required, on page 55, this is the conclusion:

       The four prior rounds of base realignments and closures 
     have generated significant savings for the Department of 
     Defense. Through fiscal year 2001, the end of the four prior 
     rounds' implementation period, the Department had accumulated 
     net savings of about $17 billion over BRAC implementation 
     costs from the closure and realignment actions approved in 
     those four rounds.

  Then the report goes on to say that:

       These BRAC-created savings continue, and the Department 
     realizes recurring savings of almost $7 billion each year. 
     These savings were realized even after environmental 
     restoration funding was processed through BRAC accounts.

  So the savings here are real. The necessity of closing unnecessary 
bases in order to meet new threats is real. It seems to me, as 
difficult as it is for all of us to confront the reality that some of 
our bases are in excess and do not meet the current threat situation, 
that we ought to proceed.
  The amendment as written would require a new act on the part of 
Congress in order to restore a round of base closing. This is not a 
situation where the base closing is automatically going to take place. 
The commission would be allowed to recommend base closings in a future 
year. According to this amendment, it would require a subsequent act of 
Congress in order to restore a round of base closings in order to have 
a commission which would have the power to make those recommendations, 
both to the executive branch and to the Congress.
  So this is not just simply a matter of delay, even though I think 
that would be a serious mistake. This is a matter of eliminating the 
round of base closings which is scheduled unless there is a subsequent 
enactment by Congress of a bill which would set up a round of base 
closing in the year 2007.
  If we delay it or if we take the action that is proposed--technically 
more than a delay but actually a repeal in the absence of, 
subsequently, Congressional legislation--we will be leaving the bases 
in this country in limbo. It is hard enough. We all have bases in our 
States. It is difficult enough for our bases to go through this 
process, and we know that. We have all suffered some pain, some States 
more than others--my State a lot. But there is still a lot of real 
concern about the existing bases we do have in our State. But to simply 
say we are going to leave you in limbo for a few more years and then 
see whether Congress in 2007 adopts another round it seems to me is the 
worst of all worlds for everybody.
  We have a need to realign bases. We have new threats. We have costs 
we cannot afford. It seems to me we have a process in place, which is a 
logical process looking first at the bases overseas, doing that this 
year through a Global Posture Review and through a report of a 
commission which specifically has been placed by law in operation to 
look at foreign bases, and then next year, according to a law which we 
passed in 2001, the next President, whether it is President Bush or 
whether it is President Kerry, would then appoint a commission that 
would look, in an objective way, at all of the bases, having before it 
the work of the commission which is looking at the foreign

[[Page 9797]]

bases this year and having before it the Global Posture Review, which 
is being now adopted by the Department of Defense.
  I want to close with another paragraph from this letter from the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Again, this was signed by every one of the 
Chiefs. It reads, in the second paragraph, as follows:

       A comprehensive overseas basing review is nearly complete. 
     The continued concentration of forces in Cold War locations 
     highlights the need for a global repositioning to locations 
     that best support our strategic goals. In order to ensure 
     that the Department examines its entire infrastructure, the 
     rationalization of our domestic infrastructure as conducted 
     by the BRAC process must closely follow the Global Posture 
     Review.

