[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 23983-24001]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   DISAPPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND 
                         REALIGNMENT COMMISSION

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Science.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us who have been privileged to serve in this 
great institution for some time have been through this process many 
times. This is not the first or second or third. We have had BRAC after 
BRAC. But I could not agree more with my distinguished colleague from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) who observed this was the best BRAC of all. We 
are finally getting it right. This was the least political, most 
professional BRAC we have ever had. And that is a tribute to Chairman 
Principi and all of the distinguished members of the panel: Admiral 
Gehman; General Newton; former Congressman and colleague Jim Bilbray; 
Phil Coyle; Sam Skinner; General Turner; Jim Hansen, another former 
colleague who served with great distinction; and General Hill. This 
reads like a Who's Who list of distinguished Americans who are 
providing a very important service for our Nation.
  The fact is DOD had too much physical inventory. It is costing DOD to

[[Page 23984]]

maintain that physical inventory. It is costing the taxpayers. So 
understandably they wanted some realignment, adjustments; and there had 
to be winners and losers. As someone who has been on both sides of that 
issue, let me say I know what it is like. I can feel the pain of the 
losers. But I would say to those who are on the short end of the 
recommendation, one, you should have confidence that the 
recommendations were made once again by the least political, most 
professional BRAC we have ever had, a BRAC whose individual members, 
including the Chairman, were available not just to have a courtesy 
photo opportunity, but to hear out those of us who had presentations 
before that Commission.
  They asked pertinent questions. They had on-site visits. They were 
very, very serious about their important work; and they were not alone. 
The highly dedicated and very competent professional staff of BRAC was 
even more accessible. You can understand when you get on the phone and 
you try to get a conversation with Chairman Principi or General So-and-
So or Admiral So-and-So, a lot of people want to talk to them. I must 
say that I was fortunate to be able to talk to each and every one of 
them. I had quality time. But the fact of the matter is the staff 
followed through once again with on-site visits, and that was so very 
important.
  The dedication and determination demonstrated by the Commission, its 
accessibility for individual members, their willingness to listen 
produced a product that I think we can all be proud of.
  Let me once again address those who represent communities who are not 
treated favorably by the BRAC recommendations. I have been through that 
before with a magnificent Air Force base that dissolved back as a 
result of the 1993 Commission report, and in 1995 it actually closed 
down with a couple of exceptions. And there were some people in the 
community at large who wanted to write the economic obituary for that 
community, Rome, New York, and the surrounding areas. There were 
others, a lot of us, not just me, the mayor, the county executive, 
local officials, business communities, that were determined to make the 
best of a bad situation.

                              {time}  1130

  Today, that once-vibrant military installation, Griffis Air Force 
Base, is now a very vibrant business and technology park with upwards 
of 4,000 people gainfully employed there; but part of that installation 
involves an Air Force research laboratory which was set off as a 
containment area as a result of the decision to close the base in 1993, 
and the people at DOD and everywhere were wondering would this work.
  It has worked in spades, and now the Air Force research laboratory, 
incidentally operating out of a $25 million state-of-the-art new 
facility, is the center of excellence for the entire Air Force in 
command, control, communications, and intelligence technology. It is an 
information directorate, and it not only services the Air Force well 
but it services a whole wide range of other activities. It is serving 
so well.
  So BRAC looked at that and made the decision that some operations 
that had been located there should be transferred elsewhere in line 
with the overall scheme of the Air Force to consolidate like operations 
at a central facility. Some moved out; some moved in. The net result is 
maybe a gain of 15 to 25 jobs for Rome, New York. I am not supporting 
the BRAC because we have got 15 or 25 jobs. I am supporting the process 
and what it did and what it produced.
  Let me tell my colleagues another story. At that same business and 
technology park, we now have a defense finance accounting service, and 
that employs exactly 382 people. DOD said, well, we want to 
consolidate, restructure. We do not need 26 locations all over the 
country. We want to go down to three locations. That did not really 
make a heck of a lot of sense; and when all was said and done, when the 
BRAC looked at that, they recognized that maybe the answer was 
somewhere in between. Instead of going from 26 to three, they went from 
26 to about five or six, consolidating, saving money, improving 
efficiency.
  Guess what. This facility at Rome, New York, which incidentally is 
operating and out of a new $10 million state-of-the-art facility, was 
examined very carefully. They did not just listen to me, and they did 
not make a decision that was posited with that because I had a 
scintillating personality or I had some influence down here. Influence 
down here did not make much difference in this process.
  What they listened to were the facts, and the facts are that when 
they examined all of the DFAS operations, in 16 measurable categories 
where you could quantify, where you could measure, where you could 
compare the output of one against the other, this installation was at 
or near the top.
  A final BRAC decision, not only are those 382 jobs preserved, 600 
additional are coming.
  So I say it from the perspective of a proud Member of a district who 
is gaining, and I say it as a proud Member of this institution who 
identified with creating a process that is serving our Nation well; and 
therefore, I would strongly oppose the resolution to disapprove and 
urge that the movement go forward.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois both for 
introducing this resolution and for yielding me some time to speak in 
support of the resolution.
  The stakes could not be higher. Of course, we should take steps, even 
if politically difficult, to cut waste and improve efficiency in the 
military. Let us look where we are.
  The Pentagon has recommended closures through the BRAC Commission. 
The BRAC Commission has approved them. Now the House is going to stamp 
them approved before the Department of Defense has completed its force 
structure review. This is exactly the opposite of what was supposed to 
happen. The BRAC commissioners themselves pointed out when they began 
their hearings this summer that the entire process has the cart before 
the horse.
  Also, the Overseas Basing Commission noted that the Pentagon had not 
factored in the impact of the return of tens of thousands of personnel 
from Europe to the United States in its BRAC recommendations; and even 
now, we are proceeding with the BRAC process before the Pentagon has 
even completed its periodic force review, which is supposed to be the 
blueprint for what we need for the 21st century.
  So we will be closing bases, losing key personnel, diminishing 
critical capabilities, even before we have determined which of those 
capabilities we need in order to meet current and future threats. The 
process, Mr. Chairman, has been backwards.
  I certainly can find fault with some of the specifics in here. I am 
very familiar with the excellent work done by the people at Fort 
Monmouth in central New Jersey where they do electronics, command, 
control, communications, computers. They have taken the lead in 
developing countermeasures to detect and disarm roadside bombs in Iraq. 
It is hard to think of anything that could be more important.
  We know that a large number of these scientists, probably 70, 80 
percent of these scientists and engineers and procurement experts will 
not make the move if Fort Monmouth is closed. That capability would be 
lost at a time that we cannot afford it.
  The harm to the military, to the Army, and to the joint services 
effort, I can assure my colleagues, is much greater than the harm to 
New Jersey. That is why I am highlighting this example of the problems.
  Let me be clear, I have nothing but great respect for each of the 
commissioners and their staffs. They worked for months a grueling 
schedule, reams of data, listening attentively, openly. In the end, 
however, the commission produced a series of recommendations that could 
not be right because the whole thing was flawed from the beginning. 
They got the cart before the horse.
  In the resolution before us today, we have the means to stop this 
flawed and

[[Page 23985]]

dangerous process, and it is apparent that the commissioners knew that 
they were not getting it right.
  In the case of Fort Monmouth, for example, in their recommendations, 
they charged Congress, not that they are able to charge Congress, but 
nevertheless they did, to review their results with respect to Fort 
Monmouth to say do not go ahead with them if it might hurt the 
capabilities that we need to fight terrorism around the world, to 
support our troops in the field and Iraq and Afghanistan. They actually 
said that in their recommendations. They were acknowledging that they 
were not getting it right, or at least they thought they might not be 
getting it right.
  They have got the cart before the horse. It is a flawed process. To 
give us a chance, I will urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution 
so that we can get it right. Our country's security depends on it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) for the opportunity to be heard.
  After a series of hearings and debates today, the House will vote on 
H.J. Res. 65, disapproving recommendation of the Defense Base Closure 
and Realignment Commission. I stand here in opposition to that 
resolution and support the BRAC process.
  Since the Department of Defense released those dreaded base closure 
recommendations on May 13, 2005, elected officials, community leaders, 
and employees have come together to make the case for keeping their 
respective facilities open.
  I respect the BRAC process. I understand that it is necessary for the 
Department of Defense to reconfigure its infrastructure into one where 
operational and support capacity is optimized for both war-fighting 
capability and efficiency. I also understand that the BRAC process 
assists the Department in maximizing joint utilization of defense 
resources and reallocates military personnel from supporting and 
operating unnecessary and underutilized infrastructure. However, I 
believe that the BRAC process should remain a fair process, allowing 
for every facility to be evaluated in a clear and consistent manner.
  Let me state that I am extremely pleased that on August 26, 2005, the 
BRAC Commission decided not only to reverse its decision to close the 
Defense Finance Accounting Service in Cleveland, Ohio, but to expand 
and add jobs at this facility. This facility has earned the right to 
remain open and continue to provide A-plus services to its executive 
clients and, most importantly, the men and women serving in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world.
  DFAS Cleveland is an integral part of the nerve center that supports 
our troops on the ground in Iraq and worldwide. It is the homesite of 
the Reserve pay center of excellence which processes payroll for the 
Army, Air Force, Naval Reserves and National Guard. It has a track 
record of innovation and success that has been recognized on more than 
one occasion.
  I thank the entire BRAC Commission, particularly Chairman Principi 
and General Lloyd Newton, for their service. In addition, I would like 
to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) who is seated on the 
floor and his staff for all the work they did in supporting DFAS, as 
well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his tireless 
efforts.
  Through our collaboration, we were able to outline to the commission 
the various discrepancies in the initial recommendation and make a good 
case for reversing the recommendation for removing the Cleveland DFAS 
office.
  I want to thank also the Cleveland Partnership and its membership. 
Thanks to Carol Caruso behind the scenes and thanks to attorney Fred 
Nance, the managing partner of Squires, Sanders and Dempsey, who argued 
our case before the commission. He was brilliant.
  Finally, I would like to say that this process has been a grueling 
process. In the city of Cleveland, we have lost so many jobs over the 
past 4 years. The thought that we would lose another 1,200 jobs if DFAS 
moved was just grueling, and we are thankful for the commission's 
recommendation. Again, I vehemently argue in opposition to H.J. Res. 65 
and thank my colleagues for their support.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Colorado for the time.
  First, let me thank the BRAC Commission head Anthony Principi and all 
of the panel members for their hard work for listening to all of us, 
both at the regional hearings and in person, and with the staff and the 
Department of Defense who worked with so many of us in these very 
difficult decisions.
  I rise in opposition to my colleague from Illinois's resolution, but 
I share some of his concerns. I would like to talk about a few of 
these.
  In the State of Indiana, the previous round of BRAC, I was 
legislative director for the junior Senator from Indiana when we 
watched all of our active military bases get wiped out in the State of 
Indiana, one of the number one recruiting States in the United States.
  My hometown in Fort Wayne, Indiana, is one of the major centers of 
defense electronics in the United States with ITT Aerospace, with 
Raytheon, Defense Electronics based there making many highly classified 
electronics, defense systems, with General Dynamics with a huge 
facility there, with BAE Systems with a huge facility there, with USSI 
with a huge facility there, with Northrop Grumman with a large and 
expanding facility there.
  We have defense electronics and a very patriotic, one of the highest, 
if not the highest, congressional districts in America in military 
recruiting for Army, Navy, Air Force and all of the various Guard and 
Reserve groups.
  We have an Air Guard base there in Fort Wayne, Indiana, that is 
gaining under this process. It was a very difficult process as to how 
we deal with the Guard and particularly the Air Guard, and it was a 
very stiff competition with the gentleman from Illinois' air base and 
the air base in Terre Haute, and we can argue the relative merits.
  What I heard at the hearing is, look, I am very proud of our Air 
Guard. They are way over. They have the highest percent retention, 
actually overretention at 116 percent of their recruiting quota. They 
have won national outstanding unit award three times by the Air Force 
and recipient of the National Guard number one Air Guard unit in the 
United States.
  But I also heard from the people in the capital region Air Guard unit 
and the people in the Terre Haute Guard unit. In fact, they were all 
high in recruitment, and they were all high in national awards.

                              {time}  1145

  The problem is the Air Force is cutting. The F-16s are aging and 
declining in quality and disappearing from our defense system, and the 
Air Force plans are to reduce the number of fighter planes by two-
thirds. So where is this going to leave the Air Guard and the Reserve, 
and how do we work this through when we head into a BRAC process? I am 
very concerned where we are headed long term with this, not just this 
BRAC process but the next BRAC process.
  It is clear we are leaning heavily on Guard and Reserve. Are we going 
to the point where Guard and Reserve and the Air Force are only going 
to be at active bases, and where does that leave the heartland of the 
United States as we move everything to the coast? Where does it leave 
us in homeland security?
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) raised a very difficult and 
interesting question that worked through the courts in this process, 
that it is pretty clear that the Department of Defense cannot close an 
Air Guard base, but they can move the airplanes. So we had one court 
ruling in Pennsylvania that said they could not close the base, but we 
have other rulings that said they could move the airplanes. What 
exactly is the role of an Air Guard base if it does not have any

