[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16135-16136]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1040
                     SAVING THE 911TH AIRLIFT WING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Speaking of saving money, here is an 
interesting story.
  Just 2 weeks after Texans in Randall County voted for Republican 
Barry Goldwater over their native son, Lyndon Johnson, in the 
Presidential race in the 1960s, the Pentagon announced Randall County's 
Air Force base was closing. Folks were ``flabbergasted'' said an 
Amarillo newspaper columnist. The Air Force had just made millions in 
investments at the base, but now airmen and equipment were moving to a 
nearby county that supported Johnson.
  It was this kind of abuse of executive power that led Congress to 
write a new law ensuring we had proper oversight over base closures. In 
my Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District, we're finding out why 
that law must be strengthened. Last week, I learned the Air Force is 
again attempting to shut down the 911th Airlift Wing, an Air Force 
Reserve base, for a reason that has nothing do with cost or military 
strategy. In fact, the 911th is one of the most lean and cost-effective 
bases in the country.
  How and why they can do this without congressional approval is 
interesting. The Air Force claims inaccurately there are fewer than 300 
civilian employees authorized to be employed at the 911th, allowing the 
Pentagon to close the base without congressional review. The Pentagon, 
however, has invested over $50 million in improvements in the base, 
including new buildings in the last 5 years. The 911th, however, has 
lower overhead costs because emergency responses like fire and safety, 
air traffic control, security, runway maintenance, and land are 
provided by Pittsburgh International Airport for free. Hence, if the 
911th were forced to in-source those activities, the number of 
authorized personnel would be hundreds more, and would far exceed the 
300-person threshold. Thus, the Pentagon would be prevented from 
unilaterally closing it. Further, the Air Force Reserve would have to 
invest millions more in equipment and training if it was not provided 
for free, but the Air Force did not look at any of these numbers, and 
they did not review the cost of the space.
  The Pentagon is trying to close the base because they can, not 
because they should. In their haste to come up with a quick cut, it 
will cost the taxpayers over $100 million in coming years, and that is 
why Congress needs to have oversight.
  The House has passed a defense bill to prevent a suboptimal decision 
like this one in the future. The House bill includes language requiring 
the Pentagon to notify Congress about any base closure or transfer of 
troops impacting more than 1,000 uniform personnel. Unlike the way the 
Air Force is operating now, the Defense Department would have to 
include a justification for the reduction, an evaluation of the costs 
and benefits, and an evaluation of the local, economic, environmental, 
strategic, and operational consequences. By requiring significant 
reductions in uniform personnel to be included in the budget request, 
Congress will have two opportunities to review, block, or approve a 
base closure in the annual defense authorization bill and the defense 
appropriations bill.
  The Senate is nearing completion of its version of the defense bill 
today,

[[Page 16136]]

and it's my hope that both Chambers will work to restore Congress' 
proper oversight authority. The issue facing Congress is not a new one. 
Since the 1960s, the executive branch has tried repeatedly to close 
bases for reasons other than the best interests of taxpayers or the 
military. The necessity of a strong base closure law giving Congress 
oversight of these decisions was perhaps best expressed in 1985 by 
Senator Carl Levin. He said:

       These protections against untrammeled executive power to 
     close bases came because Members of this Senate and this 
     Congress felt that the power to close bases had been abused 
     and had been used as a club over Members of Congress.

  Today, it is the 911th, but tomorrow it could be a base in any 
Member's district. I urge my colleagues to support efforts to 
strengthen the base closure law.

                          ____________________