Disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

The legislative branch bill, Mr. Chairman, provides for $2.870 billion, an increase of only 1.7 percent over the fiscal year 2005. The bill represents a $270 million reduction from the budget request.

Mr. Chairman, although we did not agree on every item on this bill, we worked very closely with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to produce a bipartisan bill for the legislative branch. I want to thank all the committee members for their contributions in putting this bill together.

While small in size, this is the bill that funds the work of the Congress, and it is a bill that we all can be very proud of.

The bill includes funding for the operations of the House and several joint items, the Capitol Police, the Compliance Board, the Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, the General Accountability Office, and the Open World Leadership Program.

There will be no reductions in the current workforce.

The bill provides for all personnel cost-of-living increases and all other pay-related costs.

The bill also was reported out of the full committee on a voice vote.

The Capitol Visitor Center is funded at the cost-to-complete level of $36.9 million. The bill does not include funding for CVC operating expenses.

The bill establishes an Inspector General for the Capitol Police. The bill terminates the mounted horse unit and transfers the horses and equipment to the U.S. Park Service.

As part of an amendment in the full committee, I offered, and the committee adopted, the Continuity in Representation Act at the Speaker's request. This bill has passed the House twice, and just recently, the vote in March was 329 to 68.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and one that benefits the entire legislative branch. Ultimately, this is the bill that reflects the work of the House. We are all in this together, Mr. Chairman, and because of that, I feel very strongly that this legislation should have the support of the entire House.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.004

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I appreciate very much the gentleman having this colloquy with me and raising this important issue. As we have discussed, the smoking policy in the House office buildings is under the jurisdiction of the House Office Building Commission. That commission is made up of leaders on both sides of the aisle; and, frankly, I am very hesitant to interfere with their responsibility or their work. But I think it is very important that the gentleman is raising this issue today, and I am happy to have this discussion with him.

I would be very happy to join with the gentleman in that discussion. I think I probably will discuss it with my wife as well; but in the meantime, you and I work together on the committee, and I am happy to work with you on almost any issue you might raise.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

If the gentleman will yield, I would be pleased to do so.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell the gentleman that I am very appreciative of his interest in the institution's history. As he is aware, the Speaker controls the placement of plaques on the House side of the Capitol. Their placement is very restricted, and we attempt to achieve recognition of events and places normally through other means.

The Capitol Visitors Center is being designed to provide our visitors with a much fuller understanding and history of the House and Senate. Included in the CVC is a 16,000 square-foot exhibit hall. In this exhibit hall, the architectural and legislative history of the institution are highlighted.

As part of the currently proposed CVC exhibits are detailed sections on the history of the Capitol and included in this is the fact that when the Capitol was originally built, it was used for more than legislative meetings. It was commonly used as the community center for the citizens of Washington, D.C. During that time, there were few places for meetings or church services. Thus, it is correct that such religious services were held here.

All these facts are included in the CVC exhibits, and I would encourage that the education of citizens be pursued in this venue so that a more complete history beyond a plaque can be presented.

There have been, and I very much appreciate the gentleman's interest in this matter. He and I will be pursuing it as we go forward in the months and, indeed, the years ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I must say I understand the points that the gentleman is making. I believe he has a constitutional amendment that proposes an alternative approach. I must say the Speaker has been most concerned, and he asked me to put this in this bill, because a constitutional amendment takes so long to accomplish. We could be out there for Lord knows how long if it is ever accomplished. In the meantime, he has a proposal that will go forward and will be altered significantly as we go forward in order to expedite the process. That is what the Speaker is asking us to do here.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, he does have a constitutional amendment proposed. He knows how long and how risky constitutional proposals are. They hardly ever happen. And, therefore, the Speaker wants to make sure this proposal goes forward, and that is what we are suggesting.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to yield time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier); but before doing so, I just want to mention that the previous speaker had a constitutional amendment regarding the issue of continuity in the last Congress, and on that constitutional amendment the vote was 63 yeas and 353 nays. To say the least, the constitutional approach is difficult.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak in these closing moments.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is important for the public to know that all of us are concerned about continuity of government in the event of a tragedy. We certainly would not be having this discussion if it had not been for 9/11.

But, indeed, there are differences in the approach that one might take. Some prefer a constitutional amendment; and yet we have tried that on more than one occasion. We have had the debate, and very few in this House have supported that proposition. So the Speaker has asked us to go forward with an idea that will be worked on carefully between now and the time we finish our work with the Senate.

But from that point forward, let me talk a bit about the Capitol Visitors Center. My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I, early on in this Congress, were not active supporters of a CVC. But, indeed, his leadership and my leadership, at a higher pay grade, made a different decision; so we are carrying forward their work in this process.

I have looked at the visitors center very carefully. It is rather a fabulous addition to the Capitol, the greatest addition that has been made in this century, I believe. Indeed, within the mix of that, while I might change some things, I prefer not to suggest what the details ought to be that the Architect moves forward with. I am critical of the Architect; but in the meantime, I am not one. Therefore, we are going to add this major change whereby visitors can enter the Capitol, and it will have a very significant piece of our future history in the Capitol complex. It is going to be a fabulous addition. Indeed, it will be a very high-quality addition that we will all be proud of, but I think it would be a mistake for me to try to be the architect between now and then.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate about the work of the people's House. I am very happy to participate in this with my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) control 2\1/2\ minutes of that time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I consider myself to be a horse person. As a matter of fact, at one time in my life I thought I might be a veterinarian because I loved horses and ducks so much. In the meantime, I watch them parade around the Capitol, and I have wondered from time to time about their relative value. The GAO has cited that the Capitol Police have difficulty quantifying the benefit the unit provides. GAO was not able to substantiate the claim of one horse doing the work of 10 people.