[[Page 23986]]

airplanes, and how are we going to work this through?
  I believe there will be other types of defense systems in homeland 
security that hopefully will be located in Terre Haute and will be 
located in Springfield, Illinois, very important cities to homeland 
security and our national defense. We have to work this through.
  I believe the BRAC Commission made the right decisions, but this does 
not necessarily give us much guidance as to where we are headed and how 
we are going to integrate and maintain the defense structure we have in 
the United States with our Air Guard, Army Guard, and all of our 
Reserve units around the country if we do not have an adequate base 
structure, if we do not have adequate training places and ways to do 
this.
  I hope we can find, in addition to the fighter planes that are 
located in Fort Wayne, and the expansion of our base, for which I am 
very thankful, ways to work with Springfield, Illinois, with Terre 
Haute, Indiana, and other bases around the United States because we 
need all of those pilots. We need all of those Guard and Reserve people 
around the United States because we are strapped very thin. I hope this 
BRAC Commission report, while I strongly support it, will also be a 
launching point as to how we are going to work and build and keep this 
very diverse Armed Forces system in the United States.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I come here today to praise the men and 
women of the 118th Air Wing who fly out of Nashville, Tennessee. They 
have been mistreated by this BRAC process. I do not blame the BRAC 
Commission. I think the fault lies originally with the Pentagon 
recommendation because they simply did not take into account one of the 
best flying units in America. They are proven, they are ready, they 
have performed valiantly every time the Nation has called them to 
service. They have volunteered for extra duty. They fly C-130s. We 
have, and we soon will miss, those eight C-130 airplanes.
  The bottom line for the Pentagon decision, did it really have 
anything to do with military judgment for value or cost savings? No. 
What did it have to do with? A political calculation on the part of the 
Pentagon that because Tennessee had a great air unit in Memphis with C-
5s and a great air unit in Knoxville with KC-135s, that therefore, 
Nashville had to lose one of the best Air Guard units in the country.
  Now, they did not close down our base entirely; they did not have the 
temerity to do that, but they took all our aircraft. They took the 
``air'' out of the Air National Guard in Nashville, Tennessee.
  Now, Members might say, well, I am just protecting a local interest. 
Look at the facts. First they came at us with wrong data because the 
Air Guard unit there does not own the runways; we only lease them from 
a fine commercial airport. We got no credit for that. So we addressed 
that problem.
  Then they did not take into account the fact that we had some of the 
newest and best facilities in all of our military, the number one best 
hangar in America, brand new, barely opened, and it will probably never 
see an airplane. It won the top Air Force award for best hangar in the 
country, so why did American taxpayers pay $55 million for that hangar 
never to see it used?
  Guess what, almost every other facility on that base is less than 2 
years old, and we are taking away all of the aircraft. How does that 
make sense? It only makes sense if you look at the politics. Tennessee 
had three bases; they wanted to cut us down to two and distribute it 
more evenly around the country. So they can take our airplanes, are 
they going to train the new air crews at these other bases? Are they 
going to build them brand new and wonderful facilities and hangars? 
Will that save the American taxpayer money when we already had one of 
the top units in the country in Nashville performing perfectly?
  If you ask Secretary Rumsfeld, he knows about the men and women from 
Nashville who have flown him wherever he needed to go, in the Middle 
East or other places in the world.
  So I am in an ironic situation. I believe in the BRAC process. I do 
think Congress needs a restraint. We cannot just all protect our local 
bases, but the Pentagon's recommendation has to be based on sound 
military judgment, and at least in this one small case, it was not. 
Unfortunately, the BRAC commissioners did not have the temerity to 
override in this case, at least, the Pentagon recommendation.
  If Members talk to top folks in the Pentagon, they will tell you that 
from the expected savings from the BRAC round, they are virtually gone, 
because the BRAC Commission did interfere in a lot of other bases, and 
some services, so 70 to 80 percent of the expected savings are not 
there. I think history will chalk this up as a failed BRAC round, not 
because of Nashville but because of larger issues.
  So I hope and pray that when the next BRAC round comes around, we 
will do a better job starting with the Pentagon and through the BRAC 
Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of H.J. Res. 65, which would 
reject the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee I initially 
supported the BRAC process. It is very important that the composition 
of our bases and infrastructure support the operational needs of the 
21st century--a century that is emerging to be as dangerous and 
challenging as the 20th century. We must adapt to new threats and 
challenges. But our decisions concerning future base structure must be 
based on what best supports the national security of the United States. 
The BRAC decisions regarding the Air National Guard do not meet this 
test.
  Consequently, I disagree with the Department of Defense's 
recommendations concerning the Air National Guard. Our citizen soldiers 
of the Air National Guard are a critical part of our defense structure. 
They have done heroic work since 9-11. We simply would not have been 
able to sustain the current pace of our operations without the Air 
National Guard.
  The Air Force BRAC recommendations failed to fully consider the 
unique capabilities and civilian-military partnerships of many of our 
Air Guard facilities and the legitimate recruiting, training and 
retention concerns of the state adjutants. Moreover, the BRAC analysis 
did not address the potential impact of realignments on State homeland 
security missions. These ill considered recommendations generated 
almost unanimous opposition from State Adjutants. Despite the efforts 
of the commission, this entire process has done great harm to the vital 
relationships between the Air National Guard and the Air Force. This 
harms our national security.
  Let me briefly discuss these flaws using the 118th Air Wing (AW) 
stationed in Nashville as an example. The decision regarding the 
realignment of the 118th AW, one of the premier C130H flying units in 
the United States, illustrates the nature of the flawed recommendations 
that grew out of a closed process.
  First, the loss of aircraft from the Air National Guard and the 
movement of aircraft to fewer sites will have negative impact of the 
retention of our most experienced air crews and maintenance personnel. 
Unlike active duty airmen and pilots, Air National Guard personnel do 
not just pack up and relocate with their aircraft. It is highly 
unlikely that the majority of the 118th AW's highly experienced pilots 
and maintenance personnel will move with the C130H aircraft to new base 
locations.
  Next, consider the airmen and airwomen left behind in enclaves. The 
realignment of the 118th and many similar units across the country 
essentially takes the ``air'' out of Air National Guard. Attracting and 
retaining highly motivated young men and women for a placeholder 
organization with no real mission will be difficult, if not impossible.
  Third, rebuilding the deep operational experience and cohesion of 
units like the 118th AW, forged through multiple deployments and 
demanding combat missions that have continued through the rescue and 
recovery efforts associated with Hurricane Katrina will require many, 
many years. The direct and indirect personnel costs of realigning units 
like the 118th AW do not appear to have been considered in the BRAC 
process. It takes time and money to recruit, train and develop 
experienced pilots and co-pilots and highly skilled maintenance and 
support personnel. Indeed, duplicating the skill, experience and 
dedication of the 118th AW may be impossible.
  Fourth, it appears that the Air Force failed to fully consider the 
military value of the Air National Guard facilities under 
consideration. For example, in Nashville, we have spent over $55

[[Page 23987]]

million over the last five years on military construction to include a 
new state of the art hangar/maintenance complex that won an Air Force 
design award. Yet it appears much of this new construction was not 
considered in the evaluation of the 118th AW's ``Military Value.'' 
Consequently, these excellent facilities will remain in limbo--neither 
closed nor fully operational. Where is the efficiency, cost savings or 
operational advantage in this arrangement?
  Finally, the overall BRAC savings are minimal. According to the Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission, the Department of Defense claimed 
that their recommendations would save $47.8 billion over twenty years. 
The Commission concluded that once one time up-front costs of $21 
billion are subtracted and personnel costs are accurately calculated 
the total savings to the American taxpayer will only be $15 billion. 
This figure is likely high because costs for the retraining of pilots, 
air crews and mechanics are not factored into the up-front costs. This 
is extraordinary.
  Consequently, I have concluded that the marginal fiscal benefits of 
these recommendations do not out-weigh the costs to our Air National 
Guard flying formations and our national security. I will vote ``yes'' 
on H.J. Res. 65.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this resolution 
because I believe the BRAC Commission has performed its job admirably. 
It wisely chose to remove from the closure list the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Services in Cleveland which was scheduled to lose 1,028 
jobs. This came after a very strong community effort in Cleveland that 
was led by the Greater Cleveland Partnership and attorney Fred Nance, 
whose brilliant presentation at the BRAC Commission hearing was quite 
persuasive.
  It also came as a result of work that was done by our colleague from 
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Ohio has demonstrated that a 
bipartisan cooperation and partnership can be quite successful in 
helping to strengthen a community's economic position.
  We worked together, along with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Jones), other Federal officials, and local officials to ensure that we 
made the best case possible as to why the people who do an admirable 
service at DFAS in Cleveland should be permitted to continue doing 
their work.
  The 2005 Department of Defense recommendations put on the BRAC 
closure list inappropriately the Cleveland area, and they targeted 
Cleveland with over 1,000 job cuts. We made the case that those 
potential job losses were unjust and unfair and counterproductive to 
the interest of our Federal Government. The BRAC Commission reversal 
wound up adding 475 jobs, in addition to saving the current jobs. This 
means Cleveland will host 1,500 DFAS jobs and continue to be a major 
financial center for the Department of Defense.
  The BRAC Commission showed independence from the Pentagon, which is a 
rare feat in Washington, D.C. and Cleveland is grateful for their 
independence. This shows all of us why independence in our government's 
decision-making process is a crucial ingredient to ensure that the 
right decisions are made. This is another opportunity to move our great 
city off the list of cities with the highest poverty rate. The 
commission accepted the argument that the Pentagon should not move jobs 
from Cleveland, a city with one of the highest poverty rates in the 
Nation, to other cities which ranked much lower in poverty.
  So in all, I believe that the BRAC recommendations represented a very 
thoughtful, well-reasoned set of recommendations. I was honored to have 
the opportunity to participate and actually see the process at work, 
and I was also honored to work closely with my colleagues from the 
House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  In one of the few times since 1995 when we arrived in the House 
together, I am going to disagree with the gentleman from Illinois and 
will vote against this resolution today.
  I want to talk a little bit about the Cleveland experience and then 
the process and how we moved forward, which has been addressed by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Jones).
  I understand why the gentleman from Illinois has brought this 
resolution here today because I remember the shudder that can go 
through a community when 1,200 jobs are being discussed, in some cases 
more, some cases less. In Cleveland's case, they were jobs that pay an 
average of $54,000 a year. You are not just talking about the loss of 
the tax base. You are also talking about individuals who have made 
lives, whether it be in Cleveland, Indiana, Colorado, Missouri or other 
parts of the country.
  I had one grandmother who came up to me in Lake County, Ohio, after 
the decision was made to keep the facility open in Cleveland, and she 
said I want to thank you because it means my grandchildren will not be 
going to some faraway place. I can understand the shudder, and as the 
gentleman from Colorado said, maybe we should reexamine how we engage 
in this. But I want to talk about the process.
  The process, although it was nerve-racking, was also healthy. It was 
healthy because it gave me the opportunity to work together with the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich). I am Republican and they are Democrats, and we all put our 
shoulders to the same wheel to get the same result. It was good to see 
the labor community and the business community in Cleveland all come 
together, because sometimes they have disagreements. It was encouraging 
to see the leadership of the city of Cleveland come together, with 
Mayor Campbell and others all working towards achieving this result. 
From bad news, good news took place.
  But as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) said, it was not 
because the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I are so powerful. This was a process done on 
facts. Anthony Principi and the BRAC commissioners and the professional 
staff, and hats off to Marilyn Wasleski in particular, they took the 
time to look at the numbers and figure out that when the Pentagon came 
up with its original proposal, they had the numbers wrong. Just one 
small example: they overvalued the square footage that was being paid 
to the General Services Administration so Cleveland did not score as 
well.
  It would have been easy to say we are not going to pay attention to 
that, but the BRAC commissioners paid attention. They paid attention to 
the arguments and observations; and at the end of the day, Cleveland 
did not win because Cleveland had more political muscle, Cleveland won 
on the facts and on objective standards.
  Another thing that impressed me, the BRAC Commission not only looked 
at the numbers, they looked at the human cost. They considered the 
value of the 1,100 people that work in that building, the Celebrezze 
Federal building in the city of Cleveland, and they said to those 
Federal employees, you have value, you have worth. They recognized what 
they have accomplished in becoming centers of excellence, and they were 
rewarded for that. That is exactly what we would want to encourage.
  The last thing I want to say, we have some force protection issues, 
antiterrorism protection for Federal properties are coming up in 2009. 
I understand that when it comes to the men and women who are serving in 
the active military, but the Cleveland facility is made up primarily of 
accountants. And I want to protect our men and women in uniform, but 
the folks in the Cleveland building are accountants, by and large. And 
I try to read all of the chatter from al Qaeda and everywhere else, and 
I do not hear a lot of chatter about taking out the accountants. I 
would argue that our civilian Department of Defense employees are

[[Page 23988]]

valuable, but they are no more valuable than the people who work for 
the Social Security Administration or the U.S. Marshal's Office. Before 
we make sure that we fortify and penetrate all of these buildings for 
DOD civilian employees' work, we should look at force protection for 
everybody who works for the Federal Government.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Illinois for introducing this resolution. I will be 
voting today in favor of H.J. Res. 65 because I believe the BRAC 
Commission's recommendations should be overturned. I commend the 
commission for their thorough and diligent work. They certainly had a 
very difficult job.

                              {time}  1200

  However, I believe that now is not the time to implement a BRAC 
round, considering the number of operations our armed services are 
currently engaged in around the world. I have great concern about the 
Pentagon's ability to adequately assess our needs and assets while 
there are so many soldiers abroad and while the Pentagon awaits the 
results of the Quadrennial Review.
  I am also concerned about the Commission's recommendation to place 
Cannon Air Force Base in enclave status. This decision places Cannon in 
enclave status until 2009, or until a new mission can be identified for 
the base. I do view this recommendation as a partial victory for New 
Mexico since the Department of Defense initially slated Cannon for 
closure, but I firmly believe that Cannon should simply have been 
removed from the list altogether.
  Cannon offers the Air Force and its pilots unrestricted airspace and 
training ranges just off its runways. This is a rarity in today's Air 
Force, as more bases experience increasing encroachment. This 
unparalleled airspace is in the process of being expanded, making the 
base even more valuable. When approved, the New Mexico Training Range 
Initiative would make Cannon's airspace wider and taller and allow for 
training at supersonic air speed.
  I strongly believe we will be able to identify appropriate missions 
for Cannon Air Force Base to minimize the amount of time during which 
the base will remain in enclave status. Nevertheless, Cannon is too 
important to our national defense for it to be placed in enclave 
status.
  I urge passage of H.J. Res. 65.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak against this resolution. I understand the 
frustrations that have been expressed by some of our colleagues here on 
the floor about the BRAC safety valve. I understand their frustration. 
We were in the crosshairs in my community, and some of the issues that 
were raised earlier about the friction within the Pentagon, the 
inability to appropriately focus on the value of the Air Guard and 
there were some other issues that were at work here. I think this 
process is helping.
  I appreciate the debate here on the floor. I hope that we are able to 
further clarify the role that the Guard, especially the Air Guard and 
Ready Reserve, play as opposed to the Pentagon.
  The BRAC process in our case allowed us to make the case. We pulled 
together as a community. We were able to document that the transfer of 
the Air Guard actually would end up costing the taxpayer money, and we 
were able to demonstrate that it would leave a whole sector of the 
Northwest United States vulnerable, taking away critical air support 
that has loomed larger as we deal with the role of homeland security in 
our national defense.
  I would hope that our friends on the Armed Services Committee would 
focus on adjustments that may need to be made to the BRAC process to 
allow a higher priority attached to homeland security in these 
decisions in the future. It was not as clear when the BRAC legislation 
was enacted almost 20 years ago. I think things have shifted. I think 
it is time to readjust it.
  I would also hope that this would be an opportunity for us to focus 
on what we are leaving communities with after the bases are closed. I 
have come to the floor pleading for more support from Appropriations 
and more attention from the Armed Services Committee to unexploded 
ordnance and military toxins.
  The problem we are facing right now, after the 1988 BRAC process, we 
still have a dozen communities where they have not finished cleaning up 
those bases. Indeed, the Mather Air Force Base in California, in 
Sacramento, closed in 1988. The cleanup is not going to be completed 
until 2072. That is not fair to communities where bases are closed.
  While I support the BRAC process, I oppose the resolution. I think, 
in the main, BRAC has worked. I hope we are able to clarify the role of 
the Guard and the Ready Reserve as it relates to national security.
  I do hope this is a wake-up call to what we are leaving communities 
with, and we can accelerate the cleanup process.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans) who represents one of the largest military 
installations in our State.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.J. Res. 65. I 
totally disagree with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's 
decision pertaining to Rock Island Arsenal and other key installations 
across the Nation, including Springfield Air Base as well.
  The BRAC process is seriously flawed. Both the Department of Defense 
and the BRAC Commission failed to follow the criteria established by 
Congress to base its decisions on military values and cost savings. I 
expected the DOD and the Commission to follow the criteria outlined in 
the BRAC legislation. It failed to do so.
  The BRAC Commission stated it will actually cost the American 
taxpayer with no further expectation of future savings. The government 
will never receive a financial payback from this move.
  The BRAC Commission recommended realignment of installations in the 
17th Congressional District of Illinois, but failed to base its 
decision on military value criteria. Rock Island DFAS was rated number 
one in military value, but the Commission recommended consolidation at 
facilities rated substantially below Rock Island: Columbus, 7; 
Indianapolis, 9; Cleveland, 12; Limestone, 17; Rome 19.
  The BRAC decisions regarding not only bases in Illinois, but 
throughout the Nation, are extremely frustrating because the Commission 
recognized the military value and cost savings provided streamlining of 
bases already undertaken on a local level.
  I am a former marine, and I will not surrender this fight to save 
jobs at the Rock Island Arsenal. I will continue to work with the Quad 
City Development Group and local officials to strengthen the arsenal 
and to bring more jobs to the island.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Peoria, Illinois who 
has done an outstanding job in fighting this battle. I look forward to 
working with him on the cleanup of this process and hope that we do not 
have to go through it again. I appreciate his leading the charge on 
this bill today.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, there is no shortage of valid complaints to 
be made of this round of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission's work. I generally support the BRAC process. But what is 
important about the BRAC process is the process and how it is handled 
by the Commission itself. I feel that insufficient attention was paid 
to the role each individual base played in the United States national 
security, and, more importantly, the homeland security.
  The recommendations seem to be based much more on bean counting than 
strategic value, nowhere more so

