[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 24968]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, November 4, 2005

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution 
and in opposition to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission 
recommendations.
  I recognize the need to streamline the military in order to save tax 
dollars, increase military effectiveness, and protect our troops that 
are serving across the world. I agree that we should close bases and 
realign functions that have outlived their usefulness. However, I 
support this resolution because the recommendations made by the BRAC 
Commission for Naval Air Station Pt. Mugu in my district do not serve 
these goals.
  The BRAC Commission recommended moving specialized jobs on a target 
range from an oceanfront location at Naval Air Station Point Mugu in 
Ventura, CA to China Lake Naval Weapons Station, which is 150 miles 
inland in the high desert. This would necessitate the moving of flights 
and technicians back toward the ocean each time they are needed. 
Relocation of these flights and the technicians will increase response 
times to the range, reduce on-range time, and increase operating costs.
  Furthermore, I've been told by a number of my constituents, the 
civilian scientists and technicians at Naval Air Station Pt. Mugu, that 
they do not wish to move from the ocean to the high desert. This would 
result in a tremendous loss of intellectual capital that would add to 
the cost and timetable of relocation as new scientists and technicians 
would need to be found, trained, and given the proper security reviews. 
Not only does this not appear to save money and increase efficiency, I 
am concerned that it will negatively impact military readiness.
  This recommendation is forecasted to save a mere $6 million over 
twenty years. Given the fact that the figures provided by the 
Department of Defense have been consistently inaccurate throughout this 
process, I question whether it will be even this much. Furthermore, the 
negligible savings from these recommendations do not take into account 
the additional non-military costs incurred by communities due to 
unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs necessary to 
help those who lose jobs because of the base closures. This could end 
up costing the Federal Government more money rather than it saves.