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
by John Whitesides
Monday, September 24, 2001 4:18 p.m. EDT
- - - - - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives, hoping to smooth U.S. efforts to rally diplomatic support for the "war on terrorism," gave final approval on Monday to a long-delayed $582 million debt payment to the United Nations.
On a unanimous voice vote
, House members backed a quick transfer of the second installment of U.S. debt to the world body in the aftermath of attacks on Washington and New York that left nearly 7,000 people dead or missing.
The battle over owed U.N. dues has frayed relations between Washington and the United Nations for years and threatened the U.S. leadership role there.
The payment, approved by the Senate in February, had been hung up in Congress for months by a series of political skirmishes, including House Republican Whip Tom DeLay's efforts to link it to a measure preventing U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court.
But DeLay dropped his objections and House members quickly approved the Senate-passed measure so the issue will not linger while President Bush tries to rally international support for counter-strikes against the those held responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
"The United States cannot act alone and expect to prevail in this painful, long-term struggle against terrorism," said California Rep. Tom Lantos, ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.
"The U.N. is the world's premier forum and will be one of the primary theaters for U.S. diplomacy on this matter," he said.
The payment is the second of three installments of back dues owed to the United Nations. The House approved it in May, but a House-Senate dispute over conditions for the payments and DeLay's attempts to link it to the international court issue delayed completion of the measure.
By passing the Senate-approved measure, the bill goes straight to Bush for fast enactment.
"Every day we fail to pay our debts to the U.N., we make our work that much more difficult," Connecticut Republican Rep. Christopher Shays said.
Under a deal brokered by former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Richard Holbrooke, U.N. members agreed in December to cut the U.S. general dues assessment from 25 percent to 22 percent of the $1.1 billion annual administrative budget, and a separate assessment for peacekeeping from 31 percent to about 27 percent this year and 26.5 percent by 2003.
The deal did not fully meet the conditions set by Congress in a 1994 law and in legislation sponsored two years ago in the Senate by North Carolina Republican Jesse Helms and Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden that required the U.S. peacekeeping contribution be capped at 25 percent.
But Helms and other lawmakers say the United Nations has come far enough on reform efforts that Congress should go ahead with the payments.
The United States made the first payment of $100 million last year. The House has voted to freeze next year's third and last installment of $244 million in U.S. arrears to the United Nations until the United States regains its lost seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
The Senate has not taken up the issue of payment of the third installment of the back dues.
THEY ARE U.N BOYS NEXT WILL COME THE U.N COURT AND A TAX
But you are wrong about the "cheap stuff", (except the cereal and cigarettes). With Wal-mart and Sams, there really isn't a need to buy at the BX much.
C'mon, admit it...you're really AAAPatriot. Or maybe you're ALOHA RONNIE. Or maybe you're Inspector Harry Callahan. Then again, maybe you're Arator. If not, you really should look them up and join their little "No Moon Landing Club".
What's wrong with a little trading?
Okay class, this is what is known as an incomplete sentence.
But the next war we fight is not going to be a massive mobilization of troops going to another country to establish beachheads, capture territory, etc. The next war we fight is going to see ground troops, but it's going to be a small number of elite, well-trained ground troops going in and getting a job done. Some reservists will be called up, of course, as reservists are primarily in support roles.
No one knows how the next war is going to be fought or who will invade and us and by what means. We had one launched this month on our soil. We could not respond in time. We had a plane brought down by China we could not respond in time. Think about it some of our biggest military targets do not so much as have a fighter jet in the whole state. Why? Cutbacks is why. I'm glad to know that I live less than 20 miles from such and only have a refueling squadron near by to protect it. September 11 showed us our military needs help that is can not cover our own soil. Closing more bases will not solve that problem. But giving the base another squadron, another couple of combat units, or even traing more NG's makes a lot more sense than saying nope can't happen here we got to close them down.
Why did the Twin Towers Fall? Ask not this question, ask why pork barrel defense appropriators closed Floyd Bennet Field in Brooklyn as an Air Force base years ago, but kept bases open in such crucial Homeland defense areas as the rural south and west.
Most military bases are like Farm subsidies and corporate handouts - Republican welfare payments.
I can.
The demise of America's military is by design.
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.