[[Page 23989]]

than in the case of Ellington Field in Houston, Texas. Ellington Field 
is currently home to the Texas Air National Guard's 147th Fighter Wing, 
who just got back from Iraq and showed themselves to be exemplary not 
just in their efforts before going to Iraq, but in Iraq itself. They 
were absolutely exemplary in their efforts and in their service. We 
appreciate them in everything that they do.
  But Ellington is also home to several other branches and resources of 
our armed services, all of whom are responsible for the protection of 
the entire gulf coast. Its national and homeland security facilities 
should be plain to anyone as in need of more personnel, greater 
maintenance and better military assets.
  Yet the BRAC Commission has chosen to realign Ellington, removing its 
F-16 Fighter Wing and leaving the gulf coast, to my mind, in many ways 
more vulnerable than it is now. The Houston-Galveston region has all 
nine of the FBI targets. It is the only region in the entire United 
States that has all nine of those targets.
  The Commission's Ellington decision was a bad one. I join with the 
proponents of this resolution and, for that matter, the two BRAC 
Commissions, including Chairman Principi who voted to save Ellington, 
in their frustration. The flawed methodology and dangerous implications 
of the Commission's work, particularly with regard to the Ellington 
Field decision, leave me no choice but to oppose the BRAC 
recommendations and support the resolution before us.
  We should all support the work of the BRAC Commission to consolidate 
and improve the alignment of our military assets to strengthen our 
national security. This round of recommendations, in my view, does not 
accomplish that goal. I will continue to work on behalf of Ellington 
Field and to ensure national and homeland security interests of the 
gulf coast region.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to follow my 
neighbor from Texas (Mr. DeLay). Ellington is in his district, but I am 
the next closest Member.
  I rise to express my disapproval for the recommendations of the 
Defense Base Realignment and Closure and urge my colleagues to support 
the gentleman from Illinois' resolution, of which I am a proud 
cosponsor. This is the most ill-advised, ill-timed round in base 
closure history. We currently have men and women fighting in two 
countries, and we passed three large supplemental requests, and the 
fourth likely in the next few months. We are in the process of closing 
bases overseas and bringing them home. Given these uncertainties, we 
cannot know what our base needs or our threat needs will be for the 
next 5, 10 or 20 years.
  Ellington is home to the 147th Air National Guard Wing, Texas Air 
National Guard Wing. Houston is the fourth largest city in our Nation. 
It is our home and has a huge petrochemical complex that accounts for 
nearly half of the Nation's base petrochemical production. The Houston 
ship channel in the Port of Houston handled more foreign tonnage than 
any other port. We have the Texas Medical Center and NASA's Johnson 
Space Center. One of the most vulnerable targets in the area is the 
petrochemical complex, along with these other assets. Yet the base 
closure commission on a close vote decided to close Ellington.
  Now, what they are doing is they are saying that we are going to 
provide service from San Antonio, Texas. The problem is that is 23 
minutes away. As we know, an airborne attack on a refinery complex 
could seriously disrupt our Nation's energy supply, causing major 
nationwide economic impacts. An attack on a chemical plant could result 
in a hazardous release and thousands of casualties.
  Currently our 147th Air Wing provides air security in the area, and 
the solution from the Pentagon is rotating several planes to fly on 
alert out of Ellington, which provides a much smaller deterrent than 
having a full squadron. What would happen if we had multiple planes 
that are attacking different facilities?
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my disapproval with the 
recommendations made by the Defense Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission, and to urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  This is the most ill-advised and ill-timed round in the history of 
Base Realignments and Closures. We currently have men and women 
fighting in two countries, we have passed three of the largest 
supplemental requests in our Nation's history with a fourth likely in 
the next several months, and we are in the process of closing bases 
overseas and bringing troops home.
  Given these uncertainties, we cannot begin to know what our basing 
needs will be 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. However, instead of 
postponing this round of closures for 2 or 3 years like many members of 
the House and Senate supported, one of the most contentious rounds of 
BRAC was pushed through.
  Like many other communities across the country, the district I 
represent was affected by the Defense Department's plan to consolidate 
Air National Guard units, leaving one of the largest metropolitan areas 
in the country less prepared to respond to a terrorist attack.
  Houston is the fourth largest city in the Nation, and is home to a 
petrochemical complex that accounts for nearly half of the Nation's 
base petrochemical production capacity. The Houston shipping channel 
and the Port of Houston handle more foreign tonnage than any other U.S. 
port. Also, we have NASA's Johnson Space Center, and the Texas Medical 
Center.
  One of the most vulnerable targets in the area, and possibly the 
country, is the petrochemical complex; a tremendous complex that 
stretches the length of the Houston Ship Channel and continues along 
the coast through Beaumont, Texas. We have seen in the aftermath of 
Katrina and Rita the negative effects caused by disruptions in our oil 
supply and refining capacity, and leaving this area unprotected is 
leaving the door open to a terrorist attack on this critical 
infrastructure.
  The Port of Houston is the second largest petrochemical complex in 
the world, and the largest in the Western Hemisphere, which produces 
over 35 percent of the Nation's gasoline at a great many refineries.
  Numerous chemical plants also line the channel, producing a number of 
volatile compounds. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, 7,600 deep draft 
vessels arrive each year, and 60 percent of those ships carry sensitive 
oil/chemical cargos.
  An airborne attack on the refinery chemical complex could seriously 
disrupt the Nation's energy supply, causing major nation-wide economic 
impacts. An attack on a chemical plant could result in a hazardous 
release with thousands of casualties.
  Currently the 147th Fighter Wing of the Texas Air National Guard 
provides air security in the area and could respond to a threat on the 
complex or at the port in minutes because of the close proximity.
  Rotating several planes to fly on alert out of Ellington, provides a 
much smaller deterrent than having a full squadron permanently 
stationed there, and would not provide enough planes to respond to 
multiple attacks on multiple targets in the area.
  Meanwhile the closest full squadron would be in San Antonio, and 
would take approximately 23 minutes longer to respond to a threat than 
the F-16s at Ellington can currently provide.
  In addition to providing security for the Houston area, the 147th is 
capable of providing precision strikes, close air support, offensive 
counter air, defensive counter air, and suppression of enemy air 
defenses.
  The area around Ellington also provides the 147th with excellent 
training airspace, including over-water air-to-air training on the Gulf 
of Mexico allowing them to perform supersonic flights and lights out 
training from the surface to 50,000 feet.
  Terrorists have proven their intent and capability to attack ground 
targets with multiple aircraft and retiring the 147th Fighter Wing's F-
16s leaves Houston vulnerable to an attack.
  The savings estimated in the DoD's BRAC report are minimal and do not 
justify moving the F-16s away from Ellington; while it is estimated 
that retiring the F-16s will save DoD $3.6 million over 20 years, an 
attack on any of the possible targets listed above, especially the 
petrochemical facilities and Port of Houston, would cost our national 
economy billions of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, this round of BRAC is ill-advised and ill-timed and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

[[Page 23990]]



                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in support of this 
motion. I have always supported the BRAC. I have been here through 
three of these, and I always thought they were well reasoned before, 
win, lose or draw; and by the standards of win, lose or draw, I 
probably came out okay in a lot of ways in this, because four out of 
five facilities in my area did well. The Army did well in this BRAC.
  But I always thought the BRAC was based upon numbers and savings and 
mission, and suddenly I find out that is not true. I am going to read 
something here in a minute about that. That is what troubles me in this 
one, because the Air Force set out on a plan to arrive at a number, and 
they destroyed, in my opinion, much of what one of their components 
does best, and that is the Air National Guard.
  Let me give you an example. At Mansfield, Ohio, they realigned the 
base. ``Realignment'' means you do not technically get BRAC'ed, but you 
get no airplanes, so you have to find something else to do. Let me tell 
you, the soldiers that were in the Dome shortly after Katrina were Ohio 
Army Guardsmen. They were flown there in 130s out of Mansfield. The 
soldiers that were in Mississippi from Ohio were flown down by 130s 
from Mansfield. The soldiers that were in Texas from Ohio were flown in 
by 130s from Mansfield.
  When BRAC gets done, there are not any airplanes at Mansfield. So how 
many days are we going to wait to come in and pick those people up and 
bring them down? Because we have still got a large Army Guard that can 
perform, and they have shown they can perform; but 2 years from now, 
that is not going to happen. That does not look smart to me.
  If you look at the chart that shows the support in the hurricane by 
the Air National Guard, it is far superior to what the Air Reserve did 
or especially the active duty in response to these hurricanes. That is 
not going to be there 2 years from now.
  Now, closer to home, my Springfield Air National Guard Base. It is a 
training base. I did not ask to do this mission. The Air Guard and the 
Air Force came to me and said, We screwed up. We have closed much of 
our flight training. We need another place to do this. Will your State 
take this on? My State said it will.
  They came to me, I was chairman of the MILCON, if you wonder how they 
came to me. They said, Will you take this on at your Springfield F-16 
base? We saluted and said, Yes, sir, we will do it.
  We put in over $85 million to make this a first-class flight school. 
We have not even opened the $8.5 million tower yet. We just finished 
the fire station. We put in a $10 million pad. And what do we find out? 
We are being realigned. ``Realigned'' means you lose your airplanes; 
you lose your mission. What are we going to do? Now I find out there is 
another mission available for flight school, but they want to take it 
and possibly put it in another place, someplace else, and spend the 
money again and take these airplanes.
  Let me tell you what the Commission's findings were regarding 
Springfield Air National Guard Base. I am upset because they always did 
this by the numbers in the past. This was not done by the numbers, and 
that is why I am so infuriated about what happened, because I do not 
mind a fair fight.
  We thought we had this won, until the Air Force went to the 
commissioners at the last moment and said, Hey, you have got to change 
this, because they were going in the right direction the day before. 
The next day when they got up, I knew we were dead.
  Let me read the commission findings: ``The commission found that the 
Department of Defense recommendation to realign Springfield-Beckley 
Municipal Airport Air Guard Station should be supported even though the 
military value criteria were flawed and the realignment will be a cost 
instead of a savings to the Department.''
  I mean, give me a break. It is flawed and there is no savings; but, 
by the way, the mission is going away, and we are not going to train 
these pilots. This place is training pilots better than they were 
expected to do and more than they were expected to do, and yet it is 
being realigned. The airplanes are gone. If we are going to do this 
this way, this is wrong and we have to stand up and say it is wrong.
  I think this happened in more instances than just mine, and that is 
why I am so upset about the way this was done. It was not done by the 
numbers; it was done to drive to a number that the Air Force had to get 
to to save some airplanes like the F-22 and some other things.
  So I am just hoping the people will vote in support of the 
resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this resolution of disapproval 
on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's (BRAC) recommendations 
that are now before Congress. This is not a decision that I have come 
to lightly. During this latest BRAC round, there were several 
recommendations made that will benefit the State of Ohio and the 7th 
Congressional District that I represent. However, I cannot in good 
conscience accept a process that was fundamentally flawed and very 
unfair in the decisions made with regard to our country's National 
Guard and Reserve.
  I represent four military bases, including the Springfield Air 
National Guard Base (ANG), the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), 
Wright Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), and Rickenbacker International 
Airport. Each of these military installations has an exceptional 
workforce dedicated to the military missions assigned to them, whether 
it is logistical support for deployed troops, research and development, 
or pilot training.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the third BRAC round that I have been through, 
so I understand the importance of community leaders and base officials 
doing the homework necessary to define the installation's military 
value, and the potential economic impact this process will have on 
communities where bases are located. During this latest round, I would 
argue that Ohio had some of the most hardworking and competent 
individuals working on behalf of our State's installations.
  We testified at hearings in Buffalo and Washington, DC, and briefed 
BRAC Commissioners and staff during site visits to DSCC in Columbus and 
to Wright-Patterson. We also worked together in reviewing the numbers 
used by the Pentagon in making their BRAC recommendations.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that I can speak for other delegations when 
stating that our efforts in getting information from the Air Force 
during this BRAC round did not start well. When we requested material 
on how they came to their recommendations, we didn't receive it for 
weeks. And when we did receive the data, it was inaccurate.
  As I've already stated, I was very disappointed by the DOD and BRAC 
Commission's final recommendations with regard to the Air National 
Guard. This was especially true regarding their recommendations to 
redistribute the 178th Fighter Wing F-16 aircraft from the Springfield 
Air National Guard Base.
  I have said all along that if the BRAC process had been fair and done 
``by the numbers'', that I would accept the outcome, even if I didn't 
like it. But unfortunately, this was not the case.
  First of all, the BRAC analysis material stated there is only one F-
16 Formal Training Unit in the Air National Guard. This is wrong! There 
are two Air National Guard F-16 Formal Training Units, and one of them 
is at the Springfield ANG Base.
  Second, I was asked several years ago if I would support Springfield 
taking on this training mission that would require specialized 
infrastructure to support it. I was the Chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee for Military Construction at the time, and I agreed to 
support the Air Force in this effort. More than $75 million in federal 
funding has been invested in the Springfield base to support its F-16 
training mission. Over the years, we have put in a new ramp to 
accommodate the plane, a flight simulator, a dining hall, an operations 
building, and a new control tower that is still under construction. 
Some of these assets are only now becoming operational.
  Third, everyone agrees there are no cost savings achieved by 
realigning the Springfield ANG Base. In fact, the commission actually 
concluded in its report that DOD's ``recommendation to realign the 
Springfield base should be supported even though the military value 
criteria were flawed and the realignment will be a cost instead of 
savings to the Pentagon.''
  Fourth, the Air Force lacks sufficient training capacity for F-16 
pilots. If we further reduce this capacity through this proposed 
realignment, it even further diminishes this capability, especially 
since this unit is the highest F-16