  In other words, we have a Global Posture Review which is being 
adopted this year, and for the BRAC process to be delayed or to be 
rendered uncertain at least until the year 2007 means there will be a 
disconnect between the Global Posture Review, which looks at our force 
structure around the world, a disconnect between that and the decision 
as to which bases to close.
  Our chiefs say both efforts are necessary. Both efforts are 
necessary--the Global Posture Review as well as a BRAC process--for a 
genuine capabilities-based infrastructure rationalization and for 
further transformation of our war-fighting capabilities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
Senator from Mississippi. I believe it is the proper process by which 
we should go forward with BRAC. BRAC is an extraordinarily complicated 
undertaking. I participated in four prior BRAC events and I can tell 
you from personal experience that it is intense, it is complicated, and 
it requires a great deal of planning and thought before it should go 
forward.
  The Senator from Mississippi is proposing we make the logical step at 
taking what is the first first; specifically, that we look at those 
overseas bases and see how many should be addressed relative to 
closure; and if we decide that a series of bases overseas should be 
closed, it is more than likely that much of what they do and what they 
are responsible for will have to be moved back to the United States. 
When that returning of troops, materiel, and mission comes to the 
United States, that is going to adjust how we should approach the BRAC 
process here in the United States.
  We all recognize there is excess in the military, although the last 
four BRAC processes have significantly reduced that. But we also should 
go forward in addressing that excess in an orderly and thoughtful 
manner. An orderly and thoughtful manner means you look at overseas 
bases first and decide which ones should be closed, and then look at 
domestic bases to determine whether they are going to have to take on 
new responsibility as a result of the closures overseas or whether they 
should also be closed.
  It is, therefore, an extremely constructive proposal and one which I 
strongly support and look forward to voting for, and hopefully it will 
pass.
  I yield the floor and reserve the time to Senator Lott.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, here we go again. We have now been through 
this on several occasions in the past. These are tough decisions. I 
think people realize this could have significant impact on the 
economies of their States, and of their districts in the case of 
Members of the House.
  But I think we need to again remind people that we are in a situation 
where the defense spending increases and our requirements to fight the 
war on terror in general and increased costs of the war in Iraq 
absolutely mandate that we do everything we can to institute savings 
for the American taxpayers as far as the expenditure of their tax 
dollars are concerned.
  I don't in any way dispute the fact that when a base is closed it has 
a very significant and sometimes short-term devastating impact on a 
State or locality in which that base is located.
  I do think it is well to point out that Taxpayers With Common Sense 
and the Center for Defense Information prepared an independent report 
which was released in October of 2001. There may be some surprise by 
those of my colleagues who are citing economic concerns as to why they 
oppose further base closure rounds. Of the 97 bases closed in four base 
closure rounds, 88 percent experienced per capita personal income 
growth as high as 36 percent, and averaging nearly 10 percent; 75 
percent experienced gains in average earnings per job; 87 percent had 
positive employment rates; 68 percent beat the national average; the 
average job replacement rate of all bases closed is 102 percent; by the 
beginning of 2001, only 3 of the 97 counties had higher unemployment 
rates than the BRAC announcement year; and 53 percent had unemployment 
rates lower than the national average. I think it is important to put 
it in that economic context.
  Far, far more important than that is the fact that we are going 
through a significant realignment to meet the post-cold-war needs and 
challenges.
  The Department of Defense is well on its way to establishing an 
integrated commonsense basing strategy that will feed directly into the 
BRAC process. The Office of the Secretary of Defense is finalizing the 
decisions in the integrated global presence and basing strategy that 
will specify who will be coming back and who will be going forward as 
we transition away from a cold-war posture to a global war on terror 
posture.
  The decisions from the new global lay-down would be precursors to and 
will greatly influence the BRAC process. It will take both processes 
acting in a close manner to optimize the deployment of our forces 
around the world. Delaying BRAC or disrupting the symbiotic 
relationship between the integrated global presence, basing strategy, 
and BRAC processes will ultimately minimize our efficiency in the 
combat effectiveness of our forces in fighting the global war on 
terrorism.
  That is why the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense--
all knowledgeable people who could be viewed as objective outside 
observers--agree that we have to move forward with this process. We 
have voted on it before. We will vote on it again, maybe, although I 
hope not between now and the time that is appointed. I don't think 
there is any doubt that at this particular time it would be a serious 
mistake for us to delay.
  I add again that the economic benefits associated with base closure 
are generally very much more positive than negative. I hope my 
colleagues will understand the views of the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, the President of the United 
States, and all others who strongly feel that we need to move forward 
with this process.
  I look forward to seeing a list of the bases in my State when the 
Senator from Mississippi hands it out. As he handed out a list the last 
time, he left my State off the list. I hope he corrects that oversight 
this time.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition 
to Senate amendment No. 3158, which intends to delay for 2 years the 
process of base realignments and closures that is set to begin in 2005.
  Nearly 3 years ago, the Senate passed legislation calling for a round 
of base closures in 2005. I strongly supported that legislation, and I 
continue to believe it is important that we move forward with plans to 
realign and eliminate excess military infrastructure.
  In March, the Defense Department estimated that we support a defense 
infrastructure that is in excess of 24 percent. Rather than continuing 
to pay for unneeded or duplicative facilities, our limited defense 
dollars can and should be better spent to meet the most pressing needs 
of our Armed Forces.
  United States military forces remain engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
An American military presence remains important in Asia, including 
Korea,

[[Page 9798]]

and U.S. soldiers are deployed to support peacekeeping operations in 
Southeast Europe and other parts of the world. With such demands on our 
men and women in uniform, it is imperative that our military resources 
are directed to meet our most critical defense needs.
  I agree with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, that we must move 
forward with implementation of the BRAC legislation that was passed 
during consideration of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization Act.
  Two years ago, the Armed Services Committee concluded:

       The committee believes that the arguments for allowing the 
     closure of additional facilities are clear and compelling. 
     The department has excess facilities. Closing bases saves 
     money, and the military services have higher priority uses 
     that could be funded with those savings.

  This remains true today. The fact that we remain engaged in efforts 
to fight the global war on terrorism and promote peace and stability in 
Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world, does not mean that we 
should put the BRAC process on hold. To the contrary, it makes action 
even more important. Now, more than ever, we need the resources that 
are spent to maintain excess infrastructure to meet more pressing 
defense needs.
  Our highest-ranking military official, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff General Richard Myers, agrees with this assessment. In a 
letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of both the Senate and House 
Armed Services Committees dated May 18, 2004, General Myers and the 
Joint Chiefs concluded:

       A delay of the BRAC round, or a modification of the 
     legislation that limits the Department's flexibility to 
     execute it, will seriously undermine our ability to 
     fundamentally reconfigure our infrastructure to best support 
     the transformation of our forces to meet the security 
     challenges we face now and will continue to face for the 
     foreseeable future.