I do not see how the elimination of five horses is going to impact the patrol. We have scout cars, motorcycles, and mountain bikes all patrolling the same area. The real point is here I was concerned about the horses myself, but when the staff came up with the thought that perhaps we could transfer them to the Park Service and make sure they are well taken care of and used for meaningful activity, I felt very comfortable with this change. So, frankly, I think we ought to proceed with the language that is in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I found one other reason to love the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis). Her caring for horses as much as I do is a thrill to me. The problem is I have studied this material

and cannot find that this is the best way to use our funding, especially when these horses will have a new home where they might be used more effectively.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 2\1/2\ minutes of that time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for purposes of control.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations has been held at the fiscal year 2005 level. This is a decrease of $2.5 million below the 2004 level.

The Record is distributed in accordance with title 44, chapter 9 of the U.S. Code; and within that there are 3,000 copies that go to Members, of the House and Senate, 153 copies to the Library of Congress, et cetera. I can provide the balance of this in the Record.

3,018 copies to Members, House 1,479 copies, Senate 1,539 copies; 153 copies to the Library of Congress; 754 copies to public agencies and institutions designated by Senators; 698 copies to Federal agencies that pay for the copies; 521 copies to subsribers who pay for the copies; 692 copies to Federal Depository libraries nationwide.

I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), that it is my feeling that an amendment like this where people are kind of reacting to the Congressional Record, et cetera, will likely pass overwhelmingly. And if I am correct in that, I would be inclined for us to stand back in this discussion, if the gentleman agrees with me, and perhaps discuss this further as we go to conference.

What would be the gentleman's reaction to that?

And I do as well.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is always a gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, since 1999 we have appropriated over $170 million to the Capitol Police specifically for security enhancement. In addition, we have provided $84 million for the Architect for perimeter security. In addition to the $2,345,000 provided in this bill for general expenses, the Capitol Police have $32,653,000 in unobligated balances, for a total of almost $62 million.

This $2 million amendment is interesting, but the police, in this instance, do not need an additional $2 million, and because of that, I strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate very much my colleague's comments. Mr. Chairman, during the markup of this bill, we pared down the total requests considerably from roughly $3 billion to $2.8 billion, a 9 percent reduction from the requested amount.

The bill is currently only 1.7 percent over fiscal year 2005. This increase barely sustains services. It provides for cost-of-living increases, some inflationary items, and a minimal number of projects to keep our buildings and grounds in reasonably good order.

A further reduction of 1 percent will adversely impact the operation of the legislative branch during the fiscal year ahead.

The amendment would reduce the total bill to a level that is less than 1 percent over current services.

The reduction will severely impair the ability of the House and legislative branch agencies to provide the full cost-of-living increases for all of our employees.

This is a good bill that has received balanced consideration. It is nice to say we will cut 1 percent across the board, but frankly, that is really not the way to legislate, and because of that, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, by way of suggesting that the leadership on both sides of the aisle made the decision about building our visitors center and that process has gone forward, and many a fit and start, but nonetheless it is going to be the largest expansion of the Capitol in modern time. It is going to be a fabulous visitors center when it is all completed.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have been on the other side of that issue in the past; but, nonetheless, like the visitors center, the Speaker has suggested we include the continuity of government item in this package. That too is at a pay grade that is above mine, and I feel very strongly we should have some mechanism to make certain that in times of a real tragedy the House can get its work done.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the 1 hour in support of the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, the reason that I introduced this resolution is because I feel very strongly that we are in a position in the House to send a very strong message of support to those who are doing the hard work in Iraq, those who have done the hard work in Afghanistan, and those men and women who we call our citizen soldiers, and a big debt of thanks for what they have been doing in the work that we have asked them to do.

I have been a very strong supporter of the President's position when we went to Afghanistan because I thought we needed to bring down al Qaeda. And no politician can take credit for what has taken place in Afghanistan. It has been done by the hardworking men and women who brought down al Qaeda and the 25,000 troops that are still there.

And no politician can take credit for what has taken place in Iraq. I supported the resolution to go to Iraq. I have supported President Bush on every request that he has made before this House for the money to support our troops, and now we have more than 135,000 troops and many men and women working in the State Department and the embassy there trying to help stand up a democracy, help stand up a police force, and help bring about democracy in Iraq.

If we go along with the BRAC Commission recommendations, what we say to those hardworking men and women who have done the work that we have asked them to do is that we are thinking about, not thinking about, the BRAC recommendations would close the bases, close some of the guard bases, say to the citizen soldiers who have done the hard work, thanks, but we don't need you any longer.

This is the wrong message to be sending. These hardworking men and women have done the job that we asked them to do, and that is the reason that we have seen such great success in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So I ask Members today to support this resolution and send a message to those who have done the hard work that these BRAC recommendations are not the right approach.

When the establishment of the BRAC came about, it was prior to 9/11. It was prior to going into Afghanistan, prior to going into Iraq, and prior to us asking our men and women, the citizen soldiers and the full-time military, to do the hard work that they are doing. This sends the wrong message. This is not the message that we want to send to those that are there, that the Guard bases and the air bases and the military bases that are being recommended for closure or realignment were not right.

When we are spending the kind of money that we are spending, we are not saving an awful lot through these BRAC recommendations. I would submit to the House that if 9/11 had happened prior to us passing this BRAC, that BRAC would not have passed, we would not have established a commission, because we would need a very strong military and we would need these Guard bases.

I also want to point out to the House that there is a Federal law that has been ignored by BRAC and ignored by the Defense Department. It is a Federal law that says you cannot close air and Guard Reserve bases without the authority of the Governor of the State, and this has been ignored.

It was ignored by BRAC, and it was ignored by the Defense Department. I think it is a law that has standing, and I think it is a law that makes an awful lot of sense. The Governors should have a say in what bases are closed. But it was a law that was ignored. So I say to those in the House that today is not the day to send the kind of message that we will be sending if we do not approve the resolution that was considered by the Armed Services Committee and being considered here today. We need to pass this resolution.