[[Page 23991]]

pilot production unit in the Guard. The BRAC analysis on Springfield 
shows that operational personnel will begin to leave the base in 2007, 
while there are student pilots scheduled for training in 2008.
  Mr. Chairman, there is also the issue of homeland security. Like some 
of my colleagues, I think it is fair for us to consider what these BRAC 
recommendations will mean for the future of the National Guard in 
responding to emergency situations. As we saw in the days following the 
recent hurricanes in the gulf coast region and on 9/11, the Air 
National Guard was a critical resource in transporting troops, supplies 
and protection. For example, the Mansfield, Ohio-based 179th Airlift 
Wing flew over 50 missions in support of Hurricane Katrina relief 
efforts. Yet, homeland security did not appear to be a major part of 
this BRAC process.
  Overall, I was very disappointed in the process by which the Air 
National Guard decisions were made, particularly the flaws in the Air 
Force analysis. These flaws run throughout the entire BRAC process, 
from the consolidation of aircraft models, and the so-called right 
sizing of operations, to the poor or nonexistent analysis of the cost 
to replace the people from the locations that are being set aside. This 
doesn't even consider the recruiting and retention issues that we 
already face. And, it doesn't speak to the cost of personnel training 
to recreate this capability, and the loss of experience that will occur 
by the Air Force plans.
  Finally, I was dismayed that there was absolutely no discussion by 
the BRAC commissioners or staff regarding the National Guard 
recommendations during the final considerations on August 26th. Until 
then, there was much talk about the lack of consultation and the 
quality of the recommendations by the Air Force throughout this BRAC 
round. There was even the suggestion that the entire set should have 
been thrown out by the BRAC commission.
  On the day the BRAC Commission upheld their recommendation to realign 
the Springfield Air National Guard Base, I wrote a letter to each BRAC 
Commissioner to express my disappointment with the way they handled 
decisions regarding the National Guard. I pointed out that there was no 
discussion when, by the numbers, we had demonstrated the flaws in the 
Pentagon's proposal. I also asked for an explanation on how the 
commissioners arrived at their decision, and I received no answer.
  Finally, in early September, I wrote to the President requesting the 
same information, and for his consideration to send the recommendations 
impacting the Air National Guard back to the BRAC Commission with 
instructions to use programmatic changes to reshape our state militia 
forces. Unfortunately, for the men and women in the Guard and Reserve, 
I am still waiting for a reply.
  As I stated before, opposing the BRAC recommendations was not an easy 
decision. Overall, Ohio faired well during the commission's final 
proceedings. Wright-Patterson will keep over 2,000 information and 
technology jobs that were to be transferred to Hanscom, Massachusetts, 
and it will also keep a first-class post-graduate program known as the 
Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). In Columbus, the Defense 
Supply Center will maintain its 6,000 jobs, and is scheduled to receive 
many high-paying jobs.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I think that in the years to come when the 
recommendations regarding the Guard and Reserve are set in motion, 
people will realize that this latest BRAC round was flawed, and 
consequently the wrong thing to do. It is for these reasons that I will 
stand here today and support this resolution to overturn the 2005 BRAC 
recommendations.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I have come to the same 
conclusion as the great gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). I have just 
probably been at it longer. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution 
gives Congress the responsibility to provide for the national defense. 
It does not make us generals; it does not make us admirals. We do not 
tell admirals how to sink ships; we do not tell generals how to takes 
hills. We do, hopefully, provide sound business decisions for them.
  The whole concept of BRAC is taking that decision-making process away 
from the people who begged for the job and were given the job by the 
citizens and delegating it to some other people. I did not run for 
Congress to delegate my responsibilities. I take them very seriously.
  The service Secretaries would come before our committee, for years 
they have come before our committee and said, We have too many bases. 
Every single service Secretary. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) and I would respond to the service Secretaries, Name one 
base that you want to close. Just one. The same service Secretaries who 
said they wanted to cancel the Crusader, who said they wanted to cancel 
the Arsenal ship, who wanted to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter, the 
same guys who have no hesitation on canceling things and making tough 
decisions, never named one base that they wanted to close.
  We followed that up with a very simple question: In the three 
previous rounds of BRAC, can you name one weapons system that you have 
bought with those savings? Can you name one additional benefit that you 
have given to the troops? Can you name one good thing that came out of 
this? Never once could they answer that question.
  You see, BRAC saves no money. What people miss in all of this is that 
when a base is closed, the local communities then come to Congress, as 
they should, and say, Look, you have just put all my folks out of work. 
We at least want the property back. And in every instance Congress has 
given that property back to the locals, so there is no savings of 
selling off the property.
  As a matter of fact, it gets worse, because our Nation has to live by 
the same laws as everyone else. If an individual pollutes a piece of 
property, they have to clean it up before they can sell it. To date, 
our Nation has spent $15 billion cleaning up properties before we gave 
them away.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) makes an excellent point: every 
time you lose a base, you lose a capability. The worst of Hurricane 
Katrina hit my congressional district. I was very fortunate to be 
friends with Admiral Mullen, the Chief of Naval Operations. I was very 
fortunate to be friends with General Steven Bloom, the head of the 
National Guard Bureau. In my frantic calls to them in the aftermath of 
the storm begging for their help, their first response was, Where can I 
put my people? Name a barracks, name an airfield, name a place where I 
can put my people so they can help the people of Mississippi.
  Every time you lose a base, you lose a place to put those people in 
the event weather, whether it is a tsunami in the Pacific, a hurricane 
in Mississippi, a flood or earthquake on the west coast, a flood in the 
Midwest, you lose a capability to help the American people.
  We are at war. Goodness gracious, we have 140,000 Americans fighting 
and dying in Iraq. We have another 20,000-plus in Afghanistan. Did 
anyone see these wars coming? The truth of the matter is, in my time in 
Congress we have had a war in Panama that no one saw coming, we have 
had two wars in Iraq that we really did not see coming, we had a war in 
Bosnia that no one saw coming. So when you close a base, you close it 
forever and you lose that capability to respond to future 
contingencies.
  Above all, when some new weapons system comes along, you lose a place 
to deploy it. Right now our Nation is buying 30,000 acres in North 
Carolina, and some people in North Carolina think it is a great idea 
and some people think it is a terrible idea. We are spending a heck of 
a lot of your money buying land in North Carolina so we can build a 
base to land F-18s, the newest version of the F-18, when they come off 
the carriers.
  Then we have to buy the land and build a runway. And everyone who has 
served knows it does not end with the runway. You have to have a fire 
station, barracks for the enlisted, barracks for the single guys, 
family housing for the married folks, you have to have commissaries, 
you have to have fun things for the guys to do when they are off duty, 
because we are trying to attract young people like you to come serve 
our country. All of these things cost money, and we are going to build 
all these things in North Carolina at great expense to the public.
  With you we already had all those things. We had all those things 
that we are getting ready to buy and build in North Carolina in 
Jacksonville, Florida. It was called Cecil Field. It had a 10,000-foot 
runway and three 8,000-foot runways. It had an excellent quality of

[[Page 23992]]

life, and it was all paid for by the American taxpayer, and a previous 
round of BRAC closed that.
  So, please, proponents of this, tell me how we are saving the 
taxpayers money, how we are making the Nation more secure, and, above 
all, if the service Secretaries cannot name a single base that they 
think is worthy of closing, why are we going to close so many bases in 
one fell swoop?
  We were elected to follow the Constitution. The Constitution clearly 
gives Congress the responsibility to provide for the Army and the Navy. 
Let us do our job and let us not hide behind some commission to do our 
work for us. I urge Members to vote against the recommendations of this 
commission.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for 
his very articulate statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me say initially I do not believe in 
the BRAC. I have opposed every BRAC initially from the very beginning, 
and I have been here in Congress 18 years.
  The reason I do not believe in BRAC was somewhat articulated by the 
previous speaker. I think it is a abrogation of Congress' 
responsibility. There is no reason why we cannot make these decisions, 
and to give these decisions to an independent commission, I think, is 
just a cop-out on our part. So I want to start out with that.
  I also want to say in this particular round in 2005, I strongly 
disapproved of the BRAC even more so than in the past because we are in 
a war in Iraq. You do not shut down, in my opinion, military 
infrastructure at a time of war. I think this BRAC in particular is 
poorly timed and ill advised.
  Now, the 2005 round of BRAC also was done hastily, in my opinion, 
with very little regard to the actual warfighter. A number of bases 
with great functional value are being shut down in the name of savings. 
I do not believe anyone at the Department of Defense or any member of 
the BRAC Commission actually believes that this round of BRAC will 
actually save us any money, and I listened to many of the BRAC 
hearings.
  I am also truly disappointed because I believed that the BRAC 
ultimately would try to be an independent broker and that the 
commission would review each facility, analyze the data, and come to 
conclusions based on facts. I do not think that was the case. The 
opposite was the case. In the case of Fort Monmouth, which is the 
installation near my district, a lot of the people employed there live 
in my district. We successfully proved, myself, the two Senators and 
several other Congressmen, including the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), we successfully proved to the BRAC Commission, in my opinion, 
that the Army substantially deviated from six of the eight BRAC 
criteria. The BRAC actually said that, that the Pentagon deviated from 
six of the eight BRAC criteria.
  But, even so, even though the BRAC was supposedly an independent 
commission tasked with ensuring that the DOD's recommendations would 
not hurt the warfighter, even though they admitted there was a serious 
concern about the warfighter and how in the days of Fort Monmouth the 
communications and electronics functions crucial to Iraq might be 
seriously hampered, they still decided to include it on the list.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Look, we are down here on the floor, it is empty. Maybe some folks 
are listening in their offices. I hope they are. I hope at least some 
of the staff, some folks may be paying attention.

                              {time}  1230

  Our problem here is very, very simple. Over and over again our 
colleagues will say to us, well, I got out of this okay, or we have 
resolved that issue. I am one of those folks. I can say that. I have 
had people come up and say to me, well, why are you bothering? Pearl 
Harbor made it out of there.
  Why was it taken up in the first place? I will tell you why. It is 
politics. This has nothing to do with whether or not there is some 
rational process that has been undertaken, and everybody in here knows 
it. For once, can we not come down on this floor and actually vote the 
way all of us really understand where our responsibilities are?
  Pearl Harbor got brought up for a very simple reason. They were going 
to close a facility up in Maine, and the people in Maine in their panic 
said, do not take us, take Pearl Harbor instead. They started comparing 
some naval apples, some shipyard apples with some shipyard oranges, and 
they came up with, well, go get Pearl Harbor. It had nothing to do with 
it. I did not come back and say, no, no, no, not us; go back to Maine, 
go get them. What kind of a process is that where we try to devour each 
other? I said, let us keep all of them open. We need every shipyard 
facility that we can get in this country.
  We are going to be going back out to Guam soon because of what is 
taking place in the Pacific right now, and having to recapitulate 
everything that got put under the water out there in Guam, billions of 
dollars is going to have to be put back into Guam in order for us to be 
able to protect and project our strategic interests in the Pacific.
  We are under a review right now in the Armed Services Committee, and 
we do not even have the courage of our own convictions under our own 
jurisdictions in our committees.
  It is not that I am right or Mr. LaHood is right or Mr. Hobson is 
wrong or right, or Mr. Taylor. That is not the issue. The issue is are 
we meeting our responsibilities here? We are constantly admonished that 
no sacrifice is too great. We are constantly admonished that we have to 
honor the sacrifices that are being made by our fighting men and women 
all over the world right now. Yet we cringe from our own 
responsibilities as Members of Congress to meet those responsibilities 
and obligations with regard to bases.
  Now, I have been told over and over again, well, that is all well and 
good, but people are going to come down here, and you are going to lose 
anyway. It happens occasionally some people come down and say, you 
know, I was going to vote the other way. Let us, for once, come down 
here, and I make this appeal out there to anybody who is thinking about 
coming to the floor. Vote for Mr. LaHood's recommendation.
  We are not down here just to hear ourselves. When you come over here, 
search your conscience, and, for once, let us live up to what people 
expect of us in this Congress. For once let us not fulfill some 
stereotype that we are just going to roll over because we managed to 
make it out the door. That is not what we are here for.
  If this is just a job to you, then do not run again. This is a 
calling. This is a vocation. It is supposed to be. That is the way I 
feel about it, and I know that is the way most Members feel about it. 
They want to be able to look in the mirror at night and recognize 
somebody with a little bit of integrity and walk into their homes 
justified.
  If we are going to justify our job, everybody knows in their heart 
that we should not be voting for this, regardless of our good friends 
being on it, like Mr. Hansen and Mr. Bilbray, for example, who are 
colleagues and personal friends to many of us here. It is not a 
question of whether they did their job or did not do their job; it is 
whether we are doing our job, and we are meeting our obligations.
  So I appeal to everybody on their way over here. Let us vote for Ray 
LaHood's resolution, and let us do the right thing by ourselves and the 
Nation.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of the resolution and join the growing chorus of the Members of 
Congress who are coming down to the floor today disappointed in the 
recommendations of the Base Realignment Closure Commission.
  I cannot understand why, in a time that we are fighting a global war 
on