  Our highest-ranking men and women in uniform are requesting this 
authority so that we can best transform our military, moving beyond the 
cold war and preparing for current and future threats to U.S. national 
security interests at home and abroad.
  Last week, I joined four of my Senate colleagues for a breakfast 
meeting with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. During the meeting, 
Secretary Rumsfeld shared with us his vision for our global footprint. 
In an effort to better meet challenges to national security, the United 
States is changing its deployment of forces overseas. As the Secretary 
of Defense confirmed at that meeting, the realignment and closure of 
military installations, both at home and abroad, is critical as we look 
to continue that process.
  As a result of prior rounds of base realignments and closures, 
through fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense had accumulated net 
savings of approximately $17 billion. Savings continue annually, 
freeing up nearly $7 billion each year. These resources have been 
reinvested to meet urgent defense needs.
  Given the fact that we still have a military infrastructure that is 
in excess of 24 percent, we can continue to generate even more savings 
with an additional round of base closures. The Defense Department 
estimates that an additional round of base closures could save more 
than $3 billion, with savings of $5 billion annually thereafter. Given 
these savings, there should be little doubt that additional rounds of 
closures will help to redirect expenditures where we need them the 
most.
  As I have long advocated during my time in public office, I believe 
we should work harder and smarter and do more with less. That is what 
we are being asked to do. By maintaining excess and unneeded military 
installations, we are keeping scarce and critical resources from more 
important defense priorities. It just doesn't make sense.
  Given the looming budget deficit, ongoing military operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and other spending needs here at home, it does not 
make sense to spend billions of dollars each year on defense 
infrastructure that is not needed. We simply cannot afford it.
  While I strongly support the BRAC process, I believe that every 
facility in Ohio can justify its existence on the merits, and I will 
work hard as a partner with local communities and my colleagues in 
Ohio's congressional delegation to support Ohio's defense 
installations.
  I believe that base closures are essential to allowing our men and 
women in uniform to best serve the strategic and national security 
interests of the United States, and I strongly oppose any amendment 
that would delay the base realignments and closures process, or attempt 
to stop the process in its entirety.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this 
important amendment to look at closing excess overseas military bases 
before moving forward on any future round of base closures in this 
country.
  Over the past several years, I have consistently opposed additional 
rounds of base closures. The loss of a military base can have a 
devastating impact on local communities. This is not the time to 
subject our fragile national economy to the impact of another round--
especially when the DoD is threatening to close one-quarter of our 
domestic bases.
  In addition, I object the Department of Defense request for more base 
closures when it has failed to clean up former military bases shuttered 
during the previous four rounds. It will be decades before 
environmental remediation is complete at some former bases in 
California. The DoD must meet its responsibilities to the people of 
California before moving forward with any future rounds of base 
closures.
  Given the ongoing war on terrorism and our current military 
operations in Iraq, now is not the time to close more bases. We must 
ensure that we have sufficient military assets to meet our growing 
challenges. At a time that our forces are stretched thin, it does not 
make any sense to waste resources in going forward with next year's 
round of base closures. These are uncertain times and it is impossible 
to know what the force structure of the U.S. military will be in the 
near future.
  This amendment is a compromise. It allows the base closure process to 
move forward next year--but only for our installations overseas. It is 
logical to look at excess capacity overseas before looking at our 
domestic bases here at home.
  I am proud to cosponsor this important amendment and urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Presiding Officer kindly advise the Senate as to 
the time allocation remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 14 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. And the Senator from Virginia?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 18 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, would Senator Warner be willing to yield 2 
minutes to the Senator from Mississippi?
  Mr. WARNER. Of course; whatever time our distinguished colleague 
wants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and 
colleague for yielding to me, but especially I thank him for his 
leadership on this issue.
  We have had experience with base realignment and closure rounds in my 
State over a period of years, and not ad infinitum but ad nauseam.
  Economically, these have been disasters for the communities and the 
States because they required the hiring of consultants and advisers to 
try to come in and prepare the defense for the bases that are located 
there. It is a flawed process. It has not worked well. It needs to be 
changed.
  Senator Lott has pointed to a very real and important concern; that 
is, the enormous expenditures we are making overseas for bases and 
facilities, many of which are outdated, many of which were placed there 
because of cold-war concerns and NATO responsibilities which no longer 
exist.

[[Page 9799]]