If we pass the resolution, we do send a strong message to our citizen soldiers and to the military that the work that they are doing is important, that the Guard bases that they represent, that the air bases that they represent are important, and that our citizen soldiers have done the good work.

There is going to be another report coming from the Defense Department about realigning and about the kind of defenses that our country wants. We do not know what that report will say, but I think it is another indication that the BRAC is premature. I know what the chairman said about those who served on the BRAC, but I am not sure that we were quite as well served by some of those members as we could have been in some of their deliberations.

These are people that were called upon to do very difficult work. They have completed their work, and now it is up to Congress to speak. The Defense Department has spoken. BRAC has spoken. The President has spoken. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is up to the House to speak today.

I urge the House to adopt this resolution in support of those that have done the hard work, in support of those who are citizen soldiers who come from the communities that we represent and say to them, we thank you for your hard work. We thank you for what you have done. We thank you for bringing down al Qaeda. We thank you for helping stand up a democracy in Iraq, and we are not going to eliminate the bases from which you come or realign them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer H.J. Res. 65, a resolution that I introduced that would disapprove the recommendations of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.

As I have stated many times since this BRAC round began, it is absolutely wrong that we are considering closing and realigning bases while we are at war. We in Congress spend quite a bit of time proclaiming that we are doing all we can to care for our troops. Spending billions of dollars closing and realigning bases isn't caring for our troops--it's just plain wrong.

Congress created the BRAC process so that there would be a non- partisan, independent method of reviewing our military's post-Cold War excess infrastructure. Unfortunately, we live in a different world today and we face challenges that we, as a nation, couldn't even imagine in the late 1980s. There is no more ``peacetime dividend'' to be gained from closing bases. The Global War on Terrorism has reached deep into our military structure and showed us that we can no longer ask our military to do more with less.

This BRAC Commission was asked to do a very difficult task in a very uncertain environment. Early next year the Department of Defense will issue its latest Quadrennial Defense Review, a document that will outline the future structure of our military as they continue their fight against terror. We do not know what the QDR will contain, and what sort of infrastructure will be required to support it. We are also waiting to hear the plan for bringing as many as 70,000 troops and their families home from Europe and Asia as the Department reduces its Cold War footprint overseas. We do not know what that plan will contain, either, but those 70,000 people and their dependents will have to live and work somewhere. The BRAC Commission noted in its report to the President that the timing of this BRAC round was not ideal because of all of the uncertainty surrounding these upcoming major events. Even the most well-intentioned decisions, if they are made without taking all of the facts into account, can end up hurting those we say we are trying to help.

The list of recommendations that were released by the Department of Defense on May 13 contained more proposed actions than all previous BRAC rounds combined. In its report to the President, the BRAC Commission was very critical of the Department's methods. The Pentagon lumped together unrelated activities into one recommendation, leaving a mess for the Commission to try to untangle. The DoD proposed the consolidation of many jobs and commands that had similar names, even if they did not have the same missions. There was apparently no interaction between the Pentagon and other federal agencies that share assets and installation space, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States Coast Guard, agencies that could be now left in serious financial straits if the burden of maintaining these facilities falls completely on them. And, most striking of all, there was very little cooperation and interaction between the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security. How can we feel

secure in voting on these recommendations without knowing the full impact they will have on our homeland security? These bases are not simply staging areas before our military goes to fight overseas. Our military is vital to securing our homeland. We cannot make it more difficult for them to achieve that mission.

The one aspect of this year's BRAC round that brought this issue home to many of my colleagues was the inclusion of Air National Guard bases. I am proud to say that I represent 2 flying units of the Illinois Air National Guard in my district, and I have seen first-hand the vital roles they play in our nation's defense. We ask our Guard to make extraordinary sacrifices and become masters of a wide range of issues, from fighting against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan to rescuing victims and providing relief to those who are impacted by natural disasters here at home. They do so willing and heroically, leaving behind their families and their jobs as soon as they get the call. These Guard units, under the purview of the governors of the states, are now being closed or ``enclaved'' without the consent of the governors and without proper consultation of the State Adjutants General. This is how we support those who serve both their states and the federal government? These men and women are not going to uproot their entire lives to follow their units to other states. We will lose them, their knowledge, and their expertise. This is a price we cannot afford to pay.

Title 10 of the United States Code prohibits the closure or relocation of Army and Air National Guard units without the consent of the governors of the states in which those units are located. A number of governors have gone on record and refused to give their consent for the movement of their National Guard units. Many states have filed lawsuits in federal court demanding that the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission follow federal law. The Speaker, Senator Durbin and I brought this provision to the attention of the Secretary of Defense in a letter dated March 24. To date, the Pentagon still has not been able to answer that letter. On July 14, the BRAC Commission's own Deputy General Counsel issued an opinion that not only are the proposed Air Guard moves in violation of federal law, they may be unconstitutional. The Commission ignored its own lawyer! This BRAC round is going to leave us with flying units that no longer have planes, and for what reason? These Air Guard moves do not save money. They will weaken the Air Guard in many states and make recruiting and retention of these dedicated Airmen next to impossible. Not only is this wrong, it is illegal, a clear violation of Title 10 of the United States Code. Lawsuits are still pending.

Much has been said about the proposed ``savings'' if this round of BRAC is enacted. A figure of $35 billion in savings over 20 years seems to be popular in the media. However, this $35 billion figure includes assumed personnel cost savings; savings that both the BRAC Commission and the GAO have stated should not be included. Once those personnel savings are removed, the total savings falls to approximately $15.1 billion over the next 20 years. We cannot forget that this round of BRAC will cost $21 billion to enact. That kind of math simply does not make sense.

This round of BRAC has strayed far from Congress' original intent. We aren't reducing excess infrastructure to save money. This BRAC is the beginning of implementing major force structure changes without the consultation of Congress. Sweeping changes like this require more than just one up or down vote.

I have heard a number of my colleagues state that they will support this round of BRAC even though they do not agree with it, simply because this is the process that Congress established. This is not something we can close our eyes and blindly support. We are a nation at war, the timing is wrong, the savings are not there, and Guard units are being moved out of their states in violation of federal law. The process did not work this time, and we need to stand up and say ``Stop''.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just speak for a minute or two. I thought there were going to be some other Members that wanted to speak in favor of the resolution; but until they arrive, let me just talk for a minute or two about some of the costs.

The BRAC Commission estimated that $35 billion would be saved over a 20-year period, but the $35 billion figure includes assumed cost savings due to military personnel actions. Both the BRAC Commission and the GAO believe the military personnel savings should be excluded from the overall savings figure.

Once those personnel savings are removed, the overall savings fall to approximately $15 billion over 20 years. There is a one-time up-front cost of $21 billion to implement the BRAC round, and the DOD claimed that the savings from military personnel are not savings at all. These costs do not disappear; they simply shift from one base to another, and those folks are still in the military, and we still have to pay for them.

For some Air Force recommendations, the military personnel cost savings represents 90 percent of the total savings. And in the case of the Air National Guard end strength, it remained mostly the same. Obviously, no savings come from simply moving positions around the country.

If we keep the same number of personnel, DOD spending levels will not actually be reduced. The BRAC Commission concludes that DOD savings estimates were vastly overstated and overestimated. And there is also a quote from the commission on page 330 of their report: ``In fact, the commission is concerned that there is a likelihood that the 2005 BRAC round could produce only marginal net savings over the 20-year period.''

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I know this seems a strange thing to say on a bill as small as the bill to fund the congressional budget, but I honestly believe, because of the attachment of the proposal for the continuity of Congress, that this bill is by far the worst bill to come to the floor in this session of Congress.

I believe that that continuity of representation provision attached to this bill is an assault on constitutional government. I believe it is an assault on checks and balances. It is an assault on the rule of law. It is an invitation to one-man rule and dictatorship. I think it is profoundly misguided, profoundly misgotten, and I think a profound disservice is done in not having months and months of hearings with constitutional scholars before such a drastic proposal is brought before the House.

I think there is a very good reason that the Senate has not taken it up. It is because it is a turkey of a proposal. It could leave us literally with 75 and 80 percent of the congressional districts in this country unrepresented in a time of crisis, at a time of terrorist attack, and unrepresented in the halls of Congress, and I think that is a bad way to do business.

What I would like to do now is to talk about another problem in this bill. That is the Congressional Visitors Center. I really believe that the Congressional Visitors Center has been mismanaged in such spectacular fashion that it is really sort of a metaphor for the way that the entire Federal budget deficit has been mismanaged, and let me explain what I mean.

This project originally started as a $95 million project to have a modest expansion of the Capitol, to give tourists an opportunity to come in and see a movie about what the Congress was all about before they visited the Capitol. But the security assault on this Capitol and 9/11 has, in my view, been used as an excuse to expand this operation. We have also had other efforts from the Library of Congress and other institutions to further expand this proposition; and so as a result, today, this project is a $500 million-plus project. It is more than a year behind schedule, and I think it is wasting taxpayers' money and wasting an opportunity that we had to provide much-needed usable space for the Congress at the same time.

What is happening out on the East Front is that over 2 acres of underground space is being added to the Capitol. Some of that is being added for purposes of a visitors center and some of the other space is being added for the purpose of expanding space under control of the Senate and the House to do their work.

We all know that this Congress needs more working space. In my view, the number one need of the Congress for working space is the need for additional rooms for conference committees between the Senate and the House because most of our hearings, especially on the Committee on Appropriations. When I came here, they were held behind closed doors. The press was not in, the public was not in. So there was plenty of room for a few people to get behind closed doors and work out deals and that is not the way government is supposed to work today.

Today, when we have a conference committee, the press has a right to be there. We need our staffs there, and the public has the right to be there, too. We have no real room in the Capitol for that kind of facility.

This is an opportunity to create that kind of room. Instead, what has happened? Instead, the only appreciable room of any quality in the new House space is what is called the House hearing room, but in plain language, that room is really a media center. That is going to be where the press focuses whenever there is a hearing in that room because it will have all of the creature comforts for the press. That room will have ample room for one hearing, one presentation, and whoever runs the Congress will be able to decide what subject it is that gets that attention. If you are trying to hold another public hearing on another subject in the Capitol, you are going to be stuck in tiny rooms that are worthless in terms of public access.

When I visited the visitors center, I asked the Architect why, with these vaulted ceilings that you have set aside for this hearing room, why could you not simply reduce the height of those rooms and at least provide two rooms of approximately the same size so that we had enough overflow room for the committees to do our work and to have conference committees? I have yet to get an answer from the Architect's office.

That is my problem. My problem is that with all of this space being created, much of it is not usable for the purpose that we need it used for.

Then we come to the other portion of the add-on, which is the portion devoted to the visitors center. Originally, that visitors center was supposed to have two media theaters so that the public could come in, see a short film about the Congress, and then be on its way.

Here is the problem. We have those two small orientation theaters, but in addition to that, we have this huge congressional auditorium, which is going to seat 450-plus people. I asked the Architect, and this is a vaulted theater, I asked why do we need another theater in the Capitol? What I was told by the Architect is, ``Well, you can bring in large constituency groups.'' I would like to know how many Members of the House have ever brought 500 people into the Capitol. I do not think there are going to be many people would raise their hands.

The second thing the Architect told me is that, ``Well, we need a place for where the House of Representatives can meet when the House Chamber is being remodeled.''