[[Page 23993]]

terror, a war where we are actively engaged on two fronts and obligated 
to also increase domestic defense against terrorism here at home, the 
Department of Defense has suggested, in fact recommended, that we close 
bases across the Nation.
  More troubling is the fact that the Department of Defense has moved 
ahead in this BRAC round by applying a Cold War model to a post-Cold 
War security environment. Remember, the Department of Homeland Security 
has not been consulted, Mr. Chairman, on the impact these base closures 
pose to our domestic security.
  Mr. Chairman, the world has changed enormously since the last BRAC 
round. Our threats are not static as they once were. Today we face an 
asymmetric threat from an enemy that knows no borders nor rules of 
warfare. The threat of international terrorism requires us to have the 
best tools available to respond to threats on our allies, our 
interests, and our homeland at a moment's notice, and I am afraid that 
the current BRAC recommendations hamper our ability to do so.
  Take, for instance, the recommendation that the largest joint reserve 
base on the east coast should be closed. The Willow Grove Joint Reserve 
Base directly borders my district in Pennsylvania. Hundreds of my 
constituents rely on that base for their National Guard training. 
Thousands of my constituents rely on the customer traffic the 
servicemen and women stationed at Willow Grove provide for their local 
businesses that surround the base. And, on a larger scale, both my 
constituents and Americans from New York to Baltimore benefit from the 
base's protection. Willow Grove's strategic position allows its air 
assets to protect the ports of Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore. 
It serves as a FEMA alternative site, providing a staging ground so 
Federal resources can be distributed in the event of a natural disaster 
or a terrorist attack.
  Militarily the base has a great track record of achievement by 
training combined arms jointly for over a decade, practically setting 
the standard for interoperability between branches of the armed 
services.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close. I have 
no other speakers, and if these gentlemen are ready, when they finish, 
I will close.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The Chair will recognize 
for closing speeches in reverse order of opening. It will be the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself whatever time I have 
remaining.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just pick up on a couple of the people that have 
spoken. I want to pick up on a point that Mr. DeLay made. He has an Air 
Guard unit returning to Ellington Air Force Base to a slap in the face, 
to essentially being told, you have done great work, thanks for what 
you did in Iraq; oh, by the way, we are closing your base. Now, what 
kind of a message is that? That was my point earlier on in my opening 
statement. We owe it to the people.
  I ask Members to consider this: To the people who are doing the hard 
work in Iraq, the people that did the hard work in Afghanistan, this is 
not the way to say to them, job well done. It is not the way to say to 
them, you did a great job in standing up for democracy in Afghanistan 
and doing the hard work in Iraq. And, oh, by the way, there is no base 
to come back to, because your unit is being eliminated. Is that the 
message we want to send to the people who do the hard work, to the 
130,000, 140,000 people now serving in Iraq, the citizen soldiers that 
have left their jobs and their families and left their communities? I 
do not think so.
  The point that Mr. Taylor made, why not give Congress the 
responsibility, the Armed Services Committee the responsibility; why 
lay it off on somebody else? We should not be doing that. This is our 
responsibility. That is why we are elected, to make these decisions.
  The report is flawed. You can say all you want about the great work 
that was done. I know people that serve on the base closing commission, 
and I know they spend a lot of time, but this work is flawed. This is a 
flawed report. This is our opportunity in the House to speak up and 
speak out. The Defense Department has had their say. The President had 
his say. The BRAC Commission had their say. Now it is the House's turn 
to say to the hard-working citizen soldiers, we appreciate your work, 
we are going to stand with you, we are going to allow these bases to 
remain open, we are going to vote for the resolution that says that 
this BRAC should not stand, that these recommendations should not 
stand. That is what the House should be saying today. I hope the 
majority of Members will do that.
  I mentioned earlier, there is a law on the books, passed by Congress, 
that says that you cannot close air and Guard bases unless you get the 
authority from the Governors. We even had a report from one of the 
people that was working for BRAC that this law has standing. The BRAC 
ignored this. The Defense Department has ignored us on this. We should 
not be doing this. This is the wrong message. This is the wrong idea to 
send to our country, to send to the people who are doing the work and 
continue to do the work.
  As I said earlier, I have supported the President and this 
administration and the Secretary of Defense, who is a friend of mine 
from Illinois, in everything they have wanted to do in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. I know a lot of Members have. The majority of the membership of 
this House has. Now we ought to say to them, we do not agree with your 
recommendations. We do not agree that we should be realigning bases, 
turning people away, turning out bases and shutting down bases where 
the good work has been done.
  So based on that argument, based on the flawed BRAC report, based on 
a law that is on the books, a Federal law that says you cannot close 
these air and Guard bases without the authority of the Governor, I ask 
Members to speak up today, to be a voice for the people, to be a voice 
for the military, to be a voice that says, this BRAC is not right, and 
I urge Members to vote for the resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Several Members have spoken eloquently about the fact that this is 
our job. Mr. Taylor did an excellent job of that. Mr. Abercrombie did 
an excellent job of that, that we ought to be making these decisions, 
that we should not turn it over to a commission. I would agree with 
that wholeheartedly, except this is a job that we simply cannot seem to 
do.
  We did not close a major base in this country from the 1970s until 
the BRAC process began. I did not like supporting the BRAC process when 
the BRAC process was first introduced, but I saw it as the only way 
that we could ever deal with the question of excess inventory.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the gentleman that we 
in Congress did pass the basic BRAC law which we are following today.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the 
gentleman that this Congress closed the naval station at Roosevelt 
Roads without a BRAC.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we did, following the 
introduction of the BRAC process, but we did close that. But we 
basically do not have the power to do that, because if I have the power 
to close Mr.

[[Page 23994]]

Skelton's base, he might vote to close my base, and we keep going 
around the room like that, and we are unable to do it.
  So the BRAC process has worked for better or for worse. I see both 
sides of it. I chaired a committee that oversees the BRAC process. I do 
not want any more BRAC processes like this. But I would remind my 
colleagues again that if we vote for this resolution, and this 
resolution passes today, and we turn down this BRAC process, we will be 
back here in this room a year from now or 2 years from now, probably 
more like a year from now, we will be back in this room dealing with 
another BRAC process, and we will have the same arguments as we are 
having here today.
  Now, it may be different people. Maybe some of the people that are 
dissatisfied today will be satisfied at the next round, but we would 
all have to go through this again next year or the next. And we would, 
all of our communities that have any base connected to them would have 
to go through this again. I am not sure we would get any better 
results, no matter what process we use, than we have today. Some would 
be happy, some would be unhappy, some would complain, some would want 
it to go just like it is. I think we would end up with the same kinds 
of results as we have today.
  So while I agree that this is not a perfect process, I do not think 
we want to go through it again next year.
  I would ask each of my colleagues to vote against this resolution, 
and let us proceed to make the best we possibly can out of this for the 
defense of this country.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I reluctantly support the BRAC recommendations today, and 
oppose this motion of disapproval pending before the House.
  I support these recommendations because I believe that the goals of 
BRAC are worthy--to maximize warfighting capability and efficiency for 
both traditional warfighting and counterterrorist efforts. An 
integrated military force able to communicate and coordinate 
effectively in response to conflict remains crucial to national 
security and the war on terrorism.
  I am concerned by technical errors and the overall process used by 
the Pentagon and the Base Realignment and Closure--BRAC--Commission to 
reach the recommendations before us this evening, and it is my hope 
that in the future, significant improvements will be made on the 
current model when realignment and closure decisions are made.
  However, within the current model, there are some successes to which 
we can point. For instance, the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission 
rightly highlighted the key role that Hanscom Air Force Base, located 
in my congressional district, plays in our national security efforts.
  The process reaffirmed Hanscom's role as the military's pre-eminent 
development center for communication and intelligence technologies. 
Hanscom will clearly play a central role as we transform our military 
in the coming decades.
  In its decisions on Hanscom, the BRAC process recognized that the 
success or failure of a base in fulfilling its mission relies on the 
availability of skilled and experienced personnel and the connections 
that develop in intellectual clusters.
  Unfortunately, the Commission wrongly decided to move an estimated 
200 jobs from Hanscom's Air Force Research Lab--AFRL--Space and Sensors 
Directorates. Those functions are best left at Hanscom to maintain 
existing synergies and human capital.
  When the BRAC Commission held their New England Regional Hearing in 
Boston on July 6, I submitted testimony to the commission arguing that 
the decision to realign the AFRL at Hanscom was inconsistent with other 
aspects of the Pentagon's analysis of Hanscom, and could disrupt key 
programs operating there. I am deeply disappointed by the commission's 
decision to move these Directorates from their home at Hanscom.
  I am concerned that the recommendation to realign the AFRL did not 
appropriately value the highly skilled workforce currently at these 
facilities, and that the expertise of many of these employees will be 
lost as the recommendations are implemented. The relocation of AFRL's 
Sensors and Space Vehicles Directorates will result in significant 
costs with few gains.
  While I strongly protest this decision, I am pleased that overall, 
the commission's recommendations on Hanscom reaffirmed the value of the 
regional human capital capabilities in science and technology--and I am 
encouraged by the commission's indication that the Air Force will look 
to expand the mission at Hanscom outside of the BRAC process. I look 
forward to working with the Air Force as this process takes shape.
  With respect to the overall BRAC process, I am concerned by flaws in 
the current model that led to a number of errors. For instance, 
questions remain unanswered about the Pentagon's failure to consult 
with State governors, State adjutants general, and the Department of 
Homeland Security on decisions related to the National Guard and key 
homeland security functions located outside the Pentagon's bureaucracy. 
These questions resulted in lawsuits against the Pentagon and the BRAC 
Commission by a number of States, including my home State of 
Massachusetts.
  Additionally, a lack of organization was evident during the 
commission's consideration of the possible expansion of Hanscom, as 
well as the commission's overall recommendations related to Otis Air 
Force Base at Cape Cod.
  While I support the 2005 BRAC recommendations, I am deeply concerned 
that these types of errors set a bad precedent for future BRAC rounds. 
The Pentagon must ensure that the Department of Homeland Security and 
other relevant stakeholders are appropriately included in their 
process, and that our Nation's homeland security needs are fully 
evaluated.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, today, the House will likely vote not to 
reject the recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission, moving the BRAC process one step closer to an end. This has 
been a very difficult BRAC round for the State of Maine. When the list 
came out 5 months ago, all of Maine's three facilities were in great 
jeopardy, and few believed that we had a chance of saving any of them. 
But the entire delegation, the governor, and the communities came 
together and presented the best possible arguments in all three cases, 
and as a result, Maine did better than anyone thought we could. We 
saved Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and in a victory that would have been 
unthinkable only a few months before, we actually grew DFAS Limestone, 
bringing jobs to an area that desperately needs them. These two actions 
represent tremendous victories for the people of Maine.
  I strongly disagree with the recommendation to close Naval Air 
Station Brunswick. It was the wrong decision and I have fought it every 
step of the way together with the whole Maine delegation.
  Today's vote is difficult. I deeply believe that Naval Air Station 
Brunswick should not be closed. Yet, when this process began, Maine 
stood to loose everything, and now we have saved and expanded two of 
the three endangered facilities. The likely alternatives for the State 
were far worse. Indeed, if this resolution were to pass today and the 
BRAC process were to be reopened from scratch, there would be no 
guarantee of saving Brunswick, but Portsmouth could be closed and 
Limestone with its planned increase in jobs could be lost. That is why 
I am going to vote against the resolution to disapprove the BRAC list.
  As we approach the end of this very difficult BRAC round, it is 
important that we remain focused on promoting the best interests of the 
entire State and that we continue to work as one Maine. I will do 
whatever I can to make sure that we build upon the successes of saving 
Portsmouth and growing DFAS Limestone, and that we make the best of a 
difficult situation by enabling the Brunswick community to build a 
bright future.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the base realignment 
process is designed to provide a more efficient and effective military 
structure. But, BRAC 2005 failed to meet these goals and that is why I 
will vote against implementing the recommendations of the Department of 
Defense and the Base Realignment Commission.
  The base realignment recommendations fall short because they 
eliminate military resources and installations without producing 
meaningful cost-savings. And, the base realignment recommendations fall 
short because they call for the closure of Naval Air Station Joint 
Reserve Base Willow Grove, a military installation that plays a vital 
role in our Nation's security.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are fighting a global war on terror 
and facing new and very real threats, the Nation must be fully 
prepared. This BRAC round does not live up to the original goals of the 
process and, therefore, it should be rejected.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of House Joint Resolution 
65, disapproving the recommendations of the Base Realignment and 
Closure Commission.
  This will be my first vote against a BRAC list, and it is not a vote 
I take lightly. I support

[[Page 23995]]