  We are seeing troops shifted from European facilities to new 
facilities in Italy because that is closer to where the action is in 
the Persian Gulf area or the Middle East.
  We see changes being made, and the Congress has a role to play 
annually to authorize expenditures and to appropriate the funds for 
these changes. At any time, if the Congress believes we need to change 
those policies, we can make those changes legislatively. If the 
President believes that is inappropriate, he has the veto power. We do 
not need to turn this over to an unelected commission with no direction 
from the Congress.
  This amendment gives some direction. First, look at our bases 
overseas, and let's make decisions about how we can improve and make 
more proficient our deployments there, and then consider proceeding to 
a base closure and realignment in the United States.
  This amendment makes good sense. I compliment my friend, and I urge 
Senators to support the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, some colleagues have represented that this 
BRAC, which is law today, preceded September 11. The record is very 
clear: Congress authorized BRAC in December of 2001. After careful 
discussion with DOD as to whether we still require and should proceed, 
eight former Secretaries of Defense wrote Congress in 2002 that support 
for another round is unequivocal in light of the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001.
  I hope that is right in the Record. I hope it does not influence the 
earlier statements some of my colleagues made. This situation is 
extremely serious. If we were now to virtually repeal that law in many 
respects and thrust upon these communities the enormous expense to 
continue to try and work their cases such that BRAC does not take their 
case, I commend them for it. It is essential they do that. But the cost 
is enormous to so many small communities.
  This question of the overseas bases, we all recognize that structure 
has to be brought down. Our Nation's basic defense policy for years has 
been to engage our adversaries beyond our shores. To do that, we had to 
have a base structure. We are now addressing how with terrorism there 
are no boundaries to the threats. This country no longer is protected 
by two mighty oceans. It is a one-world terrorist threat, and every 
single American citizen is on the front line in the war on terrorism. 
No one is behind any barricade anymore.
  The Pentagon recognizes this and is beginning to restructure our 
overseas base forces in such a way as to reduce and bring the forces 
back home and to have fewer and fewer installations. But they have to 
integrate that into the various procedures now going on, consistent 
with the law of the land, the BRAC that we passed. For instance, 
General Jones and General LaPorte testified before the Armed Services 
Committee this year on their plans in Europe and South Korea, 
respectively, to draw down and consolidate forces at each location.
  The committee has also received testimony from department heads to 
submit their Global Posture Review to Congress within the next 3 weeks. 
It is on target.
  I wish to accord the opportunity for other Members to speak, 
including the Senator from Alabama, a valued member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak after the 
Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it has been a great pleasure for me to 
work with Senator Warner, the chairman of this committee, and Senator 
Levin, the ranking member.
  This BRAC issue has been one we have debated for quite a number of 
years, and one to which all Members have given serious consideration.
  Like a lot of Senators, we have military bases in my State. Year 
after year, month after month, we had the top military officers in the 
country telling members we needed to be able to spend our money more 
effectively; that they should be allowed to reconfigure our base 
structure; that it could save money and make this Nation stronger.
  I became convinced that was true. And that is why--in December of 
2001 we had that vote--I voted for this idea.
  I led a delegation last month to Europe. We visited 12 installations 
in Europe. We talked with GEN Jimmy Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander 
of Europe, and heard from him about his vision for major drawdowns of 
our force strength in Europe, consolidation of bases. We could reduce 
that number by two-thirds. A huge number needs to be reduced and 
consolidated in Europe.
  We can bring home, in my view, both infantry divisions and probably 
other troops, too. Troops from the Pacific can be brought home and 
maintained in the United States so we can keep expeditionary bases 
around the world.
  That is part of what they are planning this very moment. It will not 
be long, and we will hear their report. I think it will be bold. I 
don't think it will be a little-bitty deal. I think they will recommend 
substantial alterations of past policy.
  We do not have the threats in Germany that we had when the Soviet 
Union existed. It is not there. We can be much lighter in Europe, and 
we can be much more effective in our deployment of forces, keeping much 
larger numbers of people in the United States. I don't see a conflict 
between allowing this to happen at the same time.
  In fact, General Jones said to us in our conversation, he envisioned 
it happening at the same time. In other words, we would reconfigure 
American bases while we were drawing down the foreign bases, and we 
would make our decisions about where they will go as we restructure and 
transform existing defense basing structure in the United States. That 
is the right way to go.
  I have been checking in my State, and some other Senators have heard 
from their States. People are ready to get this over with. It has been 
out there for several years. The communities have worked on their 
bases. They have developed plans and arguments and ideas to demonstrate 
to the Department of Defense why they have an enduring installation. 
That has been good and healthy and they are prepared to do it. To delay 
again is not wise. We voted this down before.
  I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Mississippi, my 
neighboring State, but this is the right thing to do. I take no 
pleasure in it, but it is not like in the mid-1990s when we were 
reducing the number of personnel in the military by 40 percent and 
reducing equipment and capabilities at the same time. We are still 
increasing our Defense Department.
  What General Schoomaker envisions is a young person enlisting in the 
Army. They can stay at a major enduring base for 7 years without having 
to move his or her family around. They can be promoted and be trained. 
Units can remain with their integrity and their training capability for 
much longer periods of time than we have today.
  Fewer, more properly configured bases can help strengthen the 
Nation's defense. That is why I have concluded it is right for America. 
It is the right way to strengthen our national defense.
  Do not let anyone say this BRAC process in some way weakens defense. 
I would never vote for it if I thought that was so. In fact, all the 
uniform commanders say this will help make us a stronger America.
  I thank Chairman Warner for his leadership and courage in this 
matter. He certainly has bases in his State, as I do. But we believe it 
is the right procedure, after having heard the testimony in the Armed 
Services Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. Yes, 
we are very proud of our base structure. Almost every one of our 
communities now has engaged the lobbyists, and so forth. Listen to 
this, I say to the Senator. Delaying BRAC benefits one group; and that 
is, the lobbyists and the consultants paid by these communities and, 
indeed, State taxpayers.

[[Page 9800]]

  The Congressional Research Service has estimated over $23 million 
will be spent in fiscal 2004 to pay lobbyists and consultants for 
services to defend installations. A delay of BRAC by 2 years will cost 
the taxpayers of one State, that is paying a firm $50,000 a month, over 
$1.2 million.
  There is the debate.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. We better check on the time.
  Mr. President, how much time, please, does the Senator from Virginia 
have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. There is 6 minutes. My distinguished colleague from 
Mississippi?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. There is 14 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, under a unanimous consent agreement, I am 
to be recognized, so I do have the floor now, but I will yield to the 
Senator from Virginia.

  Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon. I say to the Senator, you have the 
floor now?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. He had a unanimous consent earlier to go after Senator 
Sessions.
  Mr. INHOFE. I will be glad to let you go first.
  Mr. WARNER. I will step down.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. No. That is fine. I want to be sure I keep my UC in 
place. I do not want to lose it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I was going to suggest for the lobbyists, it is time to 
bring that to an end. As some wise person told me in Alabama, they 
exist to blame the politicians if they close the base, and to claim 
credit if it is not closed.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma, if he needs that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish the Senator from Alabama would stay 
on the floor for a minute.
  First of all, I direct this statement to my chairman, whom I deeply 
respect. There are three amendments floating around right now. There is 
a lot of confusion as to which one we are voting on now.
  I say to the Senator, your statement, the statement from the Senator 
from Virginia, and the Senator from Alabama, if, in fact, this is a 2-
year delay, I would agree wholeheartedly. For all the lobbyists in 
there--and I have five major installations in my State of Oklahoma--if 
this is a 2-year delay, as I have said publicly before, and as I said 
as recently as our policy meeting, I would say let's go ahead and do 
it, and do it now.
  It is my understanding--and I would certainly yield to anyone who 
disagrees with this--this is killing this BRAC round; that if it should 
become necessary to have it, you would have to reauthorize it in 2007. 
That is now my understanding. It is not a delay. This is not the House 
language. I would like to ask if there is anyone who would correct me. 
If I am wrong, I need to know it.
  Apparently, I am not.
  Let me ask the author of the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Let's ask Senator Lott, who authored it. As I read it, 
there is a 2-year delay.
  Mr. LOTT. This amendment is not the same as the House language, which 
is a 2-year delay.
  Mr. INHOFE. That I realize.
  Mr. LOTT. This amendment says when you get the global review, you 
would go forward with a BRAC for overseas bases, and then have the 
domestic round, presuming that is completed. It is not a 2-year delay. 
It could be that we would go forward with it after only 1 year. If the 
realignment in force restructuring that is going on globally would 
occur next year, then it could go forward next year.
  Mr. INHOFE. This kills it, and it has to be reauthorized; is that 
correct?
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. All right. Mr. President, I ask that time not be taken 
away from my time because I feel very awkward about this. The Senator 
from Alabama talked about spending time with General Jones, which I did 
over there. I have spent quite a bit of time, and I think I have a 
pretty good idea of what is going on. I have actually been to Bulgaria 
and Romania and Ukraine, looking at how we are going to restructure and 
bring home our troops who are stationed for these 2- and 3-year periods 
with their families, so we could actually get out there and have short 
deployments so they would not have to take their families with them. I 
think General Jones is right on target. That is going to have a 
tremendous effect on what we do in terms of base closures.
  I answered a whip check, and I want to correct it right now, so 
everyone knows that whip check was not worded properly. It said: Would 
you support defeating a 2-year delay? I would support defeating a 2-
year delay for the very reasons that have been outlined here, that we 
do not want our communities to have to continue to go through that.
  But if you will remember the debate we had when I vigorously opposed 
having this fifth round, I used the argument that we are going to be 
changing our force structure, that we are going to be making changes 
that might make us relook as to what we are going to do in our 
installations here in the United States.
  I was elected to the House in 1986, so I was there during the 
formulation of the BRAC process. I was a staunch supporter for the 
first three rounds. For the last one, I did not like the way it went. 
It became political. I have had the fear that would happen again. We 
closed some 97 installations in the last four rounds, and that is not 
only low-hanging fruit; a lot of great installations that were closed.
  I believe, if this amendment kills it, and it would have to be 
reauthorized after such time that we know what the restructuring looks 
like, that I will support this amendment. I am going to find out 
between now and when the vote takes place if I am correct. But I 
believe my understanding now is correct.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since we have more time, I believe, 
remaining on this side, the side of the proponents of the amendment, I 
yield such time as he may consume--the remainder of that time--to 
Senator Dorgan, who has been very much involved and a leader in this 
process for several years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for 
his leadership on this amendment.
  Let me address a few of the issues that have been discussed. First of 
all, 5 days before September 11, 2001--5 days before September 11--the 
first vote occurred in the Senate on this BRAC round. It was September 
6, and it was a vote in the Senate Defense Authorization Committee. 
That first committee vote, 5 days before September 11, 2001, is what 
propelled a base-closing commission proposal to the floor of the 
Senate.
  The opponents of this amendment are quite correct when they say the 
final vote of the Congress occurred after September 11. But the origin 
of this, including the vote in the authorizing committee, occurred 
before September 11.
  The reason I make that point is this: Things are changing. The world 
has changed. I will bet on September 6, 2001, there was not one member 
of the Armed Services Committee or a Member of the Senate, and I will 
bet not one person serving in the Pentagon, who would have predicted 
that within a matter of months we would be occupying an old Soviet air 
base in Uzbekistan in order to house our troops to prosecute a war in 
Afghanistan. No one would have predicted that. No one would have had 
the foggiest idea that was in front of us. Yet the world has changed.
  We now fight a war against terrorism. We fought a war in Afghanistan, 
quite successfully. We are now fighting a war in Iraq. The world is 
changing. So our force structure will likely change. Our basing 
decisions

