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
You've got my vote...IMHO, the UN is a Net Negative vis a vis its influence on the Human Condition. It's simply a Clubhouse for the worst of the worst of the Effete Elites world-wide!! Tell 'em to take a hike and set up shop in Switzerland.
FReegards...MUD
I can agree with that. The U.N. is not on the list of those supposed to recieve government funding as spelled out in the Constitution. Defense however is. Whether it's your private arsonal, the states, or the federal government the main purpose of the United States government is to provide national defense. For that reason many other not so needed programs should be cut instead of the defense budget. The Defense budget should be top priority.
If a nation thinks a principle or injury is serious enough for a Declaration of War then do it. But do it right. No small limited by another mans rules engagement. Make it the sole objective to eliminate the government or persons who did the wrong. Do not stop nor talk to the enemy about it until they either are removed from the face of the earth or give unconditional surrender which allows occupation of that nation. That is what it takes to win a war.
I'm not against new technology including a missle defense. But I also realize that within a few minutes that defense can be gone as what happened the last time it was tried when we got in a satellite war with Russia. Give me for reliability mechanical weapons that are not electronic {satellite} dependent. These will be the skills that win wars and not the push button war.
We can't say our wars will be limited as we heard that one before. WW1 was called at that time the war to end all wars. Keep the heavy tanks, the flat tops who are still the first deployed to trouble, and the basic weapons. We can build light assault type vessels and vehicles and train men for them but the others must also remain and be kept functional and ready.
The best deterant to war is a strong standing ready military in constant deployment. That means as well enough troops and equipment for necessary rotations for equipment maintenance and so those deployed can rest. We are riding a good horse to death with our current status quo.
Sounds good to me. But if such money were used to keep the bases open, I think it only fair to the taxpayers that every civilian working on those bases, should be fired. Better still, just fire all civilians working on any military base. Use the money to return to citizens for arms purchases and keep bases open.
I can....but some people believe everything they're told.
I hope our boys (and girls) in the House derail this craziness.
The amount of missing, mismanaged or stolen money in the Dept. of Education reached $6 billion said one report I read a few months ago. Now some of our elected officials want to throw more money at it.
Close the bases instead of cleaning them up and making them more efficient....and throw more money down a rathole called the Dept. of Education. That makes sense...especially since I know first-hand that the public schools are more dumbed-down every year that passes.
I always knew that McCain was full of it. I don't care how many medals of honor he has. Closing down our military bases and opening our borders to terrorists just don't make sense.
Liberal protestors came out en masse to Vieques. They argued that America was racist for bombing an island populated by Latins, and for picking an area that had little democratic representation.
I have a better idea. Let's move those bombing exercises to an island that is populated by elitist whites that have more than their fair share of democratic representation.
Let's send the Navy to Martha's Vineyard.
Ahhh,yes. Of course. Spoken like the true weasel and scum-sucking human turd you really are. You are really outdoing yourself in your ass-kissing and backstabbing efforts to become a bureaucrat,ain't ya,Baby Hughie?
BTW,I think these base closings are a EXCELLENT idea! The land will always be available and cheap if we need it again,ESPECIALLY the land near the ocean on the east coast. I think we should close ALL US Navy bases except for the one at Norfolk,Va,and park every single ship the US Navy has there side by side. If we don't have room for them all,we should just decomission the ones we don't have room for and cut them up for scrap. Look at all the money we can save by having them all in one place!
While we are at it,why not have just one army base and one AF base? After all,they are just a drag on the taxpayers that prevents us from spending the money we need to spend on the "chil-run". It's not like we will ever need them again,or anything.Besides,with only one base each for the army,navy,af,and marines,just look at how easy they will be to defend! (sarcasm)
Actually,he may have accidentially hit on a more accurate description. Warner and the others ARE selling America's future down the river,and they ain't doing it for free. There are trades being made somewhere in the background.
This may be one of those deals where the wrong word ends up being the most accurate word,just like the little girl seeing the butterfly fly by screams in delight and says "Look at the flutterby!" I think both the little girl and the original "trader" poster may just be onto something.
It seems you and some others don't understand how this game is played.The AF and army brass are given order to "find bases to close and present us a list of potentials candidates for closing." The AF or army then follows orders and presents these lists,and the politicians who want to get the land cheap to subdivide jump in front of tv cameras and says "I have here a list of bases the army and AF say need to be closed."
A similiar thing happened when the Navy first put women on ships and in fighter planes. They do this and ORDER the Adirals whose commands these changes just took place in that "here they are,make it work". They then go back one year later and ask how it's working,and beam in pride as the Admirals they ORDERED to make it work surprise everybody by reporting that indeed it IS working! WHOODATHUNKIT??????
BTW,you will hear ME screaming louder than most people,and I don't live withing 75miles of any military base or PX.
And of course,this all makes erfect sense now. Nothing more clever than putting all your eggs in one basket where a terrorist version of a National Guard PFC and take out the wole fleet or our entire armor capability with just one suitcase nuke. Not to mention what they can do to our Navy be just sinking a few ships in the middle of a couple of channels.
Yup,the same John Warner,and the same Navy Base where I managed to talk my way on one night at about 3 AM while drunk to take a drive-by tour of the nuke sub pens. No base sticker on my car,and me with a beard and a ponytail.
Really? All that PAID for? Damn,I wanna be a Senator. I hereby announe my campaign for the US Senate in 2002,and I promise to send 8x10 color glossies of me and the whores to anybody who votes for me. I promise to send two 8x10 color glossies of me and the whores to anybody who doesn't vote for me. Can I count on your vote? I really,really,REALLY need a matched pair of 18 year old whores!
THIS is the fly in the ointment. Not a SINGLE ONE of thes bases being closed is relaceable. Large tracts of land on the east and west coasts near the ocean are ust non-existant anymore. Closing them is one thing,selling off the land and other assets is another thing alltogether!
THIS is the thing most citizens keep overlooking,and the one thing the politicians are terrified somebody is going to point out. Local real estate agents,bankers,lawyers,building trades associations,building supply businesses,and even county tax offices look at these bases and all they see is the wealth they can make from buying up this land cheap and developing it. LOTS of times if you look,you can see the local politicians in these areas have family members and/or major financial supporters who make their livings from one of the mentioned businesses.
If they seriously want to close them,fine. Close them. Just don't put the land or assets up for sale. EVER. These bases are made of "unobtanium",and can't be replaced.
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.