the BRAC process as a whole as a reasonable and apolitical method for 
evaluating our Nation's defense infrastructure needs, and recognize the 
necessity of this first BRAC round in a decade. But while I salute the 
hard work of the BRAC Commission members in their deliberations and 
recognize the difficulty of their task, this BRAC round took place in 
the context of flawed methodology as regarded Air National Guard bases.
  It was my expectation that the Department of Defense would solicit 
input from all relevant sources in evaluating our Air National Guard 
requirements--most importantly, the adjutant general of each State. But 
at no time in the Pentagon's development of its Air Force BRAC 
recommendations did it ask the Adjutant General of Ohio or any of the 
other 53 adjutants general for input. I find this shocking, considering 
that the Army consulted the adjutants general when crafting its 
recommendations--and considering that 37 of the 42 Air Force BRAC 
proposals involved Air National Guard units.
  For the past 24 years, I have had the privilege of representing the 
guardsmen of one of those units: the 179th Airlift Wing of the Ohio Air 
National Guard, located at Mansfield Lahm Airport. The 179th has been a 
vital part of Mansfield and Richland County since 1948, with an annual 
economic impact of roughly $70 million. Members of the airlift wing 
have served more than 195,000 days just since 9/11 in support of 
homeland defense and the global war on terror.
  More recently, the guardsmen of the 179th have flown sorties to the 
gulf coast region, delivering much-needed supplies and transporting 
hundreds of troops to assist those affected by Hurricane Katrina. 
Relief missions such as this are nothing new for the men and women of 
the 179th, who have answered the call during past hurricane relief 
missions in Florida and other States, and have assisted with vital 
defense operations in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and 
elsewhere.
  I was disappointed, therefore, at the inclusion of the 179th on the 
Pentagon's proposed closure list in May. As I said in a letter to 
President Bush last month in support of the 179th, the unit has always 
stood ready to accept any flying assignment, and represents a wealth of 
expertise and professionalism that Ohio and the Nation can ill afford 
to lose.
  Contrary to national trends, the 179th has consistently excelled in 
recruiting and retention, currently standing at 105 percent of assigned 
strength. Mansfield draws from a rich recruiting base, boasting the 
best personnel strength figures of any Air National Guard C-130 unit. 
The men and women of the 179th are highly experienced, with an average 
of more than 12 years of service; Mansfield's aircrews have an average 
of 16 years of military aviation experience. In just the last few 
years, all Mansfield aircrew members have flown combat sorties in the 
Middle East and Asia, and have received 116 air medals for their 
bravery, courage, and skill.
  In its final deliberations, the BRAC Commission found that closing 
Mansfield was ``not supportable'' and recommended instead that a 
``contiguous enclave'' be established at Mansfield Lahm. The commission 
further acknowledged that the Air Force did not adequately consult with 
governors and State adjutants general with respect to its Air Guard 
recommendations. Had there been consultation, better decisions could 
have been made about Air Guard infrastructure in view of our national 
defense and homeland security needs.
  In short, the Air Force would have done well to follow the Army's 
BRAC model, which stood as an example of good consultation among 
parties. When the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center--located in Lima 
in my congressional district--was placed on the BRAC list with a 
recommendation to reduce manufacturing space by 27 percent, top Army 
officials working on the BRAC staff made themselves available to meet 
with representatives of JSMC and the community. The JSMC delegation 
explained that such a reduction would impede operations at the plant, 
resulting in a higher cost to the government for the weapons systems 
the plant produces. As a result of these discussions, the BRAC staff 
recommended that the commission remove the JSMC proposal from its final 
list, which it did. The Army's deliberations on JSMC were an ideal 
example of how the BRAC process works well: when information is shared 
and all relevant parties are consulted.
  Even with the commission's decision to reverse the JSMC proposal--and 
even with the partial reversal of the Mansfield decision and the 
encouraging possibilities for obtaining a new mission for the more than 
1,000 guardsmen of the 179th--I will vote for this resolution of 
disapproval. By statute, the purpose of BRAC is to reduce excess 
infrastructure. The current BRAC round, though, is being used to 
implement operational policies and transfer Mansfield's C-130s from the 
Guard to the Active and Reserve Forces. Such complex issues should not 
be handled within the BRAC procedure.
  Although I strongly oppose the transfer of Mansfield's planes, I 
welcome the opportunity to work with the Department of Defense and 
State officials to obtain a new mission for Mansfield, should the BRAC 
recommendations be upheld. In just the last 8 years, more than $20 
million has been invested in the 179th's facilities at Mansfield Lahm. 
Thanks to the efforts of Mansfield Mayor Lydia Reid and other local 
officials, the city has made 163 acres adjacent to the airport 
available for Guard expansion or joint service activities. This 
significant investment and possibility for expansion should make 
Mansfield an even more attractive site for locating a new air-based 
mission.
  Nonetheless, given Mansfield's solid track record as a C-130 unit and 
its many contributions to our Nation and world, I oppose the transfer 
of its planes. At a time when our troops are already stressed by 
operational tempos, and when our national recruiting and retention 
rates are reaching record lows, I fear any disruption to our well-
equipped and well-manned Guard units. Our planes are only as good as 
the people who maintain and fly them, and our country cannot afford to 
lose their skills.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 
65, a resolution disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission.
  It is clear that we have too much military infrastructure in this 
country, whose operations and maintenance compete for scarce resources 
needed by our warfighter and modernization efforts. This BRAC process 
has become the most effective way to rid the military of installations 
that provide minimal military value.
  I am pleased that the commission recognized the importance of keeping 
the Operations and Sustainment Systems Group--OSSG--at Maxwell-Gunter 
AFB in Montgomery, Alabama. After an extensive review, the BRAC 
commissioners did not adopt the Department of Defense's recommendation 
to realign the OSSG and its 1,251 civilian and military jobs from 
Maxwell-Gunter AFB to Hanscom AFB.
  The BRAC decision was due in large part to the world-class combat 
operational support provided by the OSSG to Air Force bases and DOD 
agencies around the world from Montgomery for more than 30 years. It 
did not need to be moved in order to continue to perform this critical 
national security mission. The OSSG is the only organization with 
experience fielding systems across the entire Air Force and DOD. 
Moreover, Gunter is home to one of four major Defense Information 
Systems Agency--DISA--nodes, which provide the backbone on which Air 
Force Systems run. The DISA presence, along with the OSSG, enables 
testing of enterprise-wide combat support software applications in an 
operational environment. With its extensive background, experience, and 
expertise, this organization is truly a one of a kind national resource 
and belongs in Montgomery.
  While I intend to vote for the implementation of the commission's 
recommendations, I remain very troubled by some of the things the 
commission did not do. Specifically, I have trouble seeing the logic in 
overturning DOD's recommendation to move the Aviation Logistics School 
to Fort Rucker. I am disappointed that the commission failed to see the 
significance of co-locating the Aviation Logistics School with the 
aviation pilot training under one roof at Fort Rucker. This move would 
have consolidated Army Aviation training and doctrine development at 
Fort Rucker. I still hold the belief that consolidating aviation 
logistics training with the Aviation Center and School will foster 
consistency, standardization, and training proficiency. As the premier 
rotary wing aviation training center in the United States, this move 
would have completed the formation of the Army's decision to create an 
aviation branch in 1983. The benefit of being able to train the entire 
flight crew, from the maintainers to the pilots, is quite significant. 
A flight crew who must go to war as a team, should train as a team.
  A second notable absence from the BRAC recommendations is 
consolidation of rotary wing pilot training at Fort Rucker. Although 
DOD did not make this recommendation, I believe a thorough review of 
the facts would have led the commission to include this in its final 
list. Currently, both the Army and Air Force conduct their rotary wing 
pilot training at Fort Rucker, which has sufficient capability to 
support Navy initial rotary wing pilot training as well.
  Numerous reviews conducted by DOD and the GAD dating back to 1974 
have been made regarding the relocation of this Navy mission.

[[Page 23996]]

In addition, when Colin Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, he testified before the House Armed Services Committee that he 
supported this consolidation at Fort Rucker. Similarly, the 
overwhelming majority of the reviews have called for the Navy to move 
their operation to Fort Rucker for a number of reasons. Past studies 
have indicated that tens of millions of dollars per year could be saved 
by going through with this consolidation. Unit costs would be reduced 
for both aircraft maintenance and logistics. Additionally, both the 
Army and the Navy use the same training helicopter which would allow 
for further savings by using the Army's existing instructor pilots. 
This consolidation will also advance a key component of DoD's way 
ahead, jointness.
  Finally, I was troubled to see that the commission supported the DOD 
recommendation to move the Aviation Technical Test Center--ATTC--to 
Redstone Arsenal. This issue is very close to me personally as I have 
been intimately involved with it for over 10 years. In the mid-90s, 
there was an effort made within the Pentagon to move the ATTC out of 
Fort Rucker. As is the case now, I was very disturbed by this, and 
began to investigate in an effort to determine if this would be best 
for the Army, highlighted by a personal meeting with the then-Secretary 
of the Army, Togo West. This culminated when my amendment was included 
in the House version of Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization 
Act--H.R. 1530--which blocked the Army's proposal to relocate the ATTC 
until an outside independent study of the proposal could be completed. 
After the Army reviewed this further, not only did the ATTC stay at 
Fort Rucker, but the Airworthiness Qualification Test Directorate was 
moved from Edwards AFB to Fort Rucker as well. I believe the arguments 
presented then still have substantial merit today.
  At Fort Rucker, the ATTC is able to have their fleet of approximately 
40 test aircraft maintained by the large maintenance and logistics 
operation that supports the training mission on post. A move to 
Redstone disregards these significant costs of keeping the test fleet 
flying. The vast pool of pilots and aircraft from the Aviation Center 
also facilitates the ATTC's ability to realize a greater return on the 
testing dollar invested.
  Another problem with this recommendation revolves around airspace. As 
the home of Army Aviation, Fort Rucker is blessed with over 32,000 
square miles of airspace to conduct its mission. This irreplaceable 
natural asset cannot be duplicated in Huntsville. A potential move also 
undermines the synergies that currently exist between the schoolhouse 
and the experimental pilots. Finally, with Fort Rucker being the Army 
proponent for unmanned aerial vehicles--UAVs, it is crucial that the 
ATTC be able to leverage the expertise associated with this proponency 
to conduct its tests on UAVs.
  While I do not agree with all of the recommendations included in the 
commission's report, I do recognize that the BRAC process must go 
forward. At present, DOD has excess infrastructure which needs to be 
realigned or closed in order to achieve the billions of savings which 
will result from the implementation of these recommendations. As costs 
of weapons systems crucial to winning the war on terror continue to 
rise, it is important that we explore all avenues in order to find the 
money necessary to give the warfighter everything he or she needs to 
complete their mission. In conclusion, I would like to thank all of the 
commissioners and their staffs for their tireless efforts on one of the 
most thankless jobs in government. I urge a no vote on the resolution 
and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 65, to 
disapprove the recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission--BRAC.
  Closing surplus military infrastructure makes sense, but only if it 
is done in a proper strategic context and through a rational, 
deliberative, and fair process. The 2005 base closure round does not 
meet these tests.
  Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld proposed this BRAC in 2001, before 
September 11 and our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The world 
changed, but the Defense Department's BRAC process did not.
  I voted against this BRAC in 2001, on the grounds that it 
presumptively put infrastructure decisions before force structure 
decisions. At the time, I said that with ``uncertainty about our future 
military needs in the new security environment, I believe that this is 
not the right time to add a new layer of uncertainty to our military 
communities in Maine by approving a new base closure round.''
  My view has been validated by the statements of the Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission itself. In its final report, the commission 
faulted the Department of Defense--DOD--for making infrastructure 
decisions prior to conducting a ``comprehensive review of the 
underlying strategic issues that is to be set forth in the [2006] 
Quadrennial Defense Review [which] may have better informed and 
assisted the Commission in making its final recommendations.''
  The commission also criticized DOD for failing to provide necessary 
source data on its proposals for as long as a month after the DOD list 
was submitted. This delay hampered the ability of the commission to do 
proper analysis and hamstrung communities trying to defend their bases.
  My view has been validated by the Overseas Basing Commission, which 
found that the ``massive realignment of forces requires that the pace 
of events be slowed and reordered.'' It faulted the administration's 
plans to bring 70,000 troops home from overseas without a full analysis 
of the infrastructure to accommodate them.
  My view has been validated by a recent revelation by BRAC 
Commissioner Phillip Coyle that information gathered to support some of 
DOD's BRAC recommendations were based largely on Google searches. The 
commission observed that several DOD plans to consolidate multiple 
military facilities were based not on in-depth analytic work but on 
Internet search engine queries used only to match facility names and 
functions.
  Lastly, my view has been validated by the questions my constituents 
repeatedly asked me:
  Why are we closing military installations when we are at war?
  Why are we building new bases in Iraq while closing them in America?
  Will our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have the right facilities to 
come home to?
  I don't have good answers to those questions, but neither does the 
Pentagon.
  By pushing BRAC at the wrong time, our Nation risks losing key assets 
that can never be reconstituted. We jeopardize our security if we close 
infrastructure before we first come to consensus on an overall defense 
and homeland security strategy.
  The BRAC Commission's decision to remove several major bases from 
DOD's list demonstrates that the Pentagon put the cart before the 
horse. For example, the commission voted to keep open the submarine 
base at New London, CT, and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, in my 
district. The commission expressed serious doubts about DOD's force 
structure plan and the submarine force's ability to confront uncertain 
future threats.
  In addition, I object to this BRAC list due to the inexplicable and 
unwise closure of the Brunswick Naval Air Station--NASB. This facility 
is the last remaining fully operational military airfield in the 
northeast. Its loss will hamper our capability to perform homeland 
defense and maritime patrol missions in the region, leaving a 
vulnerable flank for the entire Nation.
  NASB was the only major base closed by the commission that was not 
recommended for closure by DOD. I believe the commission failed to 
adequately justify its decision that the base was ``not needed.'' The 
commission completely ignored the combined military value judgment of 
combatant commanders that Brunswick is a vital strategic asset. It 
failed to explain how, or at what monetary or mission cost, the 
military could perform essential maritime patrol missions in the 
northeast without Brunswick.
  In closing NASB, the commission appeared to deviate from its own 
charter. It justified closing the base merely in order to ``reduce 
excess capacity and result in significant savings,'' despite its own 
directive to seek a balance between the goals of realizing savings and 
rationalizing our military infrastructure to meet the needs of future 
missions.
  I was pleased that the commission listened to the arguments put forth 
to them and voted to reject the closure of two facilities in Maine: the 
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service in Limestone, where the commission also agreed to double the 
number of jobs. Despite these positive outcomes, however, the 
unjustified closure of Brunswick affirms my opposition to this BRAC 
list, as well as the underlying fact that this was the wrong time in 
our Nation's history for this BRAC.
  The fundamental purpose of BRAC is to save money. Let's put its 
``savings'' in perspective. The 20-year savings (approximately $800 
million) from the closure of Brunswick Naval Air Station is the 
equivalent to half a week of operations in Iraq. The entire projected 
20-year savings from the BRAC list--$36 billion--are exhausted by just 
6 months in Iraq. The entire savings is also merely half that of the 
President's proposed tax cuts this year--$70 billion, and minuscule 
compared to the $4 trillion in Federal revenue losses from upper-income 
tax breaks passed since 2001.