[[Page 9801]]

will change. We no longer have a cold war with the Soviet Union. The 
Soviet Union is gone, it has disappeared.
  So what next? Well, my feeling, and the reason I support this 
amendment and have worked on this amendment, is we ought to do first 
things first. I have voted for four previous base-closing rounds. My 
colleague from Oklahoma said we have voted to close some 97--nearly 
100--military installations. I have voted for all of that, as I believe 
have most of my colleagues. So I am not a bit unwilling to vote to 
close military installations. We have done that on four occasions.
  In this case, however, as I said, the world is changing very rapidly. 
I would ask the question of my colleagues if, in fact, there has been 
all of this activity about reevaluating overseas bases, given the 
changes in the world, and the fact we are no longer in a cold war, why, 
then, do we have nearly 100,000 troops still in Germany? Why?
  My colleague from Alabama said, well, we could bring a lot of those 
folks back. I think he said we could probably bring a half to two-
thirds of them back to this country.
  Well, here is what the Congressional Budget Office said. It said: The 
U.S. Army has little or no excess capacity at bases in the United 
States. The need to house forces in the U.S. that are now stationed 
overseas could preclude some base closures.
  So if that is the case--and it is--wouldn't you do first things 
first? Wouldn't you decide what it is you are going to do with overseas 
bases first so you understand what your obligation is with respect to 
bases here at home? If you are going to bring 50,000 Army troops from 
Germany back to American soil, where are you going to put them? 
Wouldn't you want to make those decisions before you have a base-
closing commission here for domestic bases?
  And one other point, I wonder if perhaps, with respect to the 
international war on terrorism, and the substantial need for homeland 
security, which we did not spend so much time thinking about years ago, 
I wonder if when we talk about domestic military installations whether 
we might not think about them in a slightly different way.
  Perhaps we need more. I don't know. I would sure like all of these to 
be handled and discussed and debated and thought about in a logical 
way. Frankly, that has not been the case.
  We have a very large Federal budget deficit. We are now going to be 
asked for a $25 billion reserve fund to fund the war in Iraq. The 
Congress is going to provide that. We are not going to ask the American 
men and women in uniform to go in harm's way and then not provide the 
funds that are necessary. But at a time when we have a very large 
Federal budget deficit and the need to provide funding to prosecute the 
war in Iraq, a base-closing commission next year will result in us 
spending more money, not saving money, spending more money. If you 
question that, look at all the previous rounds and ask yourself what 
the result has been of those rounds in the years following the round. 
It cost us more money to proceed with the recommendations of the BRAC 
Commission.
  The Senator from Oklahoma asked the question: What is this amendment? 
The amendment is very simple. The amendment says the 2005 BRAC round 
shall proceed, but it shall proceed to evaluate and recommend 
realignment and closure only with respect to overseas bases. Why is 
that the case? Because that ought to be done first. First things first, 
but put the horse in front of the cart, evaluate what are the 
international, what are the worldwide needs and interests of our 
country with respect to our military troops and installations, and then 
from that you will determine what kind of military installations and 
needs you have in this country domestically.
  That is what our amendment does. It provides for the 2005 round to 
proceed with respect to overseas bases. Then secondly it says, 
following that report and disposition of its recommendations by the 
Senate, a motion will be in order by someone who wishes to propose a 
motion for a new BRAC round. Under expedited procedures, that motion 
shall be considered, and there shall be a vote of the Senate on whether 
to implement another BRAC round. The Senator from Oklahoma, with 
respect to the question he asked, was absolutely correct.
  I have great respect for the chairman and ranking member of this 
committee. They do outstanding work. They are both wonderful 
legislators, and I regret that we find ourselves on different sides of 
this question. I have great respect for their position. But I believe, 
as do many of my colleagues who have spoken today, that the better 
course for this country, given what we face, our challenges and the 
circumstances that now exist, would be to proceed with the amendment, 
have an overseas BRAC round next year, decide what it is we want to do 
internationally with overseas bases, and then proceed from that basis 
and make further judgments.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, he has correctly 
described how this operates, but the reality is, by killing the 
domestic BRAC program and putting it in abeyance subject to a future 
vote by the Congress--and mind you, any Member of Congress can trigger 
that vote; am I not correct?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. All Presidents have supported BRAC. You know that message 
is coming up. So what happens to the lobbyist? He tells the community: 
Keep me on the payroll, that vote is coming, and you do not know which 
way that vote is going to go. They will breathe fear into these 
communities, unlike anything before, to keep those lobbyists on the 
payroll. Those communities will be shelling out the money year after 
year.
  I will close with the following comment: We are to soon receive a 
letter which will have this statement in it: Base Realignment and 
Closure, BRAC--the administration strongly opposes any provision to 
modify, delay, or repeal the BRAC authority passed by the Congress 3 
years ago. If the President is presented a bill that modifies, delays, 
or repeals the BRAC authority, the Secretary of Defense, joining with 
other senior advisers, would recommend that the President veto the 
bill. Rather than waiting for the resolution of infrastructure issues 
as proposed by the committee, BRAC needs to move forward so it can be 
done in concert with such a resolution. A delay would postpone the 
achievement of a basing structure more suited to 21st century threats 
and delay billions and billions of dollars in savings. The current 
excesses in base and facility capacity create unnecessary demands on 
the Department of Defense resources needed to maintain military 
readiness and transform for the future.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi controls 2 
minutes 22 seconds. The Senator from Virginia has 3 minutes 55 seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield that to my distinguished colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there has been a number of votes on BRAC. 
Just to clarify, it was not just that the Congress voted to keep a BRAC 
process going after 9/11; the Senate itself, on September 25, 2001, 
voted to table an amendment which struck the BRAC title. That was after 
9/11. It was the Senate itself that voted on that.
  Secondly, the point about first things first, it seems to me, is 
right. We ought to consider overseas bases first. That is why we 
created a commission last year in the 2004 appropriations bill, the 
MILCON appropriations bill. We appointed the Commission on Review of 
Overseas Military Facility Structures of the United States. That 
commission is meeting now. That commission is going to make a report 
this year. First things first, that is exactly what we are doing with 
that commission--reporting first on overseas structures.
  The real question is whether we get to the second thing. This 
amendment

