Posted on 09/25/2001 5:23:25 PM PDT by freedomnews
Senators Back Base Closings 53-47
Tuesday, September 25, 2001 8:02 p.m. EDT
- - - - - By CAROLYN SKORNECK Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's base-closings initiative was endorsed Tuesday by the Senate with strong support from Democrats, but it faces objections from House members who have tried to derail any mothballing of facilities.
The Senate vote of 53-47 stopped an effort to remove a base-closings provision from the $343 billion defense bill that authorizes money for the military efforts of the Defense and Energy departments for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.
``This vote is really all about whether we're going to do business as usual, and preserve our bases in our states whether they're necessary or not, or whether we're going to have ... the most efficient military machine to fight this long, protracted struggle'' against terrorism, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a longtime base-closing supporter, said in debate before the vote.
Before the authorization bill can become law, a House-Senate conference must resolve differences between the versions approved by each chamber. The House measure, which lawmakers began debating Tuesday, intentionally omits any mention of base closings.
Meanwhile, missile defense has largely disappeared as a point of partisan contention, part of the national unity that emerged following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
In the House, a bipartisan amendment to cuts funds from that program while boosting anti-terrorism efforts by $400 million - for a total of about $6 billion - was expected to pass easily.
Bush sought $8.3 billion for missile defense, a $3 billion increase over this year's spending.
The Senate agreed Friday to provide the full $8.3 billion, but would let the president use $1.3 billion to combat terrorism instead.
The House Armed Services Committee reduced the $8.3 billion request last month by $135 million. The amendment, co-sponsored by committee Chairman Bob Stump, R-Ariz., and its top Democrat, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, would cut another $265 million, leaving $7.9 billion for missile defense.
The additional anti-terrorism money would be ``an initial down payment until the president can better assess the long-term needs,'' Stump said.
Skelton said plans for a ``very spirited debate'' over missile defense ended with the terrorist attacks, when both parties agreed ``the nation would not be served by a divisive debate.''
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., proposed, then withdrew, an amendment regarding the Puerto Rican island Vieques, where the Navy has trained for decades. The amendment would have canceled a planned November referendum of Vieques residents on whether the Navy should stop training in 2003, when Bush has said it will, or stay and pay $50 million for public works projects. Inhofe acted as Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., planned to attach a requirement undermining his amendment.
The White House does not want the vote held. A House bill would call it off while requiring the Navy to keep using Vieques until an equivalent or better training site is found.
Regarding base closings, the Senate bill calls for one round in 2003, with an independent panel deciding which bases would be affected, and the Congress and president approving or rejecting the entire list.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the Senate Armed Services Committee's top Republican, read from a letter by Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying, ``The authority to eliminate excess infrastructure will be an important tool our forces will need to become more efficient and serve as better custodians of the taxpayers' money.''
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., meanwhile, said it was wrong to press for such upheavals ``when our reserves are being called up, our National Guard is being called up, our communities are being told, `Support our military.'''
Four rounds of base-closings - in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 - led to the closing or realignment of 451 installations, including 97 major ones
They are fools, then. The PX and comissary benefits have very visibly nosedived in my short 12 years. Very few things are a bargain there anymore. The PX no longer offers solid bargains to the GI anymore. They carry designer crap for God-knows-who. I am not paying 35 bucks for a shirt for a 10 yr. Be damned if I can find a simple $5 tshirt for him, though. You can almost always do better at wally world. Yeah, you might save a whopping 50 cents on a $20 item. It is shameful what they have disintegrated into.
The Commissaries are almost as bad, dry cereal is the only real bargain there anymore.
(Razwan gets down from the soapbox)
In the event we ever have a large scale mobilization we'll need US facilities. We should be very careful not to reduce their number beyond the point necessary to support such an increase in troops and training facilities.
You might remember McClellan. That was one of the bases "closed" under the last BRAC, but Clinton illegally overruled BRAC and kept it open. Then he "privatized" it.
The vote in the Senate shows definitively why we have to have an independent BRAC. Politicians don't really give a $hit about efficiency. They are interested in votes, even if they have to buy them by resisting the closure of a base in their district. In my opinion they should be scorned and thrown out - regardless of their party.
Every dime that we spend on an unneeded base takes away from real, needed defense.
And, before I get flames, let me say that the vast majority of military people are good, patriotic Americans upon whom this country's freedom depends. That would include even some of the patrons of the bars and cathouses.
The locating of bases according to political pull rather than according to national defense need is a scam which needs to be closed down.
We could stand to, f'rinstance, locate a few more bases along our southern border in the deserts of New Mexico and Arizona and a few less in pleasant retirement havens like Florida and California.
We could even stand to beef up bases on our northern borders where the weather is unpleasant but the word is out to terrorists about easy places to cross. Some of our bases in Alaska, North Dakota and Montana may be among our most necessary not only for this but to guard the continent from the most logicial location of airborne attack.
Most of all, we could tell the Canadians to take over the meals on wheels program in Bosnia and Kosovo if NATO deems it so damned important because we have places where our troops are needed worse.
Right. The military budget shouldn't be wasted on unneeded bases kept open as public works projects.
And we are such wussies we can't even declare war after the worst attack in American history. Really sad.
Vaudine
I knew if I hung around long enough I'd find something on which we agree! ;-)
Of course I base this opinion on 26 years of active duty watching the "good deal" run down the drain .
Stay Safe.......
We are not in any sense near the military capibilities we had even under Jimmy Carter. We do not have those resources because two other POTUS and congress shut it down. And now we try for three at a time of war? Sometimes GOP does not know best nor do the Dems.
I was riffed in a 1996 BRAC and that base should never have closed. Now private contractors, who lobbied for our closure do the same work for way more money in addition to state funds we never got. Go figure.
There is a lot of truth in this, but they also retire in the area and have free medical coverage for life. Many retirees will have to move in order to be close to a base hospital.
There is also the consideration of jobs. I know, because I was a part of a base closing as a full-time civil service employee with the GA Air National Guard.
For the record, there are bases that need to be closed, as their missions are outdated, or it can be performed at another base. I do not condone a decrease in spending for the most part. The thing that so many overlook is that the US Senators, powerful US Reps and Governors really make the decisions on the closings.
They forget to hold the unit's/base's military readiness/effectiveness in mind, and vote only to keep their friends employed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.