[[Page 23997]]

  The BRAC process is also a huge unfunded mandate on communities. I 
commend my congressional colleagues from Maine and New Hampshire, 
Governors John Baldacci and John Lynch, the employees, unions, 
management, local government officials, task force members and 
volunteers for the long hours devoted to defending Maine's defense 
facilities. While it was a worthy cause, I regret that we were forced 
to spend so much time on BRAC, rather than on new initiatives to 
improve our communities. The lost human productivity caused by BRAC, 
not only for communities but on DOD personnel as well, is something we 
must calculate if we ever debate a future BRAC round.
  Again, I urge passage of H.J. Res. 65 to reject this BRAC list. In a 
time of uncertainty, we risk losing national assets we can never 
recover.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition today to H.J. Res. 
65, a resolution to disapprove the recommendations of the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission. I oppose this resolution not 
because I support this BRAC round and the closure and realignment of 
these bases, but because the Department of Defense should not be 
authorized to execute another one anytime soon. A no vote on this 
resolution will spare the Armed Forces, our defense budget and our base 
communities the unnecessary stress of another BRAC round if the current 
recommendations are approved.
  I opposed this BRAC round from the start for several reasons.
  First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, we are--and remain--a nation at 
war. We have troops abroad fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and globally 
as part of a broader war on terrorism. I argued that we need to focus 
all of our energy on supporting those troops in the field. We should 
not be distracted with the complicated burden of realigning our whole 
military base structure.
  In October of 2003, I went to Iraq and learned that the troops 
desperately needed armor on their vehicles. In November of 2003 the 
Secretary of the Army said that getting armor into the field was a 
``top priority''. And yet today there are still tens of thousands of 
vehicles that are still not armored.
  Just last week the Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the 
issue. Chairman Hunter discovered that the Army was sitting on hundreds 
of armored humvees in Texas and Kuwait. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if 
Congress would have unearthed this hidden problem earlier had it not 
been faced with the time-consuming BRAC process.
  I opposed BRAC because we need to recapitalize our aging defense 
platforms and our shrinking fleets. Our Armed Forces have been on a 
strict diet because of a procurement holiday that has been in effect 
since the end of the Cold war.
  Mr. Chairman, the average age of an Air Force bombers is over 30 
years old. The average pilot is younger than his aircraft. Yet there 
are planned procurement cuts to the F-22 program. We have been living 
on the Reagan buildup of the 1980s, but those systems are all nearing 
retirement. What's left from the 80s is old and undependable. This 
threatens our military readiness and the safety of our service members.
  Mr. Chairman, this year the Navy planned on building only four 
ships--the same as Canada and less than most of our European allies. If 
we stay on this track, our fleet will shrink from a little under 300 to 
just 120. China is on no such diet. Its shipbuilding rates are so high 
that its fleet win overtake ours by about 2015. By that time, China 
will have twice as many submarines as the U.S.
  I also opposed BRAC because our strategic environment remains in 
flux. The threats from North Korea, China and Iran are rising while we 
are still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. We benefited from neither 
the Quadrennial Defense Review nor the report of the Overseas Basing 
Commission because they were not yet delivered. How could we know, what 
our Nation's future basing requirements will be? We couldn't!
  I opposed BRAC because DOD still maintained dozens of bases that were 
slated for closure that remain open. How could we target another 100 
bases when we had a hundred waiting on death row? Closing bases costs 
billions of dollars in environmental clean up costs. The Department of 
Defense cannot dispose of this property until it is clean. But the 
investment of these ``clean-up'' dollars takes dollars away from our 
troops in the field during war.
  I opposed this BRAC round because we have hundreds of thousands of 
troops in the Middle East, Europe and Korea that will hopefully return 
home soon.
  Congress authorized the BRAC round anyway. The Department of Defense 
relatively little time to develop a set of recommendations for the 
President. Not surprisingly, some mistakes were made. The biggest 
mistake was the recommendation to close Naval Submarine Base New 
London, the world's greatest center of excellence for undersea warfare. 
My good friend, the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, Ike 
Skelton, noted that the BRAC round so suffered from secondary agendas 
designed to achieve policy outcomes under cover of base closure and 
realignment. I agree with him.
  The BRAC Commission had even less time than the Pentagon, but was 
ultimately able to fix the largest mistakes. Chairman Anthony 
Principi's commission took New London and other bases off of the list 
after looking at the big picture. They looked at the overall effects on 
the Nation and the individual services. They listened to the arguments 
of outside experts. They considered the advice of key defense industry 
partners, senior retired officers, Members of Congress, and even a 
former U.S. president. In the end the BRAC Commission gave the 
President and Congress a good product given the circumstances.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I will vote no on the resolution because the BRAC 
solution before us is the best of a bad situation. It would have been 
better never to have attempted this round of base closures. Our 
military is no better for it, and our Nation is no safer. Nevertheless, 
a vote for yes is a vote for another, painful and counterproductive 
BRAC round that will drain resources and time from the critical tasks 
at hand.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation faces great national security challenges 
right now. For this reason, I will vote to put BRAC behind us today and 
for the foreseeable future.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the 
resolution to reject the recommendations of the Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission.
  I support the BRAC process and believe that over the years it has led 
to the orderly reorganization of our Nation's defense infrastructure.
  I believe the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission made a good-faith 
effort to carefully examine every base.
  Nonetheless, I continue to believe the Commission made a terribly 
shortsighted decision when it voted to uphold some of the Pentagon's 
recommendations for Naval Base Ventura County.
  I am particularly disappointed the Commission voted to move some of 
the RDT&E missions away from the base.
  In my view, the Commission ignored a number of important factors.
  First, the Commission's vote went against the recommendation of its 
professional staff.
  The staff correctly recognized that Naval Base Ventura County has 
significant military value, and its missions contribute to the 
readiness of our war fighter.
  Second, relocating the vital functions performed by the personnel at 
the base will have lasting consequences for our national security.
  The activities conducted at this site for the Navy, Air Force, 
Missile Defense Agency, and others cannot be replicated anywhere else 
in the Nation.
  Moreover, the base's sea range is linked with other inland ranges in 
California--providing an unmatched capability to the Defense 
Department.
  The realignment will diminish these existing operational capabilities 
and efficiencies and negatively impact the ability of our fighting men 
and women to get their jobs done.
  The effect of this would be immediately felt in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Finally, realigning the base's missions will waste, not save, 
taxpayer dollars.
  We cannot afford to spend a lot of money to move missions and 
personnel when there's no long-term savings involved.
  Especially now that we're looking at spending more than $200 billion 
to help rebuild the Gulf Coast areas devastated by Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita.
  Mr. Chairman, the BRAC process must be logical and fair. I do not 
believe this round of closures met those criteria.
  I continue to strongly believe the missions at Naval Base Ventura 
County are a critical element of our national security system and an 
important asset to our local community.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the resolution of 
disapproval.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before us to 
reject the BRAC recommendations; and I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for his work on this bill.
  While this process has proceeded during a global war, many of us in 
Congress--including me--have taken issue with the timing. Doing this 
during a war and before we establish our global military footprint 
through the Quadrennial Defense Review sends the wrong signal to our 
allies and to the soldiers and families who may depend on services at 
the bases we are closing.

[[Page 23998]]

  I have fought this from the get-go. The BRAC list hit my South Texas 
district hard with the closure of Naval Station Ingleside in San 
Patricio County. It was a base into which the taxpayers of Nueces 
County and the State of Texas plowed $50 million to assist the Navy in 
bringing the base there.
  The main thing that worries those of us in South Texas--and elsewhere 
along the Gulf Coast--is that after BRAC the Gulf of Mexico will be a 
less safe place for all of us. We have been concerned over the past 
couple of years about the illegal immigrants known as OTMs--other than 
Mexicans--that are routinely released by law enforcement into the U.S. 
population. Many law enforcement officers believe we have--or could 
be--releasing potential terrorists who will do us great harm.
  Our nation's refining capability and trading lanes run through the 
Gulf of Mexico. For these reasons--and many more--we must have a Navy 
presence in the Gulf. After BRAC, there will not be a single surface 
Navy base in the entire Gulf. The Gulf holds the nation's bread basket 
and is the primary provider of petrochemicals and refined products to 
power the nation's cars, heaters, and other machines we depend upon 
hourly in our daily lives.
  Those are my primary concerns. Now, the other concerns I have deal 
primarily with how the South Texas community I represent will recover 
from the economic devastation that is part of a base closure in local 
communities. As BRAC Chairman Principi said in an early statement, this 
will be a tsunami in South Texas.
  So if the House chooses to support the BRAC list today, we will bear 
no ill will . . . and we will work very hard to make the transition as 
painless as possible.
  While our community is less concerned about the disposition of the 
property itself--it should revert to the local port--we believe the 
local community should not have to pay a $200 million cost to retain 
the base. We are increasingly concerned about the enormous task before 
us in the coming years: how to deal with depressed property values 
after the base is to close . . . how to retrain the area workforce . . 
. and how our schools and housing market can recoup the losses we will 
most certainly feel in the coming years.
  That will be the challenge before us in South Texas for probably the 
coming decade if the House today fails to adopt my colleague's bill to 
disapprove the BRAC recommendations.
  Mr. FRELINGHUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 65--a resolution disapproving the recommendations of 
the Base Realignment and Closure Commission as approved by the 
President of the United States.
  In total, the BRAC Commission recommended, and the President 
endorsed, the closure of 22 major military bases and the realignment of 
33 others.
  While I am deeply concerned about the recommendation to close the 
Army's Fort Monmouth, I note with pride the strong vote of confidence 
in the past, present, and future contributions to our warfighters of 
Picatinny Arsenal in Morris County, New Jersey.
  With the support of the President, the Department of Defense and the 
BRAC Commission, Picatinny Arsenal will be the 'joint center of 
excellence' for guns and ammunition and the military's unparalleled 
leader for producing the latest and most advanced weaponry for our 
warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I strongly support this recommendation. It is well-founded on the 
facts and advances the DoD's ``transformation.''
  Picatinny Arsenal is already home to: the ``Single Manager for 
Conventional Ammunition for DoD''--PEO Ampmo; an armament engineering 
organization which provides fully integrated life cycle systems 
engineering for weapons and munitions; and 70 unique mission facilities 
with 16 state-of-the-art laboratories staffed by an adaptable, highly 
specialized workforce;
   The DoD BRAC analysis found Picatinny to be the ``center-of-mass'' 
for DoD's guns and ammunition (research, development and acquisition.) 
It has a workload in this area more than an order of magnitude greater 
than any other DoD facility. It has the greatest concentration of 
military value in guns and ammunition (research, development and 
acquisition.)
  Mr. Chairman, this BRAC Commission recommendation is 
transformational. It builds on the joint single manager for 
conventional ammo to create a robust guns and ammunition ``joint 
center.'' It will provide for greater synergy and more efficient 
operations, all to benefit the warfighter--the young men and women who 
are protecting us at home and overseas. .
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record 
important correspondence between the Chairman of the Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission, the Honorable Anthony Principi, and the 
Honorable Michael W. Wynne, Chairman of the Infrastructure Steering 
Committee of the U.S. Department of Defense.
  I urge defeat of the resolution.

                                              Defense Base Closure


                                   and Realignment Commission,

                                 Arlington, VA, September 8, 2005.
     Hon. Michael W. Wynne,
     Chairman, Infrastructure Steering Group, Defense Pentagon, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Wynne: I am sending this letter for 
     clarification of language contained in BRAC amendments 186-4a 
     and 186-4d concerning DoD Tech-19, Create an Integrated 
     Weapons & Armaments Specialty Site for Guns and Ammunition.
       The purpose of amendments 186-4a and 186-4d was to leave 
     existing energetics activities in place at Picatinny Arsenal, 
     Naval Surface Weapons Center Indian Head and Naval Air 
     Weapons Station China Lake. The language included in the 
     Commission's recommendation for Tech-19 does not intend to 
     consolidate these activities in anyone location, nor is it 
     the Commission's intent to create a separate ``Center of 
     Excellence'' for energetics.
       Picatinny Arsenal will become the DoD Gun and Ammunition 
     ``Center of Excellence'' as described in the Dodd Tech-19 
     recommendation and as modified by our recommendations.
           Sincerely,
                                              Anthony J. Principi,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.J. Res. 65, a resolution of disapproval of the 2005 base closure and 
realignment recommendations.
  I am proud that my state delegation--commonly referred to back home 
as ``Team Connecticut''--was successful in saving Sub Base New London 
from closure. Together our congressional delegation, Governor Rell, 
members of the New London community and military experts put together 
an airtight case for the survival of the base. As a result, the 
commission realized what Connecticut knew all along: That Sub Base New 
London is not only a critical asset to our State, but a vital part of 
our current and future national security.
  The members of the 2005 BRAC Commission were given an extraordinary 
responsibility and performed their duties in a thoughtful and 
responsible manner. However, they were given the job of examining a 
flawed proposal based more on achieving the bottom line then ensuring 
the security of our Nation. If passed, H.J. Res. 65 would put an end to 
the current BRAC process--one that I have long believed to be the wrong 
process at the wrong time for our Nation.
  Since 2002, I have voted in the Armed Services Committee and on the 
floor to either repeal or delay BRAC 2005 because I have felt all along 
that the process had serious flaws. With 150,000 of our men and women 
in uniform serving overseas in the Middle East, continued operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and failures to meet recruiting goals, now is not 
the time to close or realign major portions of our military 
infrastructure. We should not be closing and consolidating bases and 
infrastructure here in the States now, when in another two years we may 
be bringing a significant amount of troops and equipment back from 
Europe and other forward deployed locations and we would have to spend 
more money again to reopen or recreate space for them. We should not be 
closing or realigning before the completion of the Quadrennial Defense 
Review (QDR), which projects the threats our nation will face and 
guides our force structure for the next two decades. The Commission 
simply and rightly called conducting BRAC before the completion of the 
QDR ``inverse'' and ``illogical.'' This is simply the wrong time for 
BRAC.
  The final report before us for consideration includes a wide-ranging 
realignment of the Air National Guard that was completed without the 
input or consultation of our State Governors and Adjutants General. 
Rather than conducting an inclusive process--as in the case of the Army 
National Guard recommendations--the Pentagon chose to craft their Air 
Force proposal by shutting out the very people that both the law and 
common sense dictate need to be included in changes to State Guard 
units.
  As a result the final Air Force recommendations disproportionately 
impact the Air National Guard, with 37 of the final 42 Air Force 
recommendations making changes to Air Guard units in States across the 
Nation. Governors and Adjutants General widely opposed this plan, 
citing the impact on recruiting and retention of Guard members, lack of 
consultation, and reduced availability of personnel for vital State 
emergency response and homeland security functions. Although the 
Commission ultimately approved a scaled down version of the Pentagon's 
Air National Guard plan crafted in the final days of their work, the 
final BRAC report states that the lack of coordination between the 
Pentagon, Governors and Adjutants

[[Page 23999]]