[[Page 9802]]

kills BRAC. I think the sponsors have clarified it. This kills BRAC 
unless there is, as the Senator from Virginia points out, a vote in 
2005 to have a BRAC process. That will be the vote that all of the 
lobbyists will be pointing to. Every one of our States has bases. A lot 
of those bases are nervous. They have hired people to lobby us. Now the 
focus will be on a 2005 vote. So the cost to the communities to keep 
this pot boiling will continue. The communities will be left in limbo 
because these bases' future will be uncertain.
  The vote in 2005 will be certain. The outcome will not be certain, 
but there will be a vote in 2005. We know that because of the amendment 
language. So the beneficiaries of this amendment are the lobbyists and 
representatives of the communities, the communities kept nervous, kept 
in limbo. Keep the pot boiling; don't resolve this issue. The only 
argument to do that is first things first.
  We did that. We have our overseas basing commission in place, 
appointed, meeting. That is the logical process. We ought to let it 
play out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the administration has begun 
to address the overseas basing issue. I have visited bases, as have 
many of my colleagues. I have seen training constraints where you don't 
have the airspace to stay in training or you don't have the artillery 
range to stay in training. We have not had enough time to fully look at 
overseas bases and also know what our end strength is going to be. We 
don't know right this minute what our end strength is going to be and 
our force structure because we are having to adapt to some incredible 
changes in our security environment.
  We are going to have the last round of BRAC at some point, but it 
needs to be at the right time, and it needs to be done right. The Lott 
amendment would give us that extra time to make sure we do it right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  This commission on overseas bases is a Global Posture Review. It is 
not a closure or realignment process. It is a review of requirements 
that should then inform an overseas base process. But it is not a base 
closure. This commission which reports in December guarantees that 
nothing will happen. I want to make sure everybody understands that. We 
are trying to get an overseas realignment and base closure process.
  Secondly, I am shocked with all this talk about the key factor here 
is the lobbyists: We don't want our communities or States to keep these 
lobbyists who are going to be working to try to keep the commission 
from closing this base or that base. I really can't really believe that 
has been the argument.
  I have an answer to that. Take them off the payroll. I know how it 
has been working. Some of these people have been paid for 4 years, and 
there has not been a BRAC process underway. That is why we are here. We 
are here as representatives of the people. We do not need these people 
on the payroll. Surely, that is not the best argument.
  I guarantee this: Some of the communities, some of the bases, some of 
the people will say this will give us 2 more years, at least, on life. 
We will take those 2 years. The very idea of ``shoot me and get it over 
with'' when, as a matter of fact, some of these bases are really 
needed--CBO has said there is not excess capacity.
  My last point is, if we are going to have a base-closure process, 
target the excess bases; do not target every base in America. I urge we 
adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. All time has expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 1 minute 26 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my good friend, a very 
valuable adviser for these many years, this BRAC legislation is to take 
Congress and remove it, once we make the decision to go forward with a 
BRAC, because the very essence of BRAC was so distorted by a certain 
political individual some years ago.
  I have to tell my dear friend, it took a lot of effort to get this 
law in place. To dislodge it and terminate it, as this amendment does--
this is a killer amendment to BRAC--and then leave in limbo these 
communities with 2 years of uncertainty, not being able to attract 
business, not being able to do things in their community, with this 
cloud over their head as to the probability or improbability of their 
base remaining, is a dangerous situation.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, has all time expired?
  Mr. WARNER. I will be happy to grant my good friend----
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have an 
additional 30 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Thirty minutes?
  Mr. LOTT. Thirty seconds, to wrap up this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to emphasize again, think about what 
we are doing. Think about the time. Think about how much has happened 
in the last 2 years. Think of the troops, the Reserve and Guard forces 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think about the families, the mothers, and 
communities already very much concerned about the future of our 
military men and women, where they are going to be, and now add this to 
it. I think the timing is wrong. To say we are not going to even 
identify what bases will be subject to this review is not the way to 
go.
  I say again, think about these issues. I do not think we have any 
guarantee overseas bases will be realigned. I have evidence to indicate 
they will have the same numbers overseas in 2025. We have heard a lot 
of talk about realignment overseas and restructuring. It has not 
happened. This will make sure we first have overseas bases realigned 
and a new structure and then the domestic bases.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3158. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain

[[Page 9803]]