That I found a might strange, because we have just redecorated the Committee on Ways and Means room in the Longworth Building. That room was originally created to serve as an alternative meeting place for the House of Representatives when we had to repair this Chamber. So we have already got a spare room.

In addition, we have another spare room I cannot talk about because it is classified, but it is being built off campus somewhere. So in essence we will have three spare rooms. I do not know how much the off- campus room is costing the taxpayers or how much the Committee on Ways and Means room cost the taxpayers, but this room is going to cost a bundle.

I keep asking ``What is the real purpose for this room?'' You finally go back 10 years and look at the original plans, what do we find out. We find out that this was originally included in the plans at the request of the Library of Congress because they wanted another theater to show movies and give presentations. That might be nice for them to have, but this project is already 400 percent over original cost. I do not think it makes any sense. I think this is the last chance that we are going to have to reconfigure this center so we have some additional working space instead of the Taj Mahal show space we are going to have.

Another thing I do not like, we have been told we are likely to have three congressional seals in the new visitors center. Those seals, I have been told, will cost up to a million bucks. Does any Member really want to take the political heat when taxpayers find out that somebody is talking about spending $1 million on three congressional seals? Do Members remember the Cain that was raised when marble floors were put in four of our elevators in the Capitol? Does anybody have any memory? I would like to think so, but I guess not.

Mr. Chairman, I consider myself to be an institutional man. I usually support this piece of legislation; but out of frustration, I am not going to support it today because I think this Capitol Visitors Center, when it is finally built, is going to draw flies in terms of bad stories about waste of taxpayer money, misuse of space, and we are going to wind up not having enough room for the principal function of government. If this is, indeed, supposed to be a working Capitol, then we ought to be able to do better than this floor plan.

I really believe this package has been brought to us by staff who do not really understand how committees work and do not really understand the principal needs of this institution. This is the last time we are going to have a chance to repair this package and

make it more usable for the 100 years at least that it will be used. I urge Members to vote against this bill so we can start over.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to simply say I congratulate the gentleman from California. I agree with the gentleman from California. I would be perfectly willing to vote for this proposition today if we had a constitutional amendment going at the same time, so that the solution in this bill would be only a temporary solution until we got a real one.

Without the Rohrabacher approach, or something similar, and I happen to prefer the one he introduced in the last Congress, but without something like that, we guarantee that we can have the President governing with literally a handful of people in the Congress. We could have hundreds of districts with no representation whatsoever. That is not continuity. That is chaos. That is martial law. That is one-man rule.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Congressional Visitors Center, we are not saying there should not be one; all we are saying is that the one that is being proposed is screwed up and spectacularly wasteful and needs to be changed.

With respect to the assertion of my friend from Illinois that we do not have to worry about not having a Congress for 45 days because there will not be anything for Members of Congress to do, all I can tell my colleague is, if that is the case, then I wonder why it is that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bill Young) and I negotiated a $20 billion supplemental appropriation just a few days after 9/11; and I wonder why it is we were sitting in the office of the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) until 12:30 at night hammering out differences with people on the Senate side who did not agree with what we had done; and why it is that the President made a commitment of $10 billion to New York; and why we had to spend a lot of time backing him up.

I would also remind the gentleman we had a debate on the House floor when the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure tried to slip into that bill an extra $10 billion appropriation for the airlines.

There was plenty for us to do after 9/11; and thank God, in contrast to the proposition being set out today, thank God that then we had a Congress around to do it.

If you want to vote for a situation in which we can have no Congress whatsoever for 45 days, then by all means vote for this provision. If you do not, if you think we ought to have some kind of balance and check on the Presidency during that period by having somebody here to do the Nation's business, then my colleagues will reconsider and listen to what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) have to say.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, just one point. We did that 3 days after 9/ 11, 3 days.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

If the gentleman will yield, could the gentleman share with us the names of these horses?

My understanding is that their names are Justice, Honor, Patriot, Freedom, and Tribute. Great names, but still not much of a purpose for their use.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that passing this amendment will not eliminate the distribution of the Record. It will simply create a financial shortfall which will have to be dealt with in the future. I personally prefer to use the printed Record than I do the online Record.

I do my work in lots of places besides the office, and I do not

use a computer. I use a pencil. So I would just suggest that I think the amendment is outrageous and misbegotten; but if the gentleman wants to accept it, we can deal with it in conference. We will work it out.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is willing to stop talking, I am willing to stop talking. I will vote for whichever side stops talking first.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As someone considerably more famous once said, The world will little note nor long remember what we either say or do here today on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that while I am opposed to this bill because I think it wastes too much money on the visitors center, I agree that an across-the-board cut is not a responsible way to approach budgeting. If all of this cut came out of the visitors center, I would vote for it in a flash.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be debatable for 4 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I will only take 1 minute.

This is a straight motion to recommit so that we can fix the out-of- control visitors center, which is as out of control as the Federal deficit. It is also the last chance we will be able to have to remove the assault on constitutional government by removing the nongermane continuity provision, and it also is the last chance to establish a Truman-like committee to investigate waste and fraud in Iraq.

I urge an aye vote. And I will ask for a roll call vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) spoke eloquently about the need for the Rohrabacher/ Baird amendment; and I would like to address it briefly, if I may.

Madison is quoted on this topic, but let me quote Madison from Federalist 47. He said: ``The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.''

Now, I would like, if I may, to ask my colleagues, before we pass this appropriations bill with legislative language in it alleging to maintain continuity, to maybe address a couple of questions, before my colleagues vote on this, and I will yield time. Not for a filibuster, but just to address some questions.