General ``unnecessarily cost the Commission additional time and 
resources and damaged the previously exemplary relationship between the 
Air National Guard and the Air Force.''
  This misguided recommendation hits home in my district and State, 
where the 103rd Fighter Wing at Bradley Air National Guard base is 
slated to lose their A-10 Warthogs--leaving Connecticut as the only 
State in the Nation without an air national guard flying mission. In 
presenting our case to the Commission, our message was simple: The 
Pentagon not only used flawed data that did not take into account many 
of the unique capabilities of Bradley, but failed to consult our 
Governor in major changes to our State's militia. While Adjutant 
General Thaddeus Martin, the staff of the 103rd and the State 
delegation made a strong case for Bradley, the base was unfortunately 
included in the final realignment plan. The men and women of the 
``Flying Yankees,'' and indeed all the members of the Air National 
Guard, deserve better than an ad-hoc transformation plan that has the 
potential to seriously impact the future of these citizen soldiers and 
their mission.
  In late August 2005, I joined Connecticut Governor Rell, Attorney 
General Blumenthal and Senators Dodd and Lieberman in filing suit to 
prevent the realignment of the Bradley Air National Guard base. We were 
forced to take this action because the law is simple and clear: the 
Bradley A-10s cannot be removed without the consent of our Governor. 
Regardless of the result of today's vote, Connecticut has the law on 
its side and I am confident that we will secure the future of the 
``Flying Yankees.''
  One of our most important duties is to provide for the defense of our 
Nation. We should not be closing and realigning our bases at a time 
when our nation is engaged in the Middle East and faces unprecedented 
threats from abroad. Rejecting BRAC 2005 is simply the right thing to 
do for our men and women in uniform, the security of our nation, and 
for the future of our Air National Guard. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.J. Res. 65.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 
discuss this important' legislation as I make a final push to keep 
Forts Gillem and McPherson open by voting in support of a joint House 
resolution to reject the president's approval of the 2005 round of base 
realignments and closures. I cosponsored the measure, H.J. Res. 65, 
which disapproves the recommendations of the Defense Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission (BRAC) as submitted by the president to Congress 
on September 15, 2005. I am disappointed that H.J. Res. 65 failed to 
pass the House today by a vote of 85-324. Congress had until October 
30, 2005 to pass a joint resolution of disapproval of the list.
  Unfortunately, this round of base closings and realignments has 
failed to accomplish the military goals of shedding excess operations 
and facilities without seriously weakening our national security and 
homeland defense. I strongly oppose the president's recommendations to 
close Ft. Gillem and Fort McPherson, and I have tried to make a strong 
case in their defense at every opportunity available to me, including 
directly addressing members of the BRAC Commission and urging President 
Bush to consider their unmatched military value and unique strategic 
readiness for homeland defense.
  My efforts to remove Forts Gillem and McPherson from the BRAC list of 
closings proved partly successful since I secured the extension of six 
Federal functions at an enclave at Ft. Gillem, blocking a complete 
closing of the military base. These functions include the U.S. Army 
Criminal Investigation Laboratory, Georgia Army National Guard, 3rd 
MEDCOM, SE Army Reserve Intelligence Center, FEMA, and Red Cross.
  I am very disappointed by the outcome of today's vote and that Ft. 
Gillem and Ft. McPherson remained on the BRAC list for closure despite 
the vital role they continue to play in coordinating the deployment of 
troops abroad and Federal response to national disasters like this 
year's string of devastating hurricanes. Following today's vote, the 
Defense Department is now charged with carrying out the recommended 
closures and realignments. Therefore, I will work with defense 
officials and the Local Redevelopment Authority during the upcoming 
transition period for Forts Gillem and McPherson.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, the 
implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission 
recommendations will provide badly needed cost savings to our Nation. 
With the current state of our Federal budget, the enormous estimated 
spending reductions of over $35 billion achieved through this new BRAC 
round are necessary to help put our fiscal house in order. These 
recommendations will also better enable our military services to 
confront the new threats our Nation faces today--increasing efficiency 
and effectiveness, and improving our national security.
  That said, I still firmly disagree with some of the specific BRAC 
recommendations, such as the closure of the 440th Airlift Wing at 
General Mitchell Field in Milwaukee. The closure of the 440th is the 
wrong decision,. and I have done everything in my power to try and 
convince the BRAC Commission that keeping the 440th up and running is 
an important priority. The 1,100 brave men and women of this unit have 
proven themselves often in recent missions to Honduras, Haiti, Somalia, 
Rwanda, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and several trips to Iraq. I 
believe their continued operations would have enhanced the security of 
our country.
  Today, however, we were faced with an up-or-down vote on the BRAC 
Commission recommendations as a whole. On balance, I found the 
recommendations to be worthy of approval, and voted--with some 
reservations--against the motion to disapprove the final BRAC report.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 65, 
``Disapproving of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission.''
  The BRAC Commission was tasked in the current round of base closures 
to target and eradicate inefficiency. Unfortunately, there was a host 
of friendly fire and significant collateral damage.
  I strongly support our military's attempts to streamline its 
infrastructure and reduce its operating budget, especially considering 
the deficits this Administration is running up. However, base closures 
can not impede the ability of the United States of America to protect 
its people.
  The Department of Defense, DOD, knows this, and rightly placed 
paramount emphasis on military value in its recommendations. The 
Secretary of Defense proposed to consolidate the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service, DFAS, from an unnecessarily redundant twenty-six 
locations to three central sites. The DFAS center at Buckley Annex, 
housed in my district in Colorado, was chosen as one of these three 
sites in part due to its superlative performance on the military value 
test. In fact, when the BRAC Commission considered the DFAS realignment 
Denver's site ranked first in this category.
  For reasons other than military value, the BRAC Commission 
recommended closing DFAS Denver and moving the Air Reserve Personnel 
Center to Texas.
  Our city has suffered large base closures in past BRAC rounds. Now, 
despite a proud history of support for our nation's armed forces, 
Denver will have virtually no military presence left when these 
recommendations are executed. Mr. Chairman, given the carefully 
analyzed proposal submitted by the Secretary of Defense, this is a 
result that I simply cannot support.
  I ask my colleagues to support this Joint Resolution, and show their 
disapproval of these inequitable and inefficient recommendations.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Congressional Record two 
items on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's (BRAC) 
recommendations.
  I am submitting pages 156-157 from the 2005 Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission Report to the President that includes a summary 
of the flawed rationale used for the recommended realignment of the 
Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard Station.
  Mr. Speaker, I also include a chart showing the strength and 
efficiency of the response time by members of the Air National Guard in 
response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, especially relative to 
the active Air Force.

       SPRINGFIELD-BECKLEY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIR GUARD STATION, OH
                  [Recommendation #107 (Air Force 40)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-Time Cost..............................................       $30.8M
Annual Recurring Costs/(Savings)...........................      ($2.5M)
20-Year Net Present Value..................................      ($5.4M)
Payback Period.............................................     14 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RECOMMENDATION

       Realign Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard 
     Station, OH. Distribute the 178th Fighter Wing's F-16 
     aircraft to the 132nd Fighter Wing, Des Moines International 
     Airport Air Guard Station, IA (nine aircraft); the 140th Wing 
     (ANG), Buckley Air Force Base, CO (three aircraft) and 149th 
     Fighter Wing (ANG), Lackland Air Force Base, TX (six 
     aircraft), but retain the wing's expeditionary combat support 
     (ECS) elements, the 251st Combat Communications Group (ANG) 
     and 269th Combat Communications Squadron (ANG) in place, and 
     relocate the wing's firefighter positions, which will move to 
     Rickenbacker Air Guard Station, OH.

[[Page 24000]]




                   SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JUSTIFICATION

       The decision to realign Springfield-Beckley's F-16s and not 
     replace force structure at Springfield-Beckley is based on 
     considerations of military value and all other available 
     information. Buckley (64) and Lackland (47) have higher 
     military value than Springfield-Beckley (128), and Buckley 
     has a role in the homeland defense mission. This 
     recommendation optimizes the squadron size at Lackland, the 
     only ANG F-16 Flying Training Unit. While not currently 
     tasked with a homeland defense role, Des Moines (137) is 
     located within the specified response timing criteria of a 
     homeland security site of interest. The 132nd Fighter Wing, 
     Des Moines International Airport Air Guard Station, will 
     assume a role in the air sovereignty mission.


                           COMMUNITY CONCERNS

       The Springfield-Beckley, OH, community criticized several 
     Mission Compatability Index (MCI) scores, claiming Air Force 
     use of a one-size-fits-all approach is inherently biased in 
     favor of large active-duty bases and the base's status as an 
     F-16 formal training unit (FTU) should have exempted it from 
     data calls pertaining to standard weapons storage 
     requirements. DoD's military value scores reflected neither 
     the base's mission nor mission requirements. According to the 
     community's analysis, accurate data reflecting pavement 
     quality, range space, training capacity, and maintenance and 
     logistics capacity would have resulted in a significantly 
     higher score. In addition, community representatives argued 
     DoD failed to account for costs associated with replacing 
     pilots and maintainers who would not move to the proposed 
     location. They contended DoD completely ignored their 
     proximity to Wright Patterson Air Force Base and the 
     possibility of a community-basing program at Beckley. They 
     felt that if quantitative military value analysis results did 
     not satisfy the Air Force, ``military judgment'' was 
     arbitrarily applied to justify the BRAC proposal. Last, the 
     community expressed concerns about the 291 direct and 149 
     indirect jobs that could be lost, adding that they knew the 
     F-16 would go away at some point but questioned if it was 
     prudent to retire it so soon.


                          COMMISSION FINDINGS

       The Commission found that the Department of Defense 
     recommendation to realign Springfield-Beckley Municipal 
     Airport Air Guard Station should be supported even though the 
     military value criteria were flawed and the realignment will 
     be a cost instead of a savings to the Department. This unit 
     is a training squadron for the F-16. There are currently two 
     other Flying Training Units (FTUs) in the Total Force. The 
     Commission agreed that with the total number of F-16s being 
     reduced in the Air Force, the training requirements will be 
     reduced commensurately. The Commission established an F-16 
     wing at Buckley AFB, Colorado and at Lackland AFB, Texas. 
     This recommendation is consistent with the Commission's Air 
     National Guard Laydown plan.
       This recommendation directing aircraft movement and 
     personnel actions in connection with Air National Guard 
     installations and organizations is designed to support the 
     Future Total Force. The Commission expects that the Air Force 
     will find new missions where needed, provide retraining 
     opportunities, and take appropriate measures to limit 
     possible adverse personnel impact. The Commission's intent is 
     that the Air Force will act to assign sufficient aircrew and 
     maintenance personnel to units gaining aircraft in accordance 
     with current, established procedures. However, the Commission 
     expects that all decisions with regard to manpower 
     authorizations will be made in consultation with the governor 
     of the state in which the affected Air National Guard unit is 
     located. Any manpower changes must be made under existing 
     authorities, and must be made consistent with existing 
     limitations. Some reclassification of existing positions may 
     be necessary, but should not be executed until the Air Force 
     and the state have determined the future mission of the unit 
     to preclude unnecessary personnel turbulence.


                       COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

       The Commission found that the Secretary of Defense deviated 
     substantially from final selection criteria 2 and 5, as well 
     as from the Force Structure Plan. Therefore, the Commission 
     recommends the following:
       Realign Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard 
     Station, OH. Distribute the 18 F-16 aircraft assigned to the 
     178th Fighter Wing (ANG) to meet the Primary Aircraft 
     Authorizations (PAA) requirements established by the Base 
     Closure and Realignment recommendations of the Secretary of 
     Defense, as amended by the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Commission.
       Establish 18 PAA F-16 aircraft at the l40th Wing (ANG), 
     Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado.
       Establish 18 PAA F-16 aircraft at the 149th Wing (ANG), 
     Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
       Establish a contiguous enclave for the 178th Fighter Wing 
     (ANG) sufficient to support operations of that unit, 
     including flight operations, and compatible with joint use of 
     the Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport as a civilian 
     airport.
       If the State of Ohio decides to change the organization, 
     composition and location of the 178th Fighter Wing (ANG) to 
     integrate the unit into the Future Total Force, all personnel 
     allotted to the 178th Fighter Wing (ANG), including the 
     unit's Expeditionary Combat Support (ECS) elements, will 
     remain in place and assume a mission relevant to the security 
     interests of the State of Ohio and consistent with the 
     integration of the unit into the Future Total Force, 
     including but not limited to air mobility, C4ISR, Information 
     Operations, engineering, flight training or unmanned aerial 
     vehicles. Where appropriate, unit personnel will be retrained 
     in skills relevant to the emerging mission.
       This recommendation does not effect a change to the 
     authorized end-strength of the Ohio Air National Guard. The 
     distribution of aircraft currently assigned to the 178th 
     Fighter Wing (ANG) is based upon a resource-constrained 
     determination by the Department of Defense that the aircraft 
     concerned will better support national security requirements 
     in other locations and is not conditioned upon the agreement 
     of the state.
       The Commission found that this change and the 
     recommendation as amended are consistent with the final 
     selection criteria and the Force Structure Plan. The full 
     text of this and all Commission recommendations can be found 
     in Appendix Q.

                        OHIO NATIONAL GUARD--HURRICANE SUPPORT JOINT TASK FORCE BUCKEYE I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Unit                              Mission                       Missions/Quantities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
Army Units:
    JTF Buckeye I........................  Patrols....................  363
                                           Distribution...............  84
                                           Outreach/Tailgate            93
                                            Distribution.
                                           Traffic Control Points.....  64
                                           Static Security............  65
                                           MRE Distribution...........  755,600 MREs
                                           Water Distribution.........  301,170 Gallons
                                           Louisiana Superdome          8,000 Evacuated
                                            Security.
                                           Citizen Evacuation.........  52 Evacuated
                                           Deceased Identification....  31 Deceased Identified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                                                                         Cargo
                              Unit                                 Missions     Sorties    Personnel     Moved
                                                                                             Moved      (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Units:
    179th Air Lift Wing.........................................          44         116        1227         291
    121st Air Refueling Wing....................................           9          20         379          30
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................          53         136        1606         321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   OHIO NATIONAL GUARD--HURRICANE SUPPORT JOINT TASK FORCE BUCKEYE II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Missions/
              Unit                      Mission           Quantities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Assistance Provided
 
Army Units:
    JTF Buckeye II..............  Distribution......  101
                                  Meals (MREs/Box     3,725,568 Meals
                                   Meals).
                                  Water.............  2,862,872 Gallons
                                  Ice...............  3,694,080 pounds
                                  Escort Security...  80
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 24001]]


 
                                                                                                         Cargo
                              Unit                                 Missions     Sorties    Personnel     Moved
                                                                                             Moved      (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Units:
    179th Air Lift Wing.........................................           3           8          75          31
    121st Air Refueling Wing....................................           3           6          96          11
      Total.....................................................           6          14         171          42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 65

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure 
     and Realignment Commission as submitted by the President on 
     September 15, 2005.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 2908(d) of Public Law 101-
510, the Committee rises.

                              {time}  1245

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Acting Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the resolution 
(H.J. Res. 65) disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission, pursuant to section 2908(d) of 
Public Law 101-510, he reported the joint resolution back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2908(d) of Public Law 
101-510, the question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on H.J. Res. 65 will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 3945 and H. Res 368.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 85, 
noes 324, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 548]

                                AYES--85

     Abercrombie
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barrow
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Clay
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Forbes
     Ford
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     LaHood
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     McCaul (TX)
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pickering
     Poe
     Rothman
     Rush
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sherman
     Smith (NJ)
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Udall (NM)
     Watson
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)

                               NOES--324

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Cuellar
       

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Boswell
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cunningham
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Foley
     Gohmert
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Mack
     Obey
     Payne
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Simmons
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Wexler

                              {time}  1310

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mrs. KELLY, Ms. McKINNEY, Ms. 
HART, and Messrs. CARTER, BONNER, RADANOVICH, BAIRD, WALSH, LUCAS and 
SULLIVAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. EMERSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. EVANS, 
FATTAH, DENT, JOHNSON of Illinois, JACKSON of Illinois and CARDOZA 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. CUELLAR changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 548, I was 
off the floor meeting with consitutents and unfortunately missed the 
above listed rollcall vote. Had I been present I would have voted 
``no.''
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 548 on H.R. 
65, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted 
``no.''

                          ____________________