May 20, 2004

House Defies Bush Order on Base Closings

Source: Associated Press
Publication date: 2004-05-20

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans on Thursday joined Democrats in defying the White House over future military base closings, injecting an element of discord into popular legislation to bolster defense programs for the coming year.

In a 259-162 vote, the House rejected an amendment to the $422 billion bill that would have removed language delaying for two years the next round of base closings scheduled for next year.

The White House, in a statement, said the secretary of defense would recommend that President Bush veto any bill that "weakens, delays or repeals the BRAC authority." BRAC, or base realignment and closure authority, sets up a process for determining superfluous military installations to be closed.

The House vote also put it at odds with the Senate, which on Tuesday voted 49-47 to oppose any delay in base closings.

Military officials have said there is no target number of bases to be closed, although Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that about 20 to 25 percent of 425 major military installations nationwide may be excess capacity.

Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., who sponsored the amendment, said the money saved from closing bases could be much better used for modernizing weapon systems and improving the quality of life in the military.

But backers of the delay, many with military facilities in their districts, stressed that in the short run the costs of closing a base are often greater than the savings. Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Col., said the proposed delay "was in direct response to widespread concern that the Defense Department is experiencing too many stresses and changes to make effective base closing decisions by May of 2005."

Beyond the base closing dispute, lawmakers rallied behind the troops, backing a pay raise for military personnel and stronger armor for their Humvees in debating a record-high defense spending bill.

The House was expected to overwhelmingly approve its version of the bill authorizing $422 billion in defense programs for next year. The Senate was likely to follow suit within a few days.

Reflecting the increased demands on the military from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bill was $20.9 billion over the amount approved for this fiscal year and up some $125 billion over the past three years.

Both bills emphasize support for the troops, with a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise, increases in monthly family separation and hazard duty pay and increased access for reservists to military health care programs.

Both the House and the Senate would provide around $1 billion to protect forces with better armored Humvees and ballistic protection for medium and heavy tactical vehicles.

The House bill requires that the Army add 30,000 forces and the Marines 9,000 over the next three years. "We realize we are going to need more people," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

The bills also tack on $25 billion, as requested by the administration, for a downpayment on money needed to run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year beginning in October. There was wide agreement that, with $4 billion to $5 billion being spent every month in Iraq alone, more would be needed later.

There was disagreement over some issues.

The House, as in past years, on Wednesday narrowly defeated a proposed amendment by Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., that would have restored the rights of servicewomen and dependents to obtain privately paid abortions at military facilities overseas.

Opponents argued that taxpayer-financed military hospitals shouldn't be used for abortions, even when the woman pays for the procedure. The amendment was defeated 221-202.

Abortions at military hospitals were banned late in the Reagan administration, a decision reversed for several years in the Clinton administration. Since 1996, Congress has allowed military facilities to be used for abortions only in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger.

The Senate, in a 50-49 vote Wednesday, rejected a proposal to tighten rules preventing investments in countries linked to terrorism.

Back to BRAC

Back to the top