House Armed Services Committee Defeats Amendments to Halt, Delay Base Closure Process
On the afternoon of May 18 during consideration of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, members of the House Armed Services committee defeated two amendments which would have halted or delayed the 2005 base realignment and closure process.
Both amendments were introduced by Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-NH). The first would have terminated the BRAC process entirely. It was defeated in a roll call vote by 8 to 50, with Reps. Bradley, Simmons (R-CT), Davis (R-VA), Ortiz (D-TX), Evans (D-IL), Taylor (D-MS), Abercrombie (D-HI) and Tauscher (D-CA) supporting the amendment.
The second amendment was similar to language adopted by the House during consideration of the FY’05 authorization bill, and would have delayed the BRAC process for an unspecified period of time, depending on the completion of certain triggers. The delay, estimated at a minimum of two years, would last until certain criteria were met, including completion of an overseas basing study, the return of U.S. troops from Iraq, and the completion of a number of Pentagon reviews including the Quadrennial Defense Review and the National Maritime Security Strategy.
In introducing the amendments, Rep. Bradley listed five reasons why he felt it was appropriate to keep U.S. military bases from closing. First, he expressed concerns about the impact of the loss of industrial base capacity, citing the importance in retaining the nuclear submarine overhaul facility in his state. Second, he listed the uncertainty about potential future threats to U.S. security interests, particularly the still new and little understood threat of terrorism. Third, he raised the changing nature of this threat and the impact of being unable to reconstitute, if necessary, the facilities currently slated for closure. Fourth, he expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed closures or realignments of National Guard and Reserve facilities on the ability to recruit and retain quality personnel. Finally, he raised the need to better understand the nature of the terrorist threat and others on U.S. security interests.
A number of members of the committee, including Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) and Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), expressed their reluctance to proceed with the proposed closures, but noted, in the words of Rep. Hefley, “this train has left the station,” and that efforts to change the BRAC process would likely result in a presidential veto of the legislation. As Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) put it, because of the likelihood of a veto by the president, adoption of these amendments would mean “the mark-up [of this legislation] would effectively be finished.”
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) noted that for political reasons the BRAC process, as structured, was necessary if bases were ever to be closed. “Left to our own doing, this committee could not close bases,” said Weldon. Powerful and influential committee members and appropriators would be able to protect their bases, he said, at the expense of facilities in the districts of less senior members of Congress.
A number of members speaking in support of the amendment expressed concerns about the timing of the 2005 round, with the nation at war. Said Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), “We’re at war. So what on earth are we doing closing bases?”
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ), while noting the pain that communities facing closures were experiencing, seemed to sum up the prevailing attitude on the committee when he said, “there are times when we have to look at a larger picture, and I think this is one of those times.”