A Historic Compromise

A HISTORIC COMPROMISE -- (Senate - May 26, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am sorry that our colleague from Arkansas has left the floor because I was sitting there listening to his comments and his recognition and acknowledgements of the 14 Senators who worked on the compromise this past week and all the efforts they had made.

I commend him and all the others of that group and all those who encouraged us as a body, as Senators--not as Republicans, not as Democrats but as Senators--to move forward so that we could get through what I certainly believe was a great impasse in this body, to work through the issues, to get us to the point where we cannot only move through the President's judicial nominees, but that we can do the rest of the work with which the Senate is tasked.

The good Senator from Connecticut has just mentioned the Energy bill and the Transportation bill--these issues the country is waiting for, the country is asking for, and the work that is incumbent upon us as a body to get to.

So I am pleased that we are at the point where we are, not spending hours on the floor today to discuss nuclear options or constitutional options, but that we are talking about the work before us as we look forward to these upcoming months. I do see a sense of compromise that will be necessary if we have any plans at all to accomplish that which I think this country expects us to do.

I am pleased that we have gotten through to this point. I do recognize the bump in the road we just had this afternoon, but I believe that with the same amount of determination that got us to a resolve on the judicial nominees, we will be able to do the work of the country.

BRAC

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this evening for just a few minutes to talk about the upcoming BRAC and the impact we are seeing in my State of Alaska, up in the interior, in the communities of Fairbanks and North Pole. They call this the golden heart of the State of Alaska.

The people of Alaska are strong and very consistent supporters of a strong national defense. They are even stronger supporters of the men and women who serve in our military and their families. In a State where support for our servicemen and servicewomen and their missions is both given and constant, the golden heart of Alaska probably beats strongest in the areas of Fairbanks and North Pole.

So on the morning of May 13--Friday the 13th, oddly enough--the people of the interior of Alaska awoke to the news that the Department of Defense had proposed to realign Eielson Air Force Base. Under the terms of this realignment, all of the Air Force active-duty operations would be transferred elsewhere. The realignment would cause the relocation of about 2,800 Air Force personnel and 3,300 dependents. It would cause the loss of 4,700 jobs, both military and civilian jobs, within the Fairbanks area. It would mean the full transfer of A-10 and F-16 aircraft to bases in the lower 48. It would wreak havoc on the local economy and force major changes upon the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District.

To the people of interior Alaska, they do not look at this as a realignment. It sounds to them, to us, exactly like a closing.

Two weeks after the fact, the people of interior Alaska are still scratching their heads and wondering why, what is going on here, what has happened up here? General Billy Mitchell prophesied back in 1935. He said:

In the future, he who holds Alaska holds the world.

General Mitchell characterized Alaska as the most important strategic place in the world, and this is as true today as it was in 1935.

Alaska is closer to the European and Pacific theaters by air than perhaps any other place in North America. Our armed services can deploy forces from Alaska to Asia much more quickly than units on the west coast of the United States. And if future developments limit overseas basing, Alaska will be even more critical in America's ability to respond to a crisis within a specific area of responsibility.

Yet 2 weeks after we learn of this news, the Air Force cannot--or will not--tell the people of Fairbanks why. Immediately after the BRAC list was released, my staff contacted appropriate staff members in the Office of Legislative Liaison for the Secretary of the Air Force. We asked for a copy of the entire administrative record which supports their recommendation to realign Eielson.

For the better part of 2 weeks, there was no response to that request. Then suddenly this week, we get an e-mail from an Air Force legislative liaison saying the material could not yet be provided because it is undergoing what they call security review. The Air Force legislative liaison could not hazard a guess on when the material would be released.

They are still in no position to explain to me or to the people of interior Alaska why a base that we thought was of such strategic importance to our Nation's defense would become little more than a refueling station for fighter aircraft based somewhere else.

The people of interior Alaska deserve to know why, and I certainly deserve to know why. The answers to these questions are more than just academic interest. On June 15, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission will conduct a hearing on the recommendations pertaining to Eielson Air Force Base. The community has enlisted the president of the University of Alaska, retired Army MG Mark Hamilton to take the lead in presenting its case. The community is working very hard at this moment to put together a very thoughtful and well-researched presentation.

At this point, we are less than 30 days, a couple of weeks from the date upon which that presentation, that do-or-die presentation, must be delivered to the BRAC Commission. And yet still the Air Force cannot release the detailed analysis which supported their recommendations.

This is unfair to the community that has offered nothing but unconditional love and support for the military. It goes beyond conscionable.

So I have joined with Senator Snowe from Maine, as well as other colleagues, to tell the Defense Department that their lack of candor with the community that will suffer under the BRAC process has worn thin. I am proud to join with Senator Snowe and other colleagues to sponsor legislation that requires the Department of Defense to turn over the records supporting its BRAC recommendations and particularly the information supporting its conclusions as to the military value of the bases on the list.

We expect through this legislation that this information will be provided to the Congress within 7 days of the passage of the legislation. If the Defense Department cannot do this, then the legislation requires that the BRAC process should stop.

Also this evening, I signed onto a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, cosigned by a number of my colleagues who are expressing the same concern, seeking full justification for base closures in their areas. I would like to read one paragraph of this letter:

The failure of the Department of Defense to provide all of the justification data used to recommend closing or realigning installations in a timely fashion is anything but ``fair, open or equitable.'' The Department of Defense has had over two years to review and collect this data and people associated with the installations selected foreclosure should have at a minimum two weeks to review prior to any BRAC hearings or site visits. Sufficient time to review this data is necessary to ensure they can make an appeal based on the criteria established by the Department of Defense.

Again, yet one more effort from Senators, from those who are concerned about the effect that BRAC closures will have on our respective communities, a request for information, a request for the data that is supposed to be provided to us. We have to sign on to letters, we have to sign on to introduce legislation saying you must do this within this time period or the close BRAC process stops. We should not have to be going to these measures to get the information.

The BRAC commission process was never intended to be a rubberstamp of the Department of Defense recommendations. The Congress intended that it be an open process, a thoughtful process, but most importantly an intellectually rigorous process.

While the economies of many of our communities are at stake, this is not the most important reason that we have a BRAC process. This process is intended to assure the Congress and the people that our national security objectives are not compromised in the quest to save money. We know the BRAC process is well underway. It is high time that the Defense Department shed some sunlight on the reasons for their recommendations. The good people of interior Alaska should not be left in the position of defending the future of Eielson Air Force Base on June 15 with both hands tied behind their back, and they should not have to be burning the midnight oil in the hours leading up to that hearing studying material that should have been provided weeks earlier. They do not deserve it, we do not deserve it, and our Nation's security certainly deserves better than this.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

http://thomas.loc.gov/