How will we, given Madison's concern, maintain checks and balances during the 49-day period until we have the special elections? I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to anyone who plans to vote for this bill to address that question.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the fact is this Congress took a number of very important actions, as the distinguished gentleman from Illinois knows, during that same time period. Let me ask this: If what the gentleman is saying is that we are not going to do anything, the executive branch has all the control, then how do we not just define Madison's very definition of tyranny? And if that is the case, are we not with this bill promoting tyranny in this country?

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would beg to differ, and the gentleman, I think, is inaccurate historically.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have it on the top of my head, my friend; but I can say that it is much faster than 7 weeks. I would assert, furthermore, that if the gentleman's assertion is that we do not need the United States Congress post a catastrophic attack, I think you are making a mistake and doing a disservice. If that is what you are voting for, then let us be honest with the American public, as apparently the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has been.

We are voting with this bill to allow martial law, and I think that is a grave mistake.

Let me continue, if I may, and ask a few other questions. How many millions of Americans are you willing to leave without representation as article I, section 8 responsibility such as declarations of war, appropriations of funds, et cetera, are made? How many millions of Americans is the gentleman willing to leave without representation?

Okay. So we do not have that answer.

Let me ask this question: under the bill, the section that is proposed, I have yet to figure out what happens to this body.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that with these questions remaining, we should not be passing this legislation in the manner in which we are. We need a full and open and extensive debate on this.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to revisit this issue, and I want to clarify a couple of things. The opponents of a real continuity solution have asserted that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and I would take away the right to election. Nothing could be further from the truth. We believe we need real elections, not hasty elections, not elections in which the candidates are chosen by the party, but elections in which there is time for deliberation, elections in which there is time for overseas people to vote, elections in which we can have real candidates, real debate, real primaries, et cetera.

So we all agree that we should have real elections; that is the ideal. But the question is, should we have a Congress in the interim?

I have heard the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary point out that in the days post-9/11 it was an elected Congress, not an appointed Congress, that made decisions. He is absolutely right, because we had a Congress. My colleague from Illinois will recall that, in fact, the PATRIOT Act was passed during that 7-week interregnum; and interregnum may be the proper word because if we do not have a Congress, we would have effectively a monarchy or an appointed administration.

Let me raise a couple of other points. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, as we all know, details a host of functions of this Congress. I have yet to hear how those functions get carried out during this 7-week period, save for the apparent explanations that the Congress does not have anything to do, and the Constitution Subcommittee chair's explanation that we will have marshal law.

I for one did not run for this seat to bequeath marshal law as our legacy if we are eliminated by terrorists. People on the other side of this argument have said, oh, if we have anything but a direct election, the terrorists have won. I personally consider marshal law a substantial victory for the terrorists, a substantial victory.

Far preferable would be some mechanism in which the terrorists and the rest of the world could see the Congress of the United States reconvening with legitimacy and with distinguished statesmen from both sides of the aisle to conduct the people's business until such time as we had really elections.

It has been argued that we need to do this statutory fix because constitutional amendments take time. Yes, they do. But the Constitution did not say if it is going to take you too long to amend the Constitution, do it by House rule.

At the start of this Congress, the first order of business was to pass the House rules. The second order of business was to pass a rule that was unconstitutional. Sorry. The first order of business was to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. The second order was to pass a rule that was patently unconstitutional. By that I mean we passed a rule that essentially says a quorum can be one or two people. The first order of business of the first Congress of the United States was to adjourn for lack of a quorum.

Now, the distinguished gentlemen from California (Mr. Dreier) likes to quote Madison. So do I. Madison was present in that first Congress. He was a Member.

He supported movements to adjourn because they lacked a quorum. And yet this body says, well, gee, you know, it takes too long to amend the Constitution, so let us do things unconstitutionally at a time of national crisis.

This is not the way to go about it. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) was right. The gentleman earlier spent some time talking about horse manure. I think we need to spend more time on constitutional issues than we spend on horse manure, but we have not. In this Congress we have spent so much time debating so many things of much less importance, and it is fair enough to say that my amendment did not pass. I respect that. That is what this process is about.

But, here is what you have not said, that myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) put forward a rules proposal that would have allowed multiple solutions to this to be debated. Multiple amendments. We could have had a serious and open and extensive debate. I have to tell you, when I talk to my colleagues and I ask them these questions, how many constituents are you willing to leave, how many millions of Americans with no representation at all, no representation, during a time of national crisis; how willing are you to have a Cabinet member serve as President, with no checks and balances, Secretary of Agriculture, Health and Human Services. Most Americans do not even know these folks.

If you are so concerned about elected representation, are you not equally concerned about an unelected President with no checks and balances? I certainly am.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, it is a perverse reasoning that suggests that having no representation here at all somehow provides you better representation than to have someone appointed by the person you last elected.

You are trying to say that we do not have a Democratic Republic if the elected representatives from other States can have a vote equal to someone from your State. I believe the best way to have a Republic is to have representation from all of the constituents.

If that means temporary appointments, so be it. Finally, we have heard so many times one distinguished scholar quoted, and he is indeed a distinguished scholar. But let me point out to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) as he well knows, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which included Newt Gingrich, Tom Foley, Alan Simpson, Lloyd Cutler, a host of other scholars, has rejected essentially the proposal by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and has concluded with great reluctance that we do indeed need a mechanism to amend the Constitution so that whatever mechanism is arrived at is constitutionally valid.

I would weigh the weight of their testimony and their objectivity and their bipartisanship against one single individual that you continually quote.

Major Votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, September 11-October

26, 2001

September 13, 2001. H.R. 2884, Victims of Terrorism Relief

Act of 2001. The bill exempted individuals killed in the 9/11

terrorist attacks, or who die as a result of injuries

suffered in those attacks, from paying federal income tax in

the year of their death.