     McConnell
     Miller
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bunning
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
  The amendment (No. 3158) was rejected.
  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, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank all Senators for their cooperation 
today. We made some progress on the bill. But at this time, on behalf 
of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a 
period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, I want the Record to reflect we were prepared to go ahead 
with our amendment this evening for debate and discussion. I understood 
the Senator from New Mexico had an amendment. We were here at 3:30 or 
so, 4 o'clock. I was reminded by our ranking member about the desire to 
move ahead on the Defense authorization bill, so I want to be sure the 
ranking member and the floor manager of the bill, my friend and 
colleague, knows we are here ready to go with an amendment. It is an 
amendment of very significant importance about the Iraq policy. We were 
prepared to debate that amendment this evening and have discussion 
about this matter. I want to say, I certainly want to cooperate with 
the floor manager.
  We are all looking forward to the hearing tomorrow morning at 8:30, 
when we will have General Abizaid and General Sanchez, and others--
General Miller--who are going to be there, which will necessitate my 
attendance. I want to cooperate in every way, and will certainly, but I 
do want to indicate many of us who feel strongly about this issue and 
the importance of it were prepared to deal with this through the 
evening time. But it is evidently the wish of the floor manager to 
bring us into morning business. I would like to ask if I cannot at 
least have my amendment pending after the Senator from--as I 
understand, the Senator from New Mexico had intended to offer an 
amendment. As the floor managers remember, I tried to follow that 
Senator, considering the fact we had the Lott amendment, and then the 
Domenici amendment, that we might have an amendment from over on this 
side.
  I want to try to work it out, but I do want to try to at least find 
out if we can get in the queue on this issue so we can notify our 
Members. I am inquiring from the manager if we cannot at least get the 
amendment pending after the disposition of the amendment of the Senator 
from New Mexico, before we go into morning business.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in reply to my distinguished colleague on 
the Armed Services Committee, at this time I am not in a position to 
suggest how we proceed tomorrow, other than to say we, as a matter of 
comity, will rotate one amendment to another. The pending business, of 
course, at this time on this bill is the Lautenberg amendment. I would 
presume if that is disposed of tomorrow, then we would go to an 
amendment on our side, and we would then come back to your side.
  But at this time I would not be able to participate in trying to line 
up with certainty any amendments other than the fact that the 
Lautenberg amendment is the pending amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will not object, although it is 
perfectly satisfactory with the Senator from New Jersey for us to move 
ahead in the way I have outlined here, but if the chairman, the Senator 
from Virginia, wants to proceed in that way, it is obviously his right 
to do so. I am going to ask at least that my amendment get sent to the 
desk, not that it be in order but that it be sent to the desk prior to 
the time we go into morning business, if that is agreeable with the 
Senator, so it can be printed in the Record.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I am not prepared to enter 
into any unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, then I object.
  Mr. WARNER. Filing is a Senator's right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. He can file, but I did not hear the word ``file.''
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no quorum call.
  Mr. REID. I apologize. I thought there was. Will the Senator yield so 
the Senator can send his amendment to the desk?
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator participates in the withdrawal of the quorum 
call. Yes, the quorum call can now be withdrawn. I ask unanimous 
consent that the quorum call----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no quorum call. The Senator from 
Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request 
pending?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
to this legislation be printed at the appropriate place at the end of 
the discussion on this legislation here today.
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                           amendment no. 3174

   (Purpose: To require a report on the efforts of the President to 
stabilize Iraq and relieve the burden on members of the Armed Forces of 
    the United States deployed in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region)

       On page 247, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 1022. REPORT ON THE STABILIZATION OF IRAQ.

       Not later than two weeks after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees an unclassified report (with classified 
     annex, if necessary) on the strategy of the United States for 
     stabilizing Iraq. The report shall contain a detailed 
     explanation of the strategy together with the following 
     information:
       (1) A description of the efforts of the President to work 
     with the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization to provide relief for the nearly 150,000 members 
     of the Armed Forces of the United States who were serving in 
     Iraq as of May 2004, including efforts to ensure that--
       (A) more military forces of other countries are deployed to 
     Iraq;
       (B) more police forces of other countries are deployed to 
     Iraq; and
       (C) more financial resources of other countries are 
     provided for the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.
       (2) As a result of such efforts--
       (A) a list of the countries that have committed to 
     deploying military and police forces;
       (B) with respect to each such country, the schedule and 
     level of such deployments; and
       (C) an estimate of the number of members of the Armed 
     Forces that will be able to return to the United States as a 
     result of such deployments.
       (3) A description of the efforts of the President to 
     develop the police and military forces of Iraq to provide 
     relief for the nearly 150,000 members of the Armed Forces of 
     the United States who were serving in Iraq as of May 2004.
       (4) As a result of such efforts--
       (A) the number of members of the police and military forces 
     of Iraq that have been trained;

[[Page 9804]]

       (B) the number of members of the police and military forces 
     of Iraq that have been deployed; and
       (C) an estimate of the number of members of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States that will be able to return to 
     the United States as a result of such training and 
     deployment.
       (5) An estimate of--
       (A) the number of members of the Armed Forces that will be 
     required to serve in Iraq during each of the first five years 
     following the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) the percentage of that force that will be composed of 
     members of the National Guard and Reserves.

                          ____________________