September 13, 2001. H.R. 2882, Expedite Public Safety

Office Benefits. This bill directed the Justice Department to

expedite the benefit payment process for the public safety

officers (and their families) that were killed or suffered

catastrophic injuries sustained in the line of duty in

connection with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

September 14, 2001. H.R. 2888, 2001 Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to

Terrorist Attacks on the United States. The bill appropriated

$40 billion in emergency funds to pay for the costs of

recovery from the 9/11 terrorist attacks and to counter,

investigate and prosecute terrorist activities.

September 14, 2001. H.J. RES. 64, Authorization of Force.

The resolution authorized the president to use ``all

necessary and appropriate force against those nations,

organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,

committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on

Sept. 11, 2001.''

September 21, 2001. H.R. 2904, Military Construction

Appropriations for FY 2002. The bill appropriates $10.5

billion for military construction programs in FY 2002.

September 21, 2001. H.R. 2926, Air Transportation Safety

and System Stabilization Act. This bill provided $15 billion

in assistance to the U.S. airline industry to help stabilize

the financial condition of the industry in the wake of the

terrorist attacks on Sept. 11--$5 billion in immediate cash

assistance and $10 billion in loan guarantees.

September 24, 2001. H.J. RES. 65, Continuing Appropriations

for FY 2002.

September 25, 2001. H.R. 2586, Department of Defense

Authorization for Fiscal Year 2002.

September 25, 2001. H.R. 2944, District of Columbia

Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002.

October 5, 2001. H.R. 2646, Farm Security Act.

October 11, 2001. H.R. 3061, Labor-HHS-Education

Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002.

October 12, 2001. H.R. 2975, PATRIOT Act.

October 17, 2001. H.R. 3004, Financial Anti-Terrorism Act.

The bill gives the Treasury Department new powers to combat

money laundering by imposing additional record-keeping

requirements and by restricting or banning dealings with

suspect foreign financial entities.

October 17, 2001. H.R. 2904, Military Construction

Appropriations for FY 2002.

October 17, 2001. H.R. 2217, Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations for FY 2002.

October 23, 2001. H.R. 3160, Bioterrorism Enforcement Act

of 2001. The bill established criminal penalties for the

unsafe or illegal possession or transfer of certain

biological agents and toxins--including anthrax--and it

required the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) to

develop new regulations governing the possession and use of

those substances.

October 24, 2001. H.R. 3090, Tax Incentives for Economic

Recovery. The measure provided business and individual tax

cuts totaling $99.5 billion in 2002 and $159.4 billion over

10 years.

October 24, 2001. H.R. 3162, USA PATRIOT Act Conference

Report.

October 25, 2001. H.J. RES. 70, Continuing Appropriations

for FY 2002.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in support of this motion. I have always supported the BRAC. I have been here through three of these, and I always thought they were well reasoned before, win, lose or draw; and by the standards of win, lose or draw, I probably came out okay in a lot of ways in this, because four out of five facilities in my area did well. The Army did well in this BRAC.

But I always thought the BRAC was based upon numbers and savings and mission, and suddenly I find out that is not true. I am going to read something here in a minute about that. That is what troubles me in this one, because the Air Force set out on a plan to arrive at a number, and they destroyed, in my opinion, much of what one of their components does best, and that is the Air National Guard.

Let me give you an example. At Mansfield, Ohio, they realigned the base. ``Realignment'' means you do not technically get BRAC'ed, but you get no airplanes, so you have to find something else to do. Let me tell you, the soldiers that were in the Dome shortly after Katrina were Ohio Army Guardsmen. They were flown there in 130s out of Mansfield. The soldiers that were in Mississippi from Ohio were flown down by 130s from Mansfield. The soldiers that were in Texas from Ohio were flown in by 130s from Mansfield.

When BRAC gets done, there are not any airplanes at Mansfield. So how many days are we going to wait to come in and pick those people up and bring them down? Because we have still got a large Army Guard that can perform, and they have shown they can perform; but 2 years from now, that is not going to happen. That does not look smart to me.

If you look at the chart that shows the support in the hurricane by the Air National Guard, it is far superior to what the Air Reserve did or especially the active duty in response to these hurricanes. That is not going to be there 2 years from now.

Now, closer to home, my Springfield Air National Guard Base. It is a training base. I did not ask to do this mission. The Air Guard and the Air Force came to me and said, We screwed up. We have closed much of our flight training. We need another place to do this. Will your State take this on? My State said it will.

They came to me, I was chairman of the MILCON, if you wonder how they came to me. They said, Will you take this on at your Springfield F-16 base? We saluted and said, Yes, sir, we will do it.

We put in over $85 million to make this a first-class flight school. We have not even opened the $8.5 million tower yet. We just finished the fire station. We put in a $10 million pad. And what do we find out? We are being realigned. ``Realigned'' means you lose your airplanes; you lose your mission. What are we going to do? Now I find out there is another mission available for flight school, but they want to take it and possibly put it in another place, someplace else, and spend the money again and take these airplanes.

Let me tell you what the Commission's findings were regarding Springfield Air National Guard Base. I am upset because they always did this by the numbers in the past. This was not done by the numbers, and that is why I am so infuriated about what happened, because I do not mind a fair fight.

We thought we had this won, until the Air Force went to the commissioners at the last moment and said, Hey, you have got to change this, because they were going in the right direction the day before. The next day when they got up, I knew we were dead.

Let me read the commission findings: ``The commission found that the Department of Defense recommendation to realign Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard Station should be supported even though the military value criteria were flawed and the realignment will be a cost instead of a savings to the Department.''

I mean, give me a break. It is flawed and there is no savings; but, by the way, the mission is going away, and we are not going to train these pilots. This place is training pilots better than they were expected to do and more than they were expected to do, and yet it is being realigned. The airplanes are gone. If we are going to do this this way, this is wrong and we have to stand up and say it is wrong.

I think this happened in more instances than just mine, and that is why I am so upset about the way this was done. It was not done by the numbers; it was done to drive to a number that the Air Force had to get to to save some airplanes like the F-22 and some other things.

So I am just hoping the people will vote in support of the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this resolution of disapproval on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's (BRAC) recommendations that are now before Congress. This is not a decision that I have come to lightly. During this latest BRAC round, there were several recommendations made that will benefit the State of Ohio and the 7th Congressional District that I represent. However, I cannot in good conscience accept a process that was fundamentally flawed and very unfair in the decisions made with regard to our country's National Guard and Reserve.

I represent four military bases, including the Springfield Air National Guard Base (ANG),

the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), Wright Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), and Rickenbacker International Airport. Each of these military installations has an exceptional workforce dedicated to the military missions assigned to them, whether it is logistical support for deployed troops, research and development, or pilot training.

Mr. Chairman, this is the third BRAC round that I have been through, so I understand the importance of community leaders and base officials doing the homework necessary to define the installation's military value, and the potential economic impact this process will have on communities where bases are located. During this latest round, I would argue that Ohio had some of the most hardworking and competent individuals working on behalf of our State's installations.

We testified at hearings in Buffalo and Washington, DC, and briefed BRAC Commissioners and staff during site visits to DSCC in Columbus and to Wright-Patterson. We also worked together in reviewing the numbers used by the Pentagon in making their BRAC recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, I think that I can speak for other delegations when stating that our efforts in getting information from the Air Force during this BRAC round did not start well. When we requested material on how they came to their recommendations, we didn't receive it for weeks. And when we did receive the data, it was inaccurate.

As I've already stated, I was very disappointed by the DOD and BRAC Commission's final recommendations with regard to the Air National Guard. This was especially true regarding their recommendations to redistribute the 178th Fighter Wing F-16 aircraft from the Springfield Air National Guard Base.

I have said all along that if the BRAC process had been fair and done ``by the numbers'', that I would accept the outcome, even if I didn't like it. But unfortunately, this was not the case.

First of all, the BRAC analysis material stated there is only one F- 16 Formal Training Unit in the Air National Guard. This is wrong! There are two Air National Guard F-16 Formal Training Units, and one of them is at the Springfield ANG Base.

Second, I was asked several years ago if I would support Springfield taking on this training mission that would require specialized infrastructure to support it. I was the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Military Construction at the time, and I agreed to support the Air Force in this effort. More than $75 million in federal funding has been invested in the Springfield base to support its F-16 training mission. Over the years, we have put in a new ramp to accommodate the plane, a flight simulator, a dining hall, an operations building, and a new control tower that is still under construction. Some of these assets are only now becoming operational.

Third, everyone agrees there are no cost savings achieved by realigning the Springfield ANG Base. In fact, the commission actually concluded in its report that DOD's ``recommendation to realign the Springfield base should be supported even though the military value criteria were flawed and the realignment will be a cost instead of savings to the Pentagon.''

Fourth, the Air Force lacks sufficient training capacity for F-16 pilots. If we further reduce this capacity through this proposed realignment, it even further diminishes this capability, especially since this unit is the highest F-16 pilot production unit in the Guard. The BRAC analysis on Springfield shows that operational personnel will begin to leave the base in 2007, while there are student pilots scheduled for training in 2008.

Mr. Chairman, there is also the issue of homeland security. Like some of my colleagues, I think it is fair for us to consider what these BRAC recommendations will mean for the future of the National Guard in responding to emergency situations. As we saw in the days following the recent hurricanes in the gulf coast region and on 9/11, the Air National Guard was a critical resource in transporting troops, supplies and protection. For example, the Mansfield, Ohio-based 179th Airlift Wing flew over 50 missions in support of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Yet, homeland security did not appear to be a major part of this BRAC process.

Overall, I was very disappointed in the process by which the Air National Guard decisions were made, particularly the flaws in the Air Force analysis. These flaws run throughout the entire BRAC process, from the consolidation of aircraft models, and the so-called right sizing of operations, to the poor or nonexistent analysis of the cost to replace the people from the locations that are being set aside. This doesn't even consider the recruiting and retention issues that we already face. And, it doesn't speak to the cost of personnel training to recreate this capability, and the loss of experience that will occur by the Air Force plans.

Finally, I was dismayed that there was absolutely no discussion by the BRAC commissioners or staff regarding the National Guard recommendations during the final considerations on August 26th. Until then, there was much talk about the lack of consultation and the quality of the recommendations by the Air Force throughout this BRAC round. There was even the suggestion that the entire set should have been thrown out by the BRAC commission.

On the day the BRAC Commission upheld their recommendation to realign the Springfield Air National Guard Base, I wrote a letter to each BRAC Commissioner to express my disappointment with the way they handled decisions regarding the National Guard. I pointed out that there was no discussion when, by the numbers, we had demonstrated the flaws in the Pentagon's proposal. I also asked for an explanation on how the commissioners arrived at their decision, and I received no answer.

Finally, in early September, I wrote to the President requesting the same information, and for his consideration to send the recommendations impacting the Air National Guard back to the BRAC Commission with instructions to use programmatic changes to reshape our state militia forces. Unfortunately, for the men and women in the Guard and Reserve, I am still waiting for a reply.

As I stated before, opposing the BRAC recommendations was not an easy decision. Overall, Ohio faired well during the commission's final proceedings. Wright-Patterson will keep over 2,000 information and technology jobs that were to be transferred to Hanscom, Massachusetts, and it will also keep a first-class post-graduate program known as the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). In Columbus, the Defense Supply Center will maintain its 6,000 jobs, and is scheduled to receive many high-paying jobs.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think that in the years to come when the recommendations regarding the Guard and Reserve are set in motion, people will realize that this latest BRAC round was flawed, and consequently the wrong thing to do. It is for these reasons that I will stand here today and support this resolution to overturn the 2005 BRAC